Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Gabriel
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-25T04:49:51Z
dc.date.available2019-10-25T04:49:51Z
dc.date.created2017-09-25 09:27
dc.date.issued2011-12-30
dc.identifieroai:rlt.journals.sfu.ca:article/744
dc.identifierhttps://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/744
dc.identifier10.3402/rlt.v1i2.9476
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/1323725
dc.description.abstractIn many disciplines within higher education, there has been a steady move over the last decade or so away from traditional examinations at the end of courses. Such examinations are seen as inherently unfair, partly because only in rare circumstances can a single set of timed tests genuinely reflect the content of an entire course, and partly because factors extraneous to normal intellectual capabilities, such as a headache, may unexpectedly depress a student's mark. Modularization may go some way to easing educationists' anxieties on this score, but will not in itself completely dispel the perceived problems. Other than dispensing with testing altogether (there are advocates of such an approach), there are only two ways of overcoming, or at least cushioning, the potentially unrepresentative effects of a final examination on which all or a significant part depends. Hie first is to test in the traditional manner but at intervals throughout a course, with the consequent periodic examination results making up the final assessment, or counting towards it. The second way - which has recently gained considerable ground - is to introduce continuous assessment of work done outside the examination room (essays, dissertations, projects, assignments, group work and so forth) either as the sole set of criteria for the final mark or, again, as forming part of it.DOI: 10.1080/0968776930010201
dc.format.mediumapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherResearch in Learning Technology
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/744/995
dc.sourceResearch in Learning Technology; Vol 1, No 2 (1993)
dc.titleTechnology and plagiarism
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
ge.collectioncodeOAIDATA
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:11306469
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/11306469
ge.lastmodificationdate2017-09-25 09:27
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch (import)
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid148950
ge.oai.repositoryid98390
ge.oai.setnameEditorials
ge.oai.setspecrlt:EDI
ge.oai.streamid2
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttps://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/744


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record