Thanks, Simon, for your really thoughtful comments.
Yes, there is indeed a tendency when marking poorly expressed work, to
fill in some of the gaps from one's own knowledge. I hadn't thought of
this before, thanks again.
Picking up another of your comments, do we really take in written work
faster than oral work? I often find I have to re-read things quite a lot
to work out how to assess written work, but (e.g. with video recordings) I
don't find I so often need to 'play an extract again' - the combination of
visual and aural seems to make it easier for me to assess what it's worth.
cheers,
Phil
> When I (attempt to) mark badly-expressed work I wonder how I can mark
> only the student's work and exclude the knowledge that I bring to the
> question. Do others find this an issue?
>
>
> ## this must be right but "grammocracy" has two MAJOR advantages:
> A) because one takes in written material many times faster than oral,
> reading work is much more efficient
> B) it minimises the complications arising from the halo effect and
> personal interactions, e.g. it might be difficult to persuade students
> not to take a fail grade for an oral presentation as a personal
> rejection, and just think of all the discrimination caes that could
> result. On respect of written work we are being pushed to anonymous
> marking. Etc etc
|