Re: Testing job applicants

[mww@merant.com (Michael Wojcik)]

[Followups set to alt.folklore.computers.  No, I don't have any good
reason.]

In article <37F0970C.FFE37EDA@inthan.be>, Donald Fisk <donald.fisk@inthan.be> writes:
> Peter wrote:

> > If one had continuous assessment then cheating would be virtually
> > worthless [...]

> That makes cheating easier.   Students can get someone else to do
> their work for them, and collusion is commonplace.

It's not particularly difficult to control for plagiarism and
(unauthorized) collusion in continuous assessment schemes.  Merely
requiring some regular supervised (in-class) work and comparing
it to the larger outside-class projects is often sufficient.  Few
paper-passers bother to try to rewrite their ill-gotten texts in
their own style.  Supervised work can also contribute to assessment,
of course, though that's not necessary to its monitoring function.

Similarly, continuous assessment often works best when students are
required to revise their work through several rounds, in conjunction
with dialog with the instructor.  Since the revision process offers
less freedom than the original assignment, it's harder for a
commercial paper-writer.  They're not directly involved in the
dialog, and they have less opportunity to rely on canned materials.

Since different students learn differently, and have different
degrees of success at different tasks, and will eventually undertake
different careers, employing a range of assessment methods might
be recommended.


--
Michael Wojcik          	        michael.wojcik@merant.com
AAI Development, MERANT                 (block capitals are a company mandate)
Department of English, Miami University

There are many definitions of what art is, but what I am convinced art is not
is self-expression.  If I have an experience, it is not important because it
is mine.  It is important because it's worth writing about for other people,
worth sharing with other people.  That is what gives it validity.  (Auden)