At the eve of Digital Area, it's about time we get rid of such fuzzy concepts as "think", "paint" or "like, duh." We are embarking on a journey to conquer the final frontier, human-computer interface, in order to achieve perfect cybernetic existence The problem with humans is that human language is awfully vague. Computers on the other hand, having done away with corruptive notion of "meaning", operate with unambigous and precise logical language. Therefore we need less vague humans. In order to fully school the new generation, it is necessary to do away with such antiquated forms of testing as essays along with modern, but also behind times method of multiple choice questions. Teachers must achieve methods of interregation, er... testing that include only questions that can only be answered yes or no. For example, "I have stopped taking useless philosophy courses." In the next phase, questions are replaced by statements of facts. Such as "Heidegger is full of it." Pupils must be able to answer "yes". However, should a student be unable to utter "yes", other affirmative statements such as "yeah", "uh, yeah, guess so" and "ay, ay" along with nods, and alike gestures also qualify as the answer. We will soon automate the testing process by using Testing Device 5000, which accordingly has 5000 keys, of which everyone single one corresponds to "yes". If students have no fingers at all or are unable to use them, they can simply bang their head, feet, or other fbp (functioning body part) against the keyboard. Teachers are not only allowed but also encouraged to help students by banging them against the keyboard. We are in the process of securing funding for Testing Device 100 000 which will be installed on entrance floor, in order to the processes of entering college and passing tests from linear to paraller execution. Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland --- David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Woke up this morning to find that I had missed the > world wife-carrying > championships in Finland as well as the live snail > spitting competition in > France. These were both reported in our newspaper. > > I returned to classes, a hard thing after a > sabbatical, to find a harder > thing yet: we are now not allowed to say that we > teach people to think. > Clearly the claim was always problematical, open to > the challenge that it's > hard to judge a) when someone is thinking and b) who > caused that thinking to > come into existence, but we lived with that > situation for a long, long time > and we have learned to trust clues. Experience > allows an instructor to > distinguish one dim bulb from a thousand points of > light. Surely that is > one of the reasons they pay us the big bucks? > > No longer. I quote the document that I'm sure all > of you who are on > faculties have seen, or will see shortly: > > Writing learning outcomes for course syllabi: > > It's usually best to avoid outcomes written as: "to > know how to paint" or > "to think about contemporary concepts" because it is > difficult to measure > knowing and thinking--and outcomes need to be linked > to measuring devices. > Likewise outcomes with verbs "to know" or "to think" > are less desirable > because they are not specific, and it is difficult > to form measurement > devices around them. For example, how clearly can a > student demonstrate > their thinking? > > > I am going to include a live snail spitting > competition in my seminars. No > problem with measuring outcomes there. > > David Ritchie > Portland, Oregon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, > vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit > www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html