In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In a message dated 3/26/03 1:25:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><< To make things more objective, multiple choice exams have > become at least a major source of "information". These > almost must be trivial pursuit; a good problem requires > at least 15 minutes of available time, and should not be > graded by the answer, but by the way it is approached and > treated. Even breaking it down to its parts loses so much > that the important parts cannot be tested. >> >It is difficult to disagree with the first part of this statement but I have >a problem with the next part. >Decision making is extremely important in the world today. If there is work >leading up to the decision that must be made and that work involves some >error on the part of the decision maker the final answer may result in many >things which are not reversable. Examples: Deciding to close a plant; not >produce a product; send men into battle; select a dose of medicine; sell >stock. All involve a decision. I don't see why we would give a student >partical credit for doing a problem that results in a wrong decision. The >most important thing is the answer, not not how it is approached. The >approach may be correct but the calculations may be faulty. Fire 32 men and >close the plant. The decision is made. You can't come back three-months >later and say "Woops, I made an addition mistake. Let's reopen the plant." >It is WRONG to give partial credit when it leads to the wrong answer which >results in a bad decision that may affect people's lives. >Would you like to hire an individuals who attained a grade of 80 knowing that >he/she made a number of mistakes in decision making but was given partial >credit? Isn't the purpose of education to produce student's who make good >decisions? In an actual problem of this kind, one does not get answers in 5 minutes, or even in 15 minutes. Nor does one rely on hand arithmetic, even assuming that it is possible. One sets up the problem carefully, checks it, and then prepares it for solution on a computer. If formulas are required, there is plenty of time to look them up. The Tacoma Narrows bridge did not collapse because of a wrong calculation, but because of failing to take something into account in the model. The failure of the Mars probe was due to not taking into account the different systems of units. The problem with the Hubble telescope was due to doing each part separately, but failing to check that the entire model. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
