William Lipp On (08 Jan 97) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
 WL> I assume you're talking about someone who only completes 50, but gets
 WL> all of them correct; not about someone who completes 100 and gets only
 WL> half of them correct.
 Yes...I read that before it was sent and thought that might be one
 interpretation.
 WL> I think the core question should be "What is the educational goal?"
 WL> If the goal is "understanding," then you are certainly correct.
 Isn't that the goal of all education?
 WL> If the goal is "understanding and facility," then there is some 
hreshold
 WL> that demonstrates sufficient facility, and we can have a discussion,
 WL> perhaps even conduct experiments to determine a reasonable level.
 I think this ties in with something Shelia said about kids at her
 grade level being able to mentally follow a chalk board presentation.
 WL> I think it's obvious that 2 problems in six minutes is inadequate, and
 WL> 1000 problems in 30 seconds is unreasonable.  If 100 problems in the
 WL> allotted time is something that almost all students can master, then
 WL> it's a realistic demonstration of facility.  If only 20% of the kids
 WL> can ever achieve that score, it's not realistic.
 Okay I follow that line .. but what about the ones who can't complete
 the entire number of problems in the allotted time?  If there is built
 into the way the results are scored so those kids are not penalized
 for not being as fast as the others I'd probably not have a gripe.
 How would (or could) this be applied across disciplines?  I can see
 problems in the sciences, probably language arts too... (I obviously
 do not teach regular ed!)
... Becoming overweight just sorta snacks up on you!
--- PPoint 2.02
---------------