I was always a space cadet in class, falling behind, but accelled in testing, add on top that I sucked at showing my work, and my teacher was adamant that I must be cheating somehow.
I didn’t list all the steps in the way they wanted the work shown. I showed the parts that allowed me to formulate the answer in a way that worked, but that was declared “insufficient.”
So giving an answer with partial work for the written section, in combination with my high score on the scantron = cheating, I guess?
As you might surmise, the teacher was absolute shit, in retrospect.
The Principal too, since he cosigned her demand that I retake the exam twice, including while in the Principal’s office, while he lurked about.
SAME. This bullshit “show your work” principle cost me at least as many points as its companion “you wrote your name at the top of the LEFT SIDE of the paper instead of the RIGHT SIDE so that’ll be a C+ for you instead of an A+!”
Sometimes I think the only reason I pushed myself to get advanced degrees was the need to prove that I wasn’t the idiot in those scenarios. The teachers and/or the pedagogy they were required to follow were idiotic. It’s kinda therapeutic having my own students now and taking a completely different approach.
I think you are nissing the point about the goal of schooling, it is not to get correct answers but to teach people methods of problem solving, so when faced with a brand new problem you can extrapolate methods and find a solution. As acedemia progresses solutions are not possible in your head, so applying principles is the goal.
So, by your logic, any student who doesn’t conform to the specific, approved processes and methodology is therefore wrong, is that it?
Tell me, do you value the perspectives of others, or are you concrete in the surety that yours is always the infallible way? Is everyone who does something differently from the way you do it, wrong?
What do you hope to gain in your escalation of commitment? Or is lecturing me its own reward?
Having gone forward from high school to undergrad, to half a dozen graduate schools, I do think I’m at least somewhat privy to the methodologies of academia- in fact, I even studied process design at MIT, among other things. What I find most, is that rigid thinking is more susceptible to Group Think than allowing room for alternative paths to a desired outcome.
Does that make me right, and you wrong? Or vice versa? No, probably not in either case. But it certainly doesn’t make you right in an absolute sense, which is the sentiment you seem to be pushing.
I was explaining why they want you to show your work. I work with a lot of engineers who got the right answers on tests in university, but you give them a unique problem they can’t reason out a new method to solve it. This is why testing wants you to show your work so somebody can check you are connecting the dots of reasoning.
All they would have to do tgough is make the question multipart, so step A asks for a certain portion, step b asks for next portion, and so on.
Passing University doesn’t always mean you can think. Granted other testing is needed to assist non typical learners
Right, so nothing.
My brain didn’t go through the steps like that. It looked at the problem and found the answer.
It’s why they thought I was cheating: my scantron results were above 90% correct, and the written portion was scored abysmally for lack of work.
That’s a failure of Test Design, not of student ability.
I had the exact same problem.
I was always a space cadet in class, falling behind, but accelled in testing, add on top that I sucked at showing my work, and my teacher was adamant that I must be cheating somehow.
It doesn’t matter if you use mental math or not, you just need to write what you did in your head on the paper.
Yes. Having been there, and done that, I would agree that it should count. My teacher disagreed.
What did you write then? I’m confused. You showed how to solve the problem and got it marked wrong?
I didn’t list all the steps in the way they wanted the work shown. I showed the parts that allowed me to formulate the answer in a way that worked, but that was declared “insufficient.”
So giving an answer with partial work for the written section, in combination with my high score on the scantron = cheating, I guess?
As you might surmise, the teacher was absolute shit, in retrospect.
The Principal too, since he cosigned her demand that I retake the exam twice, including while in the Principal’s office, while he lurked about.
Makes my blood boil even now.
SAME. This bullshit “show your work” principle cost me at least as many points as its companion “you wrote your name at the top of the LEFT SIDE of the paper instead of the RIGHT SIDE so that’ll be a C+ for you instead of an A+!”
Sometimes I think the only reason I pushed myself to get advanced degrees was the need to prove that I wasn’t the idiot in those scenarios. The teachers and/or the pedagogy they were required to follow were idiotic. It’s kinda therapeutic having my own students now and taking a completely different approach.
Do you understand the purpose of school, or…?
I think you are nissing the point about the goal of schooling, it is not to get correct answers but to teach people methods of problem solving, so when faced with a brand new problem you can extrapolate methods and find a solution. As acedemia progresses solutions are not possible in your head, so applying principles is the goal.
So, by your logic, any student who doesn’t conform to the specific, approved processes and methodology is therefore wrong, is that it?
Tell me, do you value the perspectives of others, or are you concrete in the surety that yours is always the infallible way? Is everyone who does something differently from the way you do it, wrong?
What do you hope to gain in your escalation of commitment? Or is lecturing me its own reward?
Having gone forward from high school to undergrad, to half a dozen graduate schools, I do think I’m at least somewhat privy to the methodologies of academia- in fact, I even studied process design at MIT, among other things. What I find most, is that rigid thinking is more susceptible to Group Think than allowing room for alternative paths to a desired outcome.
Does that make me right, and you wrong? Or vice versa? No, probably not in either case. But it certainly doesn’t make you right in an absolute sense, which is the sentiment you seem to be pushing.
I was explaining why they want you to show your work. I work with a lot of engineers who got the right answers on tests in university, but you give them a unique problem they can’t reason out a new method to solve it. This is why testing wants you to show your work so somebody can check you are connecting the dots of reasoning. All they would have to do tgough is make the question multipart, so step A asks for a certain portion, step b asks for next portion, and so on. Passing University doesn’t always mean you can think. Granted other testing is needed to assist non typical learners
Thanks Daniel Kahneman