Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Student and Course Integrity
Message-ID: <6778@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 14 Jan 89 04:44:21 GMT
References: <5313@pdn.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 29

in article <5313@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) says:
> In article <407@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes:
>>The work either consisted of showing the math, or giving a reference
>>or examples.  The nice thing about the test being multiple choice, is
>>that you could easily spot simple errors (such as having an answer the
>>same as one of the choices, but having the wrong sign).
>      Any MC tests that I ever took did not provide room for showing the
> work.  The problem with this is that it is an all or nothing
> proposition.

I took a couple of Physics courses where the instructor gave
multiple-choice tests of the first type (with room to show work). In
addition, when there was a number of equations, he'd either write them
on the board or allow you to bring a single 3x5" notecard. Easy, you
say? I made that mistake, once -- "oh, I don't need to study, I'll
just bring a notecard with all the formulas." I'll give you a hint --
it didn't work. 

Those were my favorite courses among those I've taken. When I work
problems involving mathematics, once I've figured out how to do it, I
tend to dive right into the calculations and scribble so fast and hard
that I leave a trail of broken pencil lead ;-).  Unfortunately, that
doesn't do much for my computational accuracy...  the ability to spot
simple errors is a godsend, & frees the teacher from the agony of
trying to figure out what partial credit to give.

--
Eric Lee Green    ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
          Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509