 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:43:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> It sounds like you are enjoying your job.
That's certainly true.
> And doesn't everyone outside of academia know that the exam system
> sucks? Now, the education system "teaches" to pass exams not to educate.
Not always, but usually in academia it's been my experience that that's
true. In uni, most exams are not vetted as well as a certification exam,
and the professors/teachers aren't trained in psychometric analysis, item
analysis, or how even really how to write good questions that measure
learning effectively.
> A vicious circle that dilutes any benefit that being able to read
> without moving your lips, gives.
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/03/2013 10:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:43:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> And doesn't everyone outside of academia know that the exam system
>> sucks? Now, the education system "teaches" to pass exams not to educate.
>
> Not always, but usually in academia it's been my experience that that's
> true. In uni, most exams are not vetted as well as a certification exam,
> and the professors/teachers aren't trained in psychometric analysis, item
> analysis, or how even really how to write good questions that measure
> learning effectively.
>
Arrrg!<Runs away wrapping his arms about his head.> :-P
>> A vicious circle that dilutes any benefit that being able to read
>> without moving your lips, gives.
>
> LOL
>
> Jim
>
??? I am being serious. Well half serious, anyway. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I had a similar debate with a physics prof once in college - the course
> was for engineering students, but I was a CS student, so I'd have
> reference materials available to ensure that I was coding the forumulas
> properly in my simulation - and if I didn't remember the exact formula
> for calculating lift based on a particular airfoil shape, I wouldn't
> guess, I'd look it up.
Guess it varies from place to place, in my engineering exams we had
official data books that contained pretty much all the standard
formulas. The exams were more about how to solve particular problems,
which usually involved using several equations (and often a good bit of
calculus) rather than seeing who had spent the most time memorising the
formula.
But of course the shorter ones you used most often you remembered
anyway, but the point was you didn't have to waste hours trying to
remember them exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/03/2013 08:29 AM, scott wrote:
> But of course the shorter ones you used most often you remembered
> anyway, but the point was you didn't have to waste hours trying to
> remember them exactly.
Formulas can sometimes be derived from first principles if necessary.
(Provided you remember enough background around them.) Unix commands and
their switches follow no reason or rhyme. Much like the spelling of the
English language, the only solution is to memorise large chunks of data
and be able to recall it later. It's not so easy to do that for parts of
the syllabus that you don't actually need to use regularly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:28:07 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Well, that's the thing. In the Real World, it's trivial to look up
>> what some specific obscure option does.
>
> Removing a package is, arguably, not an obscure option one would use
> occasionally.
>
> I had a similar debate with a physics prof once in college - the
> course was for engineering students, but I was a CS student, so I'd
> have reference materials available to ensure that I was coding the
> forumulas properly in my simulation - and if I didn't remember the
> exact formula for calculating lift based on a particular airfoil
> shape, I wouldn't guess, I'd look it up.
>
> [...]
You make an unfair comparison. He wanted you to know and have understood
enough about physics to reconstruct the formula on the spot. But I bet
it wouldn't have been a requirement to remember the name of every
variable as it was used in the lecture. In fact, bound variables in a
formula can be named anyway you want. For example, integrating f(s) over
s in [0,1] or f(t) over t in [0,1] is the same.
My comparison:
- Knowing a formula is like knowing how to connect dmesg and grep with a
pipe in order to find out why the graphics card's module didn't load.
- Knowing the right (by convention) name of a variable is like knowing
that -e is for removing a package.
The first thing is essential to learn, while the second you learn
automatically over time.
> Remember that a certification exam is a measure of a minimally
> qualified
> candidate to do a particular job or task. A minimally qualified
> candidate on Linux *should* be able to install/remove packages without
> having to look the command up every time they do it.
Note that the certification exam doesn't require you to be able to
answer every question. So it only checks whether you know the names of a
lot of options and commands while still allowing you to fail at some of
them. This arguably tests how much experience you have with Linux,
because you memorise these names automatically if you use common Linux
commands often.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Formulas can sometimes be derived from first principles if necessary.
> (Provided you remember enough background around them.) Unix commands and
> their switches follow no reason or rhyme. Much like the spelling of the
> English language, the only solution is to memorise large chunks of data
> and be able to recall it later. It's not so easy to do that for parts of
> the syllabus that you don't actually need to use regularly...
The exam would be a more realistic and useful test then if it simply
gave you a real linux prompt and timed how long it took you to get the
correct answers to do what it wants. The pass rate would then be on how
long it took you to get all the answers. Knowing where and how to find
stuff efficiently is far more important than actually knowing it
(because you could never hope to know even a tiny fraction of all the
information you have access to). As stated already the stuff you use
frequently you will remember anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:29:17 +0100, Urs Holzer wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:28:07 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Well, that's the thing. In the Real World, it's trivial to look up
>>> what some specific obscure option does.
>>
>> Removing a package is, arguably, not an obscure option one would use
>> occasionally.
>>
>> I had a similar debate with a physics prof once in college - the course
>> was for engineering students, but I was a CS student, so I'd have
>> reference materials available to ensure that I was coding the forumulas
>> properly in my simulation - and if I didn't remember the exact formula
>> for calculating lift based on a particular airfoil shape, I wouldn't
>> guess, I'd look it up.
>>
>> [...]
>
> You make an unfair comparison. He wanted you to know and have understood
> enough about physics to reconstruct the formula on the spot. But I bet
> it wouldn't have been a requirement to remember the name of every
> variable as it was used in the lecture. In fact, bound variables in a
> formula can be named anyway you want. For example, integrating f(s) over
> s in [0,1] or f(t) over t in [0,1] is the same.
I don't think it's an unfair comparison. It's about understanding part
of a body of knowledge. In the physics case, it's about how to perform a
calculation (one that, due to the nature of a CS degree with that
specialization, would be used once per program at most, because it'd be
coded and forgotten - and a more appropriate test item for a CS student
would be to code a function that calculates the value rather than recall
of the formula).
In the RPM case, it's about knowing how to use the rpm command to remove
an installed package.
> My comparison:
> - Knowing a formula is like knowing how to connect dmesg and grep with a
> pipe in order to find out why the graphics card's module didn't load.
> - Knowing the right (by convention) name of a variable is like knowing
> that -e is for removing a package.
>
> The first thing is essential to learn, while the second you learn
> automatically over time.
I disagree with the second point. You can calculate a formula using
different variables. You cannot remove a package with rpm using any
option other than -e.
>> Remember that a certification exam is a measure of a minimally
>> qualified candidate to do a particular job or task. A minimally
>> qualified candidate on Linux *should* be able to install/remove
>> packages without having to look the command up every time they do it.
>
> Note that the certification exam doesn't require you to be able to
> answer every question. So it only checks whether you know the names of a
> lot of options and commands while still allowing you to fail at some of
> them. This arguably tests how much experience you have with Linux,
> because you memorise these names automatically if you use common Linux
> commands often.
Of course it doesn't require a perfect score - a properly designed exam
doesn't, because it's a tool to measure knowledge, skills, or
understanding.
I spent about 6-7 years working with certification exam creation and
design, and have some background in testing theory (gained through
experience, not explicit schooling). I understand the basics of
psychometric analysis (but if you start asking me about lambda values,
you'll get a blank look from me).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:29:48 +0000, scott wrote:
>> I had a similar debate with a physics prof once in college - the course
>> was for engineering students, but I was a CS student, so I'd have
>> reference materials available to ensure that I was coding the forumulas
>> properly in my simulation - and if I didn't remember the exact formula
>> for calculating lift based on a particular airfoil shape, I wouldn't
>> guess, I'd look it up.
>
> Guess it varies from place to place, in my engineering exams we had
> official data books that contained pretty much all the standard
> formulas. The exams were more about how to solve particular problems,
> which usually involved using several equations (and often a good bit of
> calculus) rather than seeing who had spent the most time memorising the
> formula.
>
> But of course the shorter ones you used most often you remembered
> anyway, but the point was you didn't have to waste hours trying to
> remember them exactly.
What you describe is exactly how I envisioned working with it as I was
developing simulations. But the class was 90% engineering students and <
10% CS students (and a few others).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:59:14 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Unix commands and their switches follow no reason or rhyme
Sometimes it certainly appears that way. In this instance, I think it's
a case of "-r" and "-R" were already used as a secondary option for the
query parameter, and 'e' is the next letter in "remove". -U was already
used for "upgrade".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:54:11 +0000, scott wrote:
> The exam would be a more realistic and useful test then if it simply
> gave you a real linux prompt and timed how long it took you to get the
> correct answers to do what it wants.
Performance-based testing is a better way to test on this sort of thing,
but it requires a lot more infrastructure to deliver exams like that.
I spent time managing a program that was specifically about this kind of
practical testing. It is perceived (rightly so) as being a better
testing methodology, but none of the testing providers currently have the
infrastructure to support it. Forms-based exams are far easier to
administer and deploy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
