Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Grades, Assignments
Message-ID: <3059@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Jan-84 02:22:25 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3059
Posted: Sat Jan  7 02:22:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jan-84 03:41:14 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 49

<>
Mary-Anne Wolf made two recommendations to professors that I wholeheartedly
agree with:
	- have a TA complete an assignment before it is given to the
	  students (or do it yourself) and note how long it takes to do.
	- take care not to give assignments that take too long to complete.

On the first, I am sure this saves time in the long run.  It sorts
out all the minor problems of wording and details of working with any
programming systems involved.  These problems can consume large amounts
of class time.  It also allows you to decide exactly what you'd like to
see the students hand in at the end of it all and permits creation of a
marking scheme (not that this scheme should be revealed in its entirety
to the class-- ie. don't release "used caching to improve access time:5 marks")
Most importantly, it allows you to determine what the assignment is teaching
and whether the amount-to-be-learned/time-to-be-spent ratio is high enough.

Overloading a student makes it all the less likely that they will consider
broader issues dealing with the course material.  Thinking about such things
is important to linking their new knowledge to their general knowledge, so
it will be used later on, and not kept in their, say, "operating systems" box.
If they have to work overly hard, they will only consider the essentials needed
to get marks.  On the other hand, further prompting is needed to encourage
such linking-- time for reflection is not necessarily so used.
  Most importantly, though, simple fairness and civility demand that one
limit the amount of work assigned to reasonable levels (or, if not possible,
to levels announced at the beginning of the course).  Students DO have
multiple courses and lives outside of school; they should only give up
large amounts of time voluntarily (i.e. in non-core courses).

As for grades being a means, not an end, hear, hear!  Learning of facts, how
to uncover more, and how to use them in straightforward and novel situations,
should be the goal.  Grades can be motivators, but are certainly not perfect
in that role (e.g. fostering competition over co-operation is one side-effect).
Learning has to be first.  (Anecdotal point: I have found students to respond
quite well to this attitude).

It is interesting to speculate on an environment in which learning is
the most important aspect to all concerned, including all administrators and
people outside the universities.  There would be no degrees or marks.  People
would pay tuition to improve their ability to perform their job, or to
increase their general level of awareness.  If their abilities did improve
as a result, they would be rewarded on the job, or possibly by richer inter-
personal relationships or a fuller life, and not by a piece of paper.  There
are problems, of course, particularly in the professions (medicine, etc.) where
accreditation is in the public interest, though this might be handled by a
testing service distinct from the university.

p. rowley, U. Toronto