Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Guest JTS98]

11 hours ago, madwullie said:

It's funny, if trump hadn't been such a paranoid mess he could quite easily have followed the plans that were already in place, suppressed the virus and be coasting into a second term on the back of it, without having to do much more than pull a serious face on telly and let people who know how to do their jobs do their jobs. 

Unfortunately, whether through laziness or because he can't possibly admit he may have misjudged something, he's doubled down to a ridiculous level, implied it's a hoax, ignored it, wound people up about it, told ridiculous lies about it, inarguably contributed to America looking like the epicentre of the virus and consequently he's staring at his jotters for his incompetence. What an absolute, heartbreaking wee shame. 

Elections matter. The leaders we choose matter.

In my more optimistic moments I imagine a future where covid-19 has ended up being a hugely important learning event for the human race about long-term planning to mitigate threats to our existence and ultimately improve life on earth.

The list of failings in various countries around the world, not least of all Trump's insane behaviour, and the alarming lack of global coordination and cooperation should set alarm bells ringing for humanity in general.

Covid-19 won't end the human race. However, a pandemic of this sort was entirely foreseeable and indeed foreseen, yet we see a complete failure of humanity to take a threat seriously until it is already slapping us in the face. This does not bode well for issues such as climate change, water insecurity, and the control of nuclear weapons, all of which, like a pandemic threat, are problems we know about but are not being taken seriously by anybody who really matters.

This article outlines the frankly scary failures in planning for an event like this, concentrating on America. But apply this level of anti-intellectualism, partisanship, and downright stupidity to the other issues I mentioned above and it is hard to be optimistic about humanity's future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/

[KingRocketman II]

6 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

They were a panic response to a problem which, by the time they were even started on, didn't exist. They appeased the public though.

The SNP unnecessarily now using the SECC for a wee bit of routine stuff, and extending the 'lease' of it through the winter is straight out of the "look better" play book we are so accustomed to now.

The majority of their supporters will buy it, though. Which is what they want.

nobody knew the extent to which the hospitals, ventilators and hospital beds would be required - inc UK and many other countries. Hospitals in northern Italy for example were overwhelmed. 

Scottish Government maintaining extra facilities in preparation for a potential second wave is a reasonable precaution - particularly after kitting it out in the first place. You claiming it is merely to look better than Westminster and for no other reason is quite a desperate assessment - one that only the most rabid would arrive at. 

[mizfit]

Sunak isn’t happy with being asked if we’d extend furlough during a potential second spike on BBC there.

[Jacksgranda]

12 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

It's been long enough since I was at school for me to have next to no idea how much coursework or continuous assessment count towards final grades these days but I certainly wouldn't be against them being given far more weight than they were when I was at school.

I'd have thought that when there's a general inflation of grades, any gap between rich and poor will close. Due there being nowhere for kids who're already getting As to go. Is there a possibility that coursework and non-standardised testing just sees generally inflated grades?

I don't think coursework counted for anything when I was at school, other than to prepare you for exams, so I'd agree with you, that it be given even more weight than it is at the minute.

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

I don't think coursework counted for anything when I was at school, other than to prepare you for exams, so I'd agree with you, that it be given even more weight than it is at the minute.

It's moved about a bit over the years, but coursework usually counts for quite a bit in most subjects right now.  Indeed, in some, it's actually the entire story.

Why do you see an increase in such elements as desirable?  

In areas like N5 PE, there is no exam - it's entirely internally assessed.  The result of this is that outcomes are ridiculously good, way out of line with what the same pupils achieve in other subjects.  It can therefore be argued that such an assessment model suits people better.  It's more accurate, however, to recognise that it invites the sort of teacher input that other subjects don't.  I don't see that as intrinsically fairer.

One of the main arguments about the low esteem in which N4 qualifications are generally held, is that the courses lack an exam.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Monkey Tennis

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

18 hours ago, virginton said:

 

Like the app in England....oh wait they just announced today they hope to start public trials on the mk 2 model "soon", after the original multi million pound effort ended in abject failure ! Unless you bring the likes of Google or Apple on board (with the resultant escalation in costs) it's an extremely difficult process as Westminster are clearly demonstrating. Still wouldn't help compliance from joe public which is where any such system hits issues. Our manual system works where people are willing to engage. An app will make no difference in that respect.

The app bungling in England was being presented in May/June as another example of Sturgeon wisely not making the mistakes of her counterparts: it's now August and neither country has got a functioning system. Many countries produced one in the spring: I've even got a fucking obscure Czech hiking route app that asks whether you want to share your location data to help the health authorities. We have bar staff collecting bits of paper or a sheet on a table somewhere instead. This is not the best use of the technology that exists all around us and it is mind-boggling that using a compulsory tracing app wasn't made part of the reopening agenda.

Edited August 7, 2020 by vikingTON

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's moved about a bit over the years, but coursework usually counts for quite a bit in most subjects right now.  Indeed, in some, it's actually the entire story.

Why do you see an increase in such elements as desirable?  

In areas like N5 PE, there is no exam - it's entirely internally assessed.  The result of this is that outcomes are ridiculously good, way out of line with those pupils achieve in other subjects.  It can therefore be argued that such an assessment model suits people better.  It's more accurate, however, to recognise that it invites the sort of teacher input that other subjects don't.  I don't see that as intrinsically fairer.

One of the main arguments about the lack of esteem in which N4 qualifications are generally held, is that the courses lack an exam.

Assessing a child over the course of a year's work, indeed over the course of the entirety of their school "career", seems a more sensible approach than relying on the results of exams only.

Obviously there is a balance to be struck and exams shouldn't be done away with entirely.

However, that's just my opinion as a lay man, professionals such as yourself will obviously have a greater insight into this debate.

[Guest JTS98]

23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's moved about a bit over the years, but coursework usually counts for quite a bit in most subjects right now.  Indeed, in some, it's actually the entire story.

Why do you see an increase in such elements as desirable?  

In areas like N5 PE, there is no exam - it's entirely internally assessed.  The result of this is that outcomes are ridiculously good, way out of line with those pupils achieve in other subjects.  It can therefore be argued that such an assessment model suits people better.  It's more accurate, however, to recognise that it invites the sort of teacher input that other subjects don't.  I don't see that as intrinsically fairer.

One of the main arguments about the lack of esteem in which N4 qualifications are generally held, is that the courses lack an exam.

I think it comes down to what you want assessment to do. What should it demonstrate?

For example, what is the long-term benefit to candidates of a diet of hours of sit-down, closed book exams? In what sense does that develop skills that are going to help them in life? I've never done anything in my working life that has come close to that.

Of course, being able to retain information and present written information accurately and in a time-sensitive fashion is useful in lots of jobs, but that doesn't really justify so much weight being given to one method of assessment. Lots of jobs value the kind of skills promoted by other forms of assessment. Such as analysing information in spoken form in groups, or presenting information to a room of people who want a clear and reasoned explanation.

I think in many modern jobs the essay done as homework is actually a lot more relevant than the closed-book exam. My boss never asks me to sit in a room and write for hours about a topic only revealed to me on the spot and with no references to use. And such a task would never be used to give me my annual rating. Presentations, reports, meetings etc might be. I've worked in banking, as a tax officer, as a language teacher, and as a course designer. I even danced with the devil as a corporate trainer. I've worked in offices, universities, private language schools and for public and private organisations. I've never had a job where being able to remember information was the name of the game. Being able to use information is much more important.

So, I'd agree that there is limited space for an adapted version of the traditional exam, but I think as such an integral part of overall assessment it has had its useful day.

Edited August 7, 2020 by JTS98

[VladimirMooc]

9 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

They were a panic response to a problem which, by the time they were even started on, didn't exist. They appeased the public though.

The SNP unnecessarily now using the SECC for a wee bit of routine stuff, and extending the 'lease' of it through the winter is straight out of the "look better" play book we are so accustomed to now.

The majority of their supporters will buy it, though. Which is what they want.

Absolutely fuming that the SECC is being used as part of the Covid response rather than being used to host the Ideal Home Show-type post IMO ^

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by VladimirMooc

[ICTChris]

It’s not as though the SECC (or Excel Arena I assume) are going to be used for anything else in the next few months.

[vikingTON]

Where the 'skills for a modern job' analogy falls down though is that there are no rational economic incentives for you to either pay someone else to essentially do your assigned tasks for you or for your supervisor to wave through nonsense work to try and bump up their own or department's performance scores (well okay fewer incentives: see the corporate banking sector). 

Education is to a broad degree a high input/high reward process that encourages all sorts of gaming the system to get the right outcome rather than doing the job properly and that problem is only getting worse as people view university itself as little more than a get richer quick jobs factory.

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It’s not as though the SECC (or Excel Arena I assume) are going to be used for anything else in the next few months.

The NEC is planning on being used for normal things come October.

https://www.thenec.co.uk/whats-on/

Edited August 7, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Where the 'skills for a modern job' analogy falls down though is that there are no rational economic incentives for you to either pay someone else to essentially do your assigned tasks for you or for your supervisor to wave through nonsense work to try and bump up their own or department's performance scores (well okay fewer incentives: see the corporate banking sector). 

Education is to a broad degree a high input/high reward process that encourages all sorts of gaming the system to get the right outcome rather than doing the job properly and that problem is only getting worse as people view university itself as little more than a get richer quick jobs factory.

Project work is actually quite hard to 'game' since the process takes time and any sudden changes in ability or remarkable turnaround in thinking is quite obvious to someone trained to look for it. Software and training for spotting cheating is also not bad these days and only going to get better.

I don't think concerns that some people will cheat (and some always will) are a good reason to continue to funnel kids towards a hugely stressful event that doesn't really tell us anything we need to know. I've got an A from Higher Modern studies. I remember nothing about it, and the memory test it involved has been of no real benefit to me apart from helping me get into uni. It doesn't seem a useful way to do things.

[Todd_is_God]

The SNP all out defenders in full swing I see

[madwullie]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The SNP all out defenders in full swing I see

You still drunk mate? 

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Project work is actually quite hard to 'game' since the process takes time and any sudden changes in ability or remarkable turnaround in thinking is quite obvious to someone trained to look for it. Software and training for spotting cheating is also not bad these days and only going to get better.

I don't think concerns that some people will cheat (and some always will) are a good reason to continue to funnel kids towards a hugely stressful event that doesn't really tell us anything we need to know. I've got an A from Higher Modern studies. I remember nothing about it, and the memory test it involved has been of no real benefit to me apart from helping me get into uni. It doesn't seem a useful way to do things.

I don't think that accepting that some people always cheat means opening the door to widespread piss-taking and/or fraud is an acceptable trade-off. There has to be trust that the system produces candidates who are (or at least were) legitimately qualified by fulfilling the key learning outcomes of the course. Technology or teacher judgment cannot reliably pick up excessive tutoring from the very start of a project which is why they carry a huge risk of a lack of scrutiny.

The best solution from a set of not very good ones right now is probably to have a blend of ongoing coursework assessment as well as an open-book exam, where strict memorisation is binned but constantly having to refer back to the core text because they haven't really grasped the content will likely not produce the top grade answers.

Edited August 7, 2020 by vikingTON

[Monkey Tennis]

26 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think it comes down to what you want assessment to do. What should it demonstrate?

For example, what is the long-term benefit to candidates of a diet of hours of sit-down, closed book exams? In what sense does that develop skills that are going to help them in life? I've never done anything in my working life that has come close to that.

Of course, being able to retain information and present written information accurately and in a time-sensitive fashion is useful in lots of jobs, but that doesn't really justify so much weight being given to one method of assessment. Lots of jobs value the kind of skills promoted by other forms of assessment. Such as analysing information in spoken form in groups, or presenting information to a room of people who want a clear and reasoned explanation.

I think in many modern jobs the essay done as homework is actually a lot more relevant than the closed-book exam. My boss never asks me to sit in a room and write for hours about a topic only revealed to me on the spot and with no references to use. And such a task would never be used to give me my annual rating. Presentations, reports, meetings etc might be. I've worked in banking, as a tax officer, as a language teacher, and as a course designer. I even danced with the devil as a corporate trainer. I've worked in offices, universities, private language schools and for public and private organisations. I've never had a job where being able to remember information was the name of the game. Being able to use information is much more important.

So, I'd agree that there is limited space for an adapted version of the traditional exam, but I think as such an integral part of overall assessment it has had its useful day.

Not much in there that I'd argue with, but it really does come down to your opening sentence.

I think we're saying different (rather than necessarily opposing) things.

I don't think exams do particularly prepare youngsters for challenges they'll face in their working lives.  I'm fine with that though, because I don't really think they're designed to, or need to. 

I do think, however, that when put against alternative methods of assessment (specifically for school pupils) they are relatively fair.  

As it is, in most subjects, exams sit alongside assessments that are more ongoing in nature.  There's debate to be had about the balance between the elements in terms of weighting.  As I said, there's been plenty movement on this over the last 35 years.  

I think though, that there's a perception that it's all about exams these days, when it's simply not.  I think there's also a perception that the problem this year is simply that no exams took place in May.  That's not the case either.  The coursework elements didn't count this year - even when the stuff had been gathered, packaged and collected by the SQA in mid-March.  That's meant that the teacher estimates we're hearing so much about, cover judgements on those elements too.

 

There's always scope for discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of traditional exams in a modern setting.  I don't think that this week's events cast any particular light on it though.

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

I don't think that accepting that some people always cheat means opening the door to widespread piss-taking and/or fraud is an acceptable trade-off. There has to be trust that the system produces candidates who are (or at least were) legitimately qualified by fulfilling the key learning outcomes of the course. Technology or teacher judgment cannot reliably pick up excessive tutoring from the very start of a project which is why they carry a huge risk of a lack of scrutiny.

The best solution from a set of not very good ones right now is probably to have a blend of ongoing coursework assessment as well as an open-book exam, where strict memorisation is binned but constantly having to refer back to the core text because they haven't really grasped the content will likely not produce the top grade answers.

Based on my memory you had about 90 minutes to produce 2 essays.

Stopping at any point to read something would have made it almost impossible to get both finished.

Even in the current format this would happen.

[Monkey Tennis]

27 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I've got an A from Higher Modern studies. I remember nothing about it, and the memory test it involved has been of no real benefit to me apart from helping me get into uni. It doesn't seem a useful way to do things.

I don't accept this.

That process did not just involve memory.  You had to absorb complex information, and work with abstract ideas and concepts.  You had to develop an understanding of them in order to perform as well.  You also had to work towards  a deadline and perform in a particular timeframe.  In addition, you had to organise and express the relevant knowledge and ideas effectively.  Having worked collaboratively with peers and teachers in reaching that exam hall, you then had to respond independently to the demands of the endgame.

I've seen a few posts on here that deride learning  this way.  It's a narrow view of education and what it offers and sometimes, requires.

[Guest JTS98]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't accept this.

That process did not just involve memory.  You had to absorb complex information, and work with abstract ideas and concepts.  You had to develop an understanding of them in order to perform as well.  You also had to work towards  a deadline and perform in a particular timeframe.  In addition, you had to organise and express the relevant knowledge and ideas effectively.  Having worked collaboratively with peers and teachers in reaching that exam hall, you then had to respond independently to the demands of the endgame.

I've seen a few posts on here that deride learning  this way.  It's a narrow view of education and what it offers and sometimes, requires.

I am a genius, you're right.

But I don't think this was an effective way of developing those skills. It's like starting a process well but finishing it badly.

The things you outline could all be demonstrated by providing a more relevant and fairer final task. The exam situation is one that most people will never run into again, so why set so much on it?