5 ms·

There are two sides to that story. There's quite a bit going on that has been left out. England's school system really doesn't work in a way that teachers can j

by AlexC04 15y ago

There are two sides to that story. There's quite a bit going on that has been left out. England's school system really doesn't work in a way that teachers can just hand out whatever grade a student "deserves". The kid was handed a syllabus, a marking scheme and told "if you do this you'll get an A". He threw out the mark scheme and did his own thing. He then tried to get an A for doing whatever the hell he wanted. I applaud him for pursuing his own interests and taking charge of his own learning - I really do - but the system doesn't allow for that. You don't hand in creative writing and expect to get a math credit. You don't hand in physics to your chemistry teacher. I wish the system in England were different. Maybe I'd still be teaching there if it were, but you're casting a lot of aspersion and judgement on a subject that you don't seem to know much about.

JimDabell 15y ago
> He threw out the mark scheme and did his own thing. That's not what the article says. It says the brief was to "design and create a multimedia project", which he did. It says that most people went with Powerpoint, but it doesn't say that's what was asked of them.
- seabee 15y ago
  The brief is just that. The mark scheme undoubtedly suggests a more restrictive approach into how you produce a project in line with that brief. It's like listening to the first sentence your client utters ("I want a program to calculate my expenses...") and then creating Excel when all they wanted was a calculator. For better or worse, it's not about doing whatever you like, and hiding behind the brief when there was a more detailed set of specs is immature.
  - JimDabell 15y ago
    You are assuming that there was a more detailed spec. that asked for something different to what he did. There's no indication of that in the article, you're just inventing things to prop up your argument.
    - seabee 15y ago
      I'm assuming? I did the same course that student did. The curriculum hasn't changed towards 'we won't tell you what you need to score the marks' - quite the opposite. It was like this 6 years ago and it was like this a years ago when my coworker showed me his mark scheme for a similar curriculum-mandated ICT project. > There's no indication of that in the article Because if there was, it would severely weaken his whole 'I'm surrounded by idiots' argument, wouldn't it? Good for the kid for making a cool app, but he has to learn that you don't get judged on your merits but by how successfully you complete your task. Have you had any experience with GCSE ICT? As far as I am concerned, there is one person making judgments with less information and that person is you. Let's not forget you are seeing one side of the story - don't be so foolish and pretend it's the whole truth. You can even view the mark schemes online! Here is but one exam board that does this: http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse10/ict/Pages/About_GCSE_ICT.aspx http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse10/ict/Pages/About_GCS... It's amazing how I am ignorantly downvoted for something that is common knowledge among schoolchidren, seeing as they are given a mark scheme for every piece of coursework in every subject they take. I can only assume these people aren't from the UK...
      - JimDabell 15y ago
        > The curriculum hasn't changed towards 'we won't tell you what you need to score the marks' I never said it did. It's perfectly possible to have a spec. that allows for more than one type of implementation. This is schoolwork, not NASA. The aim is to show that they understand the concepts and can produce results. Exact requirements aren't necessary for that. From the spec. on the site you linked to - it seems Unit 4: Creating Digital Products is the relevant unit: http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCSE2010/UG023092-Edexcel-GCSE-2010-ICT-Issue-2-180310.pdf http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCSE2010/UG023092-... It states: > > They can choose what sort of product to design and make, but it must include an appropriate user interface and user input must determine the outputs that are produced. It seems to me there's a lot of freedom for students to choose implementation platform and language. While your school in particular might have been more specific in what you should build (and really, given the limitations of teacher knowledge, that makes sense), it doesn't follow that his must have been similarly restrictive. Unless you were literally in the same class as him, you aren't in a position to know what was asked of him, and your assumptions directly contradict the article. > > There's no indication of that in the article > Because if there was, it would severely weaken his whole 'I'm surrounded by idiots' argument, wouldn't it? My point is that without further information, you aren't in a position to say that he ignored the spec. The article's direct statements trump your assumptions. > As far as I am concerned, there is one person making judgments with less information and that person is you. The only thing I have stated in my comments thus far relates to what is directly stated in the article and what you are saying. I'm not making assumptions, all I'm doing is pointing out you are doing so.

by AlexC04 15y ago

JimDabell 15y ago

> He threw out the mark scheme and did his own thing. That's not what the article says. It says the brief was to "design and create a multimedia project", which he did. It says that most people went with Powerpoint, but it doesn't say that's what was asked of them.

seabee 15y ago
The brief is just that. The mark scheme undoubtedly suggests a more restrictive approach into how you produce a project in line with that brief. It's like listening to the first sentence your client utters ("I want a program to calculate my expenses...") and then creating Excel when all they wanted was a calculator. For better or worse, it's not about doing whatever you like, and hiding behind the brief when there was a more detailed set of specs is immature.
- JimDabell 15y ago
  You are assuming that there was a more detailed spec. that asked for something different to what he did. There's no indication of that in the article, you're just inventing things to prop up your argument.
  - seabee 15y ago
    I'm assuming? I did the same course that student did. The curriculum hasn't changed towards 'we won't tell you what you need to score the marks' - quite the opposite. It was like this 6 years ago and it was like this a years ago when my coworker showed me his mark scheme for a similar curriculum-mandated ICT project. > There's no indication of that in the article Because if there was, it would severely weaken his whole 'I'm surrounded by idiots' argument, wouldn't it? Good for the kid for making a cool app, but he has to learn that you don't get judged on your merits but by how successfully you complete your task. Have you had any experience with GCSE ICT? As far as I am concerned, there is one person making judgments with less information and that person is you. Let's not forget you are seeing one side of the story - don't be so foolish and pretend it's the whole truth. You can even view the mark schemes online! Here is but one exam board that does this: http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse10/ict/Pages/About_GCSE_ICT.aspx http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse10/ict/Pages/About_GCS... It's amazing how I am ignorantly downvoted for something that is common knowledge among schoolchidren, seeing as they are given a mark scheme for every piece of coursework in every subject they take. I can only assume these people aren't from the UK...
    - JimDabell 15y ago
      > The curriculum hasn't changed towards 'we won't tell you what you need to score the marks' I never said it did. It's perfectly possible to have a spec. that allows for more than one type of implementation. This is schoolwork, not NASA. The aim is to show that they understand the concepts and can produce results. Exact requirements aren't necessary for that. From the spec. on the site you linked to - it seems Unit 4: Creating Digital Products is the relevant unit: http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCSE2010/UG023092-Edexcel-GCSE-2010-ICT-Issue-2-180310.pdf http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCSE2010/UG023092-... It states: > > They can choose what sort of product to design and make, but it must include an appropriate user interface and user input must determine the outputs that are produced. It seems to me there's a lot of freedom for students to choose implementation platform and language. While your school in particular might have been more specific in what you should build (and really, given the limitations of teacher knowledge, that makes sense), it doesn't follow that his must have been similarly restrictive. Unless you were literally in the same class as him, you aren't in a position to know what was asked of him, and your assumptions directly contradict the article. > > There's no indication of that in the article > Because if there was, it would severely weaken his whole 'I'm surrounded by idiots' argument, wouldn't it? My point is that without further information, you aren't in a position to say that he ignored the spec. The article's direct statements trump your assumptions. > As far as I am concerned, there is one person making judgments with less information and that person is you. The only thing I have stated in my comments thus far relates to what is directly stated in the article and what you are saying. I'm not making assumptions, all I'm doing is pointing out you are doing so.