Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>- Grading is harmful. A pass should be 100%/A+. You should not be able to progress until you understand the subject matter 100% as future learning depends on you having a complete understanding of previous content.

Expert practitioners with decades of experience will often still make one or two mistakes, a couple of "derps", if given a child's exam. This is a broadly good idea, but you need to allow some margin of error for the noisiness of real cognition.

Anecdote: My second grader's teacher sent home school work last week where she "corrected" his correct answer on a spelling test to something that wasn't even a word. She also accidentally a word in her little "good job" blurb at the top.

People make mistakes.

This is true, but the assessments are very small (10min-30min of learning content assessed) that can retaken as many times as required until the student knows the content.

Whilst testing like that seems to be possible for granular facts and most likely is a great way to handle these, what about conceptual understanding?

The only "surefire" way I've found to test that in myself is written condensing of the concept in a way that allows another person to understand the concept from my notes, or actually explaining the concept to another person.

That doesn't scale to 20-30 people in a class though since validating that number of explanations is not easy.

Random probing using application of the concept however encourages the cooking recipe approach. There's only a number n different types of problems you can generate, and by learning all of those is possible. They're easy to grade, but they don't guarantee full understanding.

Then there's using compound problems, where you start mixing concepts. If a student understands say momentum and friction, they should be able to work out a problem involving both. And those are the bane of students who did not invest in conceptual understanding since the number of recipes to learn suddenly increases exponentially. First midterm of physics 101 usually leads to a number of exasperated "This wasn't covered in class". Yes it was, just not this specific recipe. Now the issue with this type of problems is they cover a number of concepts, and pinning down the culprint/s isn't exactly straightforward. I guess you could tackle this through deduction based on a number of pairings (say momentum&impulse,momentum&friction&whatnot...), but noise would mess with that process.

That line wasn't very clear, but I don't think it referred to the actual test/exam, just understanding the subject.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact