Hello Tony,
thanks a lot for your comment which is definitely some more great food
for thought (on top of Martin's earlier comments).
I'll have to spend more time thinking about this issue and, more
importantly, talking to the educational folks here at OLE Nepal before I
can start to wrap my h
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:14 AM, wrote:
> We mostly assess that which can easily be measured rather than that which
> relates to the important education outcomes.
Yes. We mostly assess that which can be easily measured _by humans_.
Imagine how it goes when we narrow that to the paltry bit that
c
Hi
We mostly assess that which can easily be measured rather than that which
relates to the important education outcomes. Lower order skills as defined in
Blooms Taxonomy, simple recall, rather than understanding and creating. So far
its OK, an understandable response to the realities.
We the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Bryan Berry wrote:
> I agree that automatic assessment is no magic cure-all but it does free
> teachers from a lot of drudgery in grading worksheets.
I understand your point, and respect your good intentions. I worry --
quite a bit -- about the outcome however...
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:57 +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> 2009/8/19 NoiseEHC :
> >
> >> - Automatic assessment is snake oil, Bryan is well intentioned but
> >> deeply wrong. See the earlier email at
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg05584.html
I agree that auto
