71–80 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to believe that a suitably motivated college student couldn't figure out a way of getting around that kind of scanning - what about papers in books, info on phone screen, even someone holding up posters at the window.
First thing I thought of was taping the "cheats" the the back of laptop screen ;P
'I spy with my little eye and it is 'white'' -> the white of your eyeballs.
Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not true now that everyone carries the entire knowledge of humankind around in their pocket.
So what is the point in artificially creating a test situation where the student is isolated from resources she'll have at her disposal in real life? How about instead, we create (whatever the plural of curriculum is) that teach you how to use these resources efficiently and test you on how well you perform using all the tools that will be at your disposal in your actual job as well?
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
I can envision many scenarios where a person needs to be quick on their feet and does not have time to look things up. Drivers, pilots, doctors, etc. Certification provides a lot of value to society.
The other point of testing is to separate wheat from chaff. To see if someone is disciplined enough to learn the material or see a task through. There are issues of going beyond the ideal amount of testing here, but not totally useless in my opinion.
(1) one of them systematically failed to do face recognition on females with particular haircut styles
(2) Another claimed to be "AI powered" when it was pretty obvious after a couple meetings that they were just handing out the proctoring to real people quickly poring after the fact over a slideshow of the whole thing.
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
> So what is the point in artificially creating a test situation where the student is isolated from resources she'll have at her disposal in real life? I can envision many scenarios where a person needs to be quick on their feet and does not have time to look things up. Drivers, pilots, doctors, etc. Certification provides a lot of value to society. The other point of testing is to separate wheat from chaff. To see i…
But I'd argue that realistic test conditions correct for this automatically.
If your test is "write a program that does X within two hours" the programmer lacking core knowledge will fail.
If your test is "recite 20 programming paradigms from memory" you will have to check for "cheating"
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
Perhaps tests are to make sure that you are a going to be colleague worth consulting then? Yes, pure memorization and recall of facts is less valuable now than before, but knowing how to apply the facts available to you is still a skill worth having, and similarly worth testing. Those skills can also be assessed using written tests, and the potential for cheating is just as on memory tests.
what is the point in artificially creating a test situation where the student is isolated from resources she'll have at her disposal in real life
Let's take language learning as an example: do you consider a foreigner with a dictionary to be just as expressive as a native speaker? Perhaps there is value in testing the immediate knowledge of the student rather than their lookup skills?
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
in the past where you could consult colleagues Perhaps tests are to make sure that you are a going to be colleague worth consulting then? Yes, pure memorization and recall of facts is less valuable now than before, but knowing how to apply the facts available to you is still a skill worth having, and similarly worth testing. Those skills can also be assessed using written tests, and the potential for cheating is just…
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
The point of a test is to check if you are capable on your own, and not piggybacking on someone elses intellect or hard work.
It is true, that in the real world, the resources available to use are infinitely larger than a classroom or a teaching setting. But your idea springs from lack of understanding about the true purpose of education, i.e, to groom children to think.
Alas, modern education has become a cesspool of rote learning, atleast in my country, India.
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…
> So what is the point in artificially creating a test situation where the student is isolated from resources she'll have at her disposal in real life? I can envision many scenarios where a person needs to be quick on their feet and does not have time to look things up. Drivers, pilots, doctors, etc. Certification provides a lot of value to society. The other point of testing is to separate wheat from chaff. To see i…
> separate wheat from chaff
Wheat can demonstrate/use the knowledge, chaff can't. Why does it matter whether the knowledge is internal or external, assuming results are the same?
This has been eluded to by a few other comments already, but I think it's worth stressing: Maybe the problem is that our definition of "cheating" doesn't make sense anymore. Our methods of teaching come from a worldview in which the information stored in your head is your only resource. That wasn't true in the past where you could consult colleagues, look things up in books or call experts - and it's certainly not tr…