| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 74024 | 2006-11-08 22:30:00 | Txting | roddy_boy (4115) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 497631 | 2006-11-09 02:49:00 | IMO this country's education is in the toilet and someone pushed the flush lever... :horrified | MAC_H8ER (5897) | ||
| 497632 | 2006-11-09 02:59:00 | The point is not that they're allowing text speak in exams. It's that they're refusing to add additional strict penalties for misspelling beyond the damage it does to legibility. This means that the student who abbreviates words in their science or art essays is not going to be penalised for having crappy English. Although a controversial issue, I hardly regard this as disgusting. I am utterly horrified by the lack of literacy in our society. However, in an examination setting the important thing is that the student can communicate what they're supposed to know. If abbreviations are commonly understood by the student and marker then they are acceptable for communication. NZQA seem to be making the point that teachers should not deliberately reward good spelling or punish the lack of it so long as the message is clear. It would be dangerous for a student to actually use abbreviations in an exam because if the marker becomes at all confused or can't understand the point the student is are trying to make then you will not get any marks for that section. The marker has no obligations to go out of their way to understand obscurely written answers and will only give marks for what they can clearly understand. You are entitled to rely on a marker understanding correct written English. You are entitled to rely on a marker understanding, either directly or via a good translation, correctly written Maori. You are not entitled to expect a marker to comprehend anything else. If the marker can't read your paper then you will fail. |
TGoddard (7263) | ||
| 497633 | 2006-11-09 03:12:00 | I don't text all that often, and I'm 13! | pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 497634 | 2006-11-09 03:28:00 | It doesn't matter how much you text really, it matters that you know the difference between text language, and proper english. I send a fair bit of texts, but I never slip into text speak outside of say... forums, instant messaging, where I use a little bit. But only because it's faster to type, and I can't be bothered. I think that's the key. Not being bothered. If you start using text speak in exams, it shows you can't really be bothered, and don't care enough to try and write a proper english persuasive argument, or whatever you are meant to be doing in the exam. |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 497635 | 2006-11-09 04:03:00 | I don't text all that often, and I'm 13! imo you shouldn't even have a phone. |
roddy_boy (4115) | ||
| 497636 | 2006-11-09 04:05:00 | Yup, I do though. Last year only 2 people in my class didn't have a phone! | pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 497637 | 2006-11-09 04:19:00 | And of course, we must remember that each marker will have hundreds of exam papers to mark, and therefore, they can only spend a certain amount of time marking each one... If they have to stop and try and figure out what someone has said because they have used txt language, the markers in question will not be happy... And even I cant make out what half of the txt's I recieve from my peers mean, because the person(s) in question have used so much txt language. |
Sherman (9181) | ||
| 497638 | 2006-11-09 05:20:00 | imo you shouldn't even have a phone. Oh, ok sure. Ofcourse you're taking into account how useful they are for organising things etc etc. There is actually no concrete evidence yet that this is true. NCEA asessment coordinator at my school has contacted NZQA and its not yet a formal language style for asessments. |
jermsie (6820) | ||
| 497639 | 2006-11-09 05:51:00 | Meh just saying that in my opinion 13 year olds don't really need phones. | roddy_boy (4115) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||