(Seriously, I had to use a translator to write that. I’m so old.)
Commence to wailing and knashing of the teeth.
What.
Oh, that’s a good idea. I mean if we can’t get them to use their brains to write at the level that a slow monkey could mimic, we may as well sink down and just accept their idiocy.
L33t |<ivvi5!
I know a couple of teachers in NZ and they tell me that there is a lot of opposition to this move.
I’m sure there’s plenty of opposition, but my question, as soon as I saw the thread, was where the support for this move is coming from. The article doesn’t make it clear. This is just bizarre.
I can see where this comes from…garbled writing (where the intent is clear) from, say, someone with dyslexia needs to be taken into consideration. But then, if you make exceptions only for those with dianoses, you’re continuing the problem for those who are not diagnosed (plus leaving yourself open to future litigation). Much easier to say that any response where the intended answer is clear should be taken as such.
And if some jumped-up reporter asks whether you’re going to explicitly rule out the use of ‘txt speak’ (sooooo 1990s), and you say no, they’ve got a big story. :rolleyes:
Two hours later and just now I realize I totally made up a word in the OP. Gaudere, indeed!
(Personally, I *like *knashing.)
Don’t worry, it’s perfectly cromulent.
Nah, you just mistyped “gnashing”.
I think the intent is probably good, but they’ve gone about it the wrong way. What they seem to be saying is that if the meaning is unmistakable but the word/s are spelled incorrectly and the actual writing ability isn’t being tested (as it would be in English for example) then they will mark the answer accordingly. This is really no different from overlooking spelling errors in a physics exam.
It is unfortunate that they have come straight out and said “we will accept text speak in the exams” as this will only encourage its use. It would have been better for them to say nothing at all, or to say that they won’t mark down spelling errors.
Have they? The article doesn’t quote directly, but paraphrases - see my earlier comment about how a journalist could ask a leading question and then turn an affirmative response into a ‘quote’. Here’s the official statement.
Yes fair point, that is probably close to what happened.
They’re in a major phase of NCEA exams programme bashing, here. Every year, faults are being found with the system, mainly because the merits over the old exam system are questioned (and folks don’t think kids are taught as well as when they were in school).
I’m waiting for next year’s controversial decision to allow for Klingon to be used as well. That’ll be entertaining.