 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / December 2005How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators
thought this would make a good utility on cellphones - http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using your cell-phone. You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators. Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas instruments? Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't seem to stock these caclulators. ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat. I am just curious. > thought this would make a good utility on cellphones - > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat. > I am just curious. It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. Al > It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, > and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. > > Al I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams. >> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, >> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. >> >> Al > >I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams. If your to stupid not to be able to do a GCSE then you shouldn't have a mobile phone  Signaturehttp://Borg.no-ip.com XJ900 Trike GS850 Trike DIAABTCOD#29 DAMICRWIM Some people are like slinkys.... no real use but it makes you smile when they fall down stairs! > If your to stupid not to be able to do a GCSE then you shouldn't have > a mobile phone If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not post on Usenet. Two out of your first three words are wrong. SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella : If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not : post on Usenet. That should have had a comma after "spelling". Ian Your remark would be correct only if the person whom you are quoting intended that you would pause after you had read his word, "spelling". However, is there one rule for you and a different rule for the person whom you are quoting? By the rule that you suggested, your sentence, "That should have had a comma after "spelling".", should have had a comma after, "after". (EOE :-) ) > : If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not > : post on Usenet. > > That should have had a comma after "spelling". -- "Pierian Spring" <aiyr.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message <1134298235.001223.302830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >Your remark would be correct only if the person whom you are >quoting intended that you would pause after you had [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> That should have had a comma after "spelling". Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at the bottom. In any case, a usenet grammar post isn't complete without a grammatical error. I think it's in the handbook somewhere. <snip> >>> : If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not >>> : post on Usenet. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In any case, a usenet grammar post isn't complete without a grammatical >error. I think it's in the handbook somewhere. Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top posters! ;-) Signaturewww.senaction.com In sci.math guv <guv69@msn.com> wrote: : Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top : posters! ;-) It's spelled "grammar". Justin I think he was being facetious. I hope I spelled that right, or is it "spelt"? This is both top and bottom posted by the way. Aside: "Stranger in a strange land" is one of my top choices of SF, along with "The voyage of the space beagle" by Van Voght. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top > posters! ;-) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grammer There's nothing wrong with top-posting, perhaps you prefer this style, which is not top posted, but I have no doubt that you will find it difficult if I respond to your main point by referring you to Haupmann and Gradier, 1966? Perhaps top posting is to be preferred? No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is an issue of personal preference. > Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at > the bottom. > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > an issue of personal preference. That's true. And the people who prefer top posting are inconsiderate morons who choose to violate a well-established ettiquette with a sound rational basis. But of course, that's just my opinion. Grow up, Robert Low! Stupid boy. > > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > > an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ettiquette with a sound rational basis. > But of course, that's just my opinion. > Grow up, Robert Low! > > Stupid boy. *plonk* SignatureAJL OK, you are a plonker. I did have my suspicions thereto. > > Grow up, Robert Low! > > > > Stupid boy. > > *plonk* In sci.math Pierian Spring <radio.ham@lycos.co.uk> wrote: >> > Grow up, Robert Low! >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OK, you are a plonker. I did have my suspicions thereto. You just met another one. *PLONK* SignatureWayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper." e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock" Misquoting corrected..... > In uk.education.maths Pierian Spring <radio.ham@lycos.co.uk> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > | your pelt to the trapper." > e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock" >No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is >an issue of personal preference. > >> Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at >> the bottom. Why? [My question is either why deadmail is right or why Pierian is right] SignatureJeremy Boden Neither of us is right - it's merely a matter of personal preference - the relevant RFC refers to both styles and says that bottom posting is the personal preference of the author of the RFC, but that it is not a rule. > >No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > >an issue of personal preference. > >> Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at > >> the bottom. > Why? > [My question is either why deadmail is right or why Pierian is right] > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom > posting is an issue of personal preference. There is also the matter of convention, not to mention whether or not you want others to read and reply to your posts. I rarely reply to top posters as I find it extremely difficult to follow a thread in this fashion. If you are asking for help and you want me to answer, don't top post. Bear in mind I might just one day be the only person that knows the answer to your question. Ivor A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail? Indeed, and two conventions are mentioned in the relevant RFC. The author of the RFC mentions both top and bottom postings as being extant. As to following a thread; if you _ARE_ following it, then your following of it means that you hold contemporaneous knowledge of the subject matter to the extent that the positioning of quoted material is irrelevant. Indeed, bottom posting is a nuisance because you have to page down to get to it, rather than just sitting on the "Next" button. I'm not bothered whether you read my posts. My remarks are not directed at the small-minded bigot, in any case, should there be any posting to this NG. If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in mind that one day I may be the only person who knows the answer to yor question, however. > > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom > > posting is an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bear in mind I might just one day be the only person that knows the answer > to your question. [snip] > If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in > mind that one day I may be the only person who knows the > answer to > yor question, however. That I very much doubt. If you cannot see the reasons for not top posting then it is highly unlikely you will ever know anything, much less a question I don't know the answer to. Goodnight. Ivor I wonder if your contribution to a uk education group is intended to show an association with the staffroom, or an association with the playground? Your contribution below displays immaturity. Grow up, Ivor Jones! Stupid boy. > > If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in > > mind that one day I may be the only person who knows the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Goodnight. > Ivor > I wonder if your contribution to a uk education group is > intended to show an association with the staffroom, or an > association with the playground? You are mistaking me for someone else, I have never been anywhere near any education group. Ivor Jones is a very common Welsh name, I don't suppose I am the only one on Usenet. > Your contribution below displays immaturity. As does yours, but I don't propose to get into a slanging match, you are hereby admitted to the hallowed precincts of my killfile, I hope you will reciprocate. > Grow up, Ivor Jones! > > Stupid boy. Speak for yourself. Plonk. Ivor There is no immaturity in taking another to task for his childish outburst, as I did to you. There is, however, immaturity in initiating a slanging match, as you do below, and then trumpeting that you're not doing so. It remains that the contribution that you made was immature and out of place in an international forum such as this NG. I repeat, grow up, Ivor Jones! Oh - I see that by your own admission, you are a plonker. I had my suspicions thereto, your cowardice in shouting your rude remarks andthen running away to hide says much about you, immaturity in particular. > > I wonder if your contribution to a uk education group is > > intended to show an association with the staffroom, or an [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Ivor > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > an issue of personal preference. No, it is a matter of common courtesy and sense. If you want to end up in many killfiles, post how you like. If however, you want to communicate, then do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting upside down is just showing your contempt for the readership at large. SignatureAJL It has nothing whatsoever to do with courtesy. How do you claim so? Does it insult you? Distress you? Insult your race, your colour, your creed, your sexual orientation? Perhaps not replying when I have something germane to offer would be discourteous or even contemptuous, but replying in a civilised and polite manner and laying out my reply in a style of my own choosing is not a matter of courtesy neither is it a matter of contempt, it is merely a matter of style. Posting in a style that I have come to prefer does not show contempt nor does it show discourtesy. What _DOES_ show discourtesy is the laying into correspondents with the, frankly, rather silly and ridiculous tirade such as you utter below. As to contempt, by suggesting that you will ignore those who reply to you surely you exhibit the very contempt that you would seek to find fault with in others? 'ANG ON IN THERE A MINUTE!!!!! Surely if you were sincere in your comments about discourtesy and contempt you would reply to me top-posted in the style that I use. That you do not actually means that _YOU_, the bottom poster, are hypocritically displaying the very faults that you would seek to find in me! As to legibility - the ASCII text presenting my post is the same ASCII that presents yours. As to convention - the sentence structure and words that I use are from the same language that you use. What causes you difficulty in reasing them? > > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > > an issue of personal preference. > No, it is a matter of common courtesy and sense. If you want to end up in > many killfiles, post how you like. If however, you want to communicate, then > do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting upside down is just > showing your contempt for the readership at large. >> > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is >> > an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting upside down is just >> showing your contempt for the readership at large. <snip> > As to legibility - the ASCII text presenting my post is the same ASCII > that presents yours. As to convention - the sentence structure and > words that > I use are from the same language that you use. What causes > you difficulty in reasing them? Your spelling, for one. -- Andy. But even that caused you no difficulty - a simple mechanical typo from the adjacent key on the keyboard - which you immediately read and understood. So - what is it about top-posting that you claim causes you to have difficulties in legibility and comprehension? seemingly none at all! > >> > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is > >> > an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Your spelling, for one. >> >> > No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is >> >> > an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you to have difficulties in legibility and comprehension? > seemingly none at all! You're confusing me with another poster. -- Andy. Misquoting corrected..... > > But even that caused you no difficulty - a simple > > mechanical typo from the adjacent key on the keyboard - [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> Your spelling, for one. > You're confusing me with another poster. >> No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is >> an issue of personal preference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > communicate, then do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting > upside down is just showing your contempt for the readership at large. Hello from uk.radio.amateur. We'd like to apologise for the rantings of 'Pierian Spring', aka Gareth Alun Evans of Chippenham, Wiltshire. (G4SDW). We've had to put up with him for years. As he's been arrested already for internet stalking, I choose not to kill file him, as he also has an interest in other peoples children. Is it better to close the curtains if you know a pedo is walking outside or to watch them down the barrel of your 12 bore? I know which one I'd select. If you'd like to read more of this self confessed alchoholic looney's rantings, he has written under many different guises (naturally), but try gareth@cemetery.demon.co.uk liberal republican airy.r.bean Proceed with caution, some of his writing is sickening, such as his take on the murder of the Soham girls. You have been warned! Merry Christmas one and all. SignaturehuLLy Tel: 07976 123278 ICQ 136-987-925 >No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is >an issue of personal preference. Not here it is not. In this newsgroup, the accepted norm is that you quote selectively and reply after the quote. There are many reasons for this, which I won't bother to list, because you won't pay any attention anyway. Nobody can stop you selfishly and moronically posting at the top, but expect to be treated as an inconsiderate and selfish fool at best. But I think I know who you really are, so your apparent stupidity is no surprise. SignatureIain the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html Browse now while stocks last! >> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, >> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. >> >> Al > > I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams. You've obviously overestimated their importance then. There are much easier ways to cheat in non-public exams. Al >> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, >> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. >> >> Al > > I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams. Ignoring the morality of cheating for a moment, what is the point of cheating in a mock. A mock is meant to provide exam practice or is that the point, it is used to practise cheating. Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting on. Regards Bernard >Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a >mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way >through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting >on. And the penalty? I had one occasion where a boy deliberately turned to the exam, after the group was told to wait ...so that all would have equal opportunity. Further, he didn't turn it back over until after looking the page over. When taken from the exam room to the office, they made him [let him] do it there instead. ????? In any event, with regard to cheating, they realy cheat only themselves if the system would allow. That is, if what they learn is useful later, then what they have not learned is just as much a burden to them all of their lives. The problem is that when a wave of cheaters comes to the later study, and does not do well, who is held to blame? Does the system stand by its present goals, or do those goals then change to suit the circumstances? That is, just what is it that perpetuates cheating? I know I'm getting on in years now, and still recall the days when a cheat was simply expelled with no results for that year, or a time before that when he would not even be allowed back into the system. B.C.[before computers] one history major lost his year when he could not afford to have his long major assignment typed. He had been caught skelping hockey tickets and the fine sank his funds. He had attempted to hand it in late. Too bad. He shrugged and got it the following year. People don't shrug any more. They want everything for nothing. Education used to be a privilege. It still is. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And the penalty? ... Something to get their attention: confiscate the phone on the spot and smash it in front of the room full of students, then tell the offender to get out and give him a zero for the test. > Something to get their attention: confiscate the phone on the spot and smash > it in front of the room full of students, then tell the offender to get > out and give > him a zero for the test. Then wait for a solicitor's letter! SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > >Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a > >mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after looking the page over. When taken from the exam room to the > office, they made him [let him] do it there instead. ????? Sorry, could you translate that into English? I am not surprised that you had to put five question marks after that paragraph as it is barely literate! What were you doing at the school? Please do not tell me you are a member of the teaching profession. > In any event, with regard to cheating, they realy cheat only > themselves if the system would allow. That is, if what they learn is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for that year, or a time before that when he would not even be allowed > back into the system. Little has changed. Somebody found guilty of cheating will have all of the examinations for that period set aside. Then they cannot take examinations under the QCA auspices for a good while (up to three years). SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella >Sorry, could you translate that into English? Let's keep this simple. I just observed you nit-picking your way through a series of messages leaving your trite, useless digs in your wake, including this one. So don't take this too personally, but [and I rarely use this common English expression]... ...Piss off !!!! : >Sorry, could you translate that into English? : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : ...Piss off !!!! For once, I am in agreement with Mr Who. Ian >>Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a >>mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And the penalty? All I know is that he was escorted out of the exam hall and not allowed to continue with the exam. Whether there were wider penalties imposed, I've no idea. Imagine the conversation. Ring, Ring "Hi son, how's the exam going" "I'm just about to be disqualified mum" Regards Bernard >>> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, >>> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Bernard Is this an urban myth? I've heard *exactly* the same story except with reference to "A" levels, not GCSE's. BTW As an ex-invigilator, why not write a few questions on your sleeve, go to the toilet (accompanied) and get the answers sent via text to you? You need to have a quick text finger though... (Standard exclusions on the point in doing this obviously apply). SignatureJeremy Boden >>>> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, >>>> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > Is this an urban myth? Not the way my son told me the story at the time, unless I wasn't listening properly. > > It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it, > > and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR. > > > > Al > > I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams. You are not talking about anything. Tests/mocks are real examinations. SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > thought this would make a good utility on cellphones - > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat. > I am just curious. I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture cell phones anyway. > > thought this would make a good utility on cellphones - > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture > cell phones anyway. A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos. They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the exam. One of them got the highest mark in the year! In sci.math Stephen@mailinator.com wrote: : A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos. : They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the : exam. (1) They were allowed to listen to stereos during the exam?! (2) This doesn't seem particularly helpful. Was the exam merely the regurgitating of notes? If not then how could you search through the notes for the relevent material? Rewind-Fast Forward?! Justin >I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught >that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture >cell phones anyway. I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be somewhat downplayed by the revision guides. SignatureAndy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk : Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be : somewhat downplayed by the revision guides. Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education. Ian >: Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be >: somewhat downplayed by the revision guides. > >Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education. > >Ian The first time I heard the phrase "Outcomes Based Education" I thought it must be a Good Thing, since obviously what we want is the results (outcomes) of learning rather than sullen time-serving (by both students and staff). But I soon got the point that greater "outcomes" doesn't mean greater learning, it means having greater numbers who "come out" of the sausage machine. Signature--------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- > : Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be > : somewhat downplayed by the revision guides. > > Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education. > > Ian Why "insane"? SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella : > : Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be : > : somewhat downplayed by the revision guides. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Why "insane"? Because it warps and twists the whole education process into something devoted to the merely measurable. Of course, there'll be a nother fad along in a minute, but by then the damage will have been done. Ian > >I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught > >that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. > anw@maths.nott.ac.uk Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false. Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized definition especially in a test enviorment. You might argue that closed book testing isn't of value, but for those of us who have to participate in them memorization cannot be replaced by meer understanding. >>> I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught >>> that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey >>> picture cell phones anyway. >> I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the >> advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising >> and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. > Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false. > Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where > new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's > unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized > definition especially in a test enviorment. You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness). I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract. If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples as required to solve problems given to you. Examples are given in teaching to explain the concepts. But there is a significant proportion of the class whose approach is to memorise the examples while failing to understand what they were given to illustrate. Sometimes they put an immense amount of effort into memorisation - every year I have students who randomly regurgitate examples I've shown in the class, sometimes down to typing errors I forgot to remove, and they almost always fail because what they regurgitate bears little relationship to the question, which is asking them to apply a technique, not to reproduce an example of that technique applied to some other situation (and that's when they get as far as understanding the question enough to give an example of the right technique). There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those patterns in terms of those structures. Matthew Huntbach : There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without : understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult : task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those : patterns in terms of those structures. Hear hear. Anyone who claims that memorisation is to be preferred to "mere understanding" simply hasn't a clue. Ian Matthew Huntbach wrote (in part): > Sometimes they put an immense amount of effort into > memorisation - every year I have students who randomly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when they get as far as understanding the question > enough to give an example of the right technique). Very nice touch at the end! I agree completely. Unfortunately, I've seen many of these things myself. I can almost understand a first year student whose major is in something like hotel management doing this in a university required math course, since this technique does tend to work in high school, and even a few years in college if you're in certain majors, but I've also seen this behavior with some upper level mathematics majors. Dave L. Renfro >> Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false. >> Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the >second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness). Throughout these discussions, it should be mentioned which level of learning is being discussed. Surely, the specific needs of university students [or even graduate students] are quite different from those of the broader selection found in high school, or even broader perhaps at younger ages. Let's compare apples and apples. Rote learning is definitely not applicable to those who will encounter the need for generality. It is definitely applicable to those learning the alphabet, or times tables, or how to tie shoelaces. It is likewise partly at least applicable to those learning the fundamentals. You have to be shown how to move the pieces before you can play chess, and usually play a Hell of a lot of games, AND examine the similarities and differences, AND study some master moves before gaining expertise and broader application of technique. [No, I'm not a chess master, but have played against a couple. I'm just trying to form an analogy.] > You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and > in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the > second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness). > > I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to > the sort of stuff Andy teaches. You are right regarding programming - it does require understanding. However... 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists. 2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer Science. It is no more difficult than learning to read, except I would guess at least 70 percent of the population are suited for reading, while less than 5 are suited for programming. Everyone I know who had a brain suitable to learn programming had already taught himself how to do it by the age of ten. You can't learn to read by memorising words (as the government have finally realised it seems) and you can't learn to program by memorising programs. You can have someone point you in the right direction, but you really need to achieve the understanding on your own, and if you don't have the aptitude for it then you won't ever be able to do that. I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just revision for them, while some of them never get it. Eventually they memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains. (And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews, because I don't ever want to find myself on the same team as one of them. That's not to say they shouldn't learn programming if they enjoy it as a hobby. Although I'm rubbish at cookery, I still enjoy learning it. The difference is I would never try to get a job as a chef, or expect the tax payer to subsidise my taking a course in my hobby.) In contrast, some of the 3rd and 4th year CS classes are much more difficult and only a small percentage of students could ever be expected to truly grep them. (This could be because you never truly understand something until you use it to learn something else, so the only students who go on to make use of the final year material are the few who do PhDs. Or it could be that each of these courses is an introductions to research level problems and so the scope it too broad to gain a feeling of mastery within the time allowed.) But the majority of students can still get good marks in these courses by memorising the formulae. SignatureRichard That's disgraceful! You are part of the education infrastructure that awards degrees that you say are meaningless and you expect the real examinations to be conducted by prospective employers? No wonder that any maths degree awarded in recent years is only as good as the "A" levels of 30 years ago! It used to be that all teachers had at least "O" Level passes in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called "teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling. > I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get > it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science > degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews, > That's disgraceful! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called > "teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling. In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy, numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found the three examinations quite straightforward, and mainly an insult to the intelligence. As I was leaving the test centre, I asked the administrators if many people failed, expecting them to say no. They admitted that loads of people on PGCE courses failed these tests! The door opened behind me and somebody came out of the examination room, in tears, because they failed one of the tests! The administrator was right! SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message <dnfdjg$scd$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>: >In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy, >numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >somebody came out of the examination room, in tears, because they failed one >of the tests! The administrator was right! Someone came out of the examination room in tears because they had failed a test. I suppose the tests must be marked as they are taken then. >>In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy, >>numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > failed a test. I suppose the tests must be marked as they are taken > then. Nah, sometimes you just know ;o) One example would be if you failed to answer the majority of the questions. > "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message > <dnfdjg$scd$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Someone came out of the examination room in tears because they had > failed a test. Yes. I suppose the tests must be marked as they are taken > then. You suppose correctly! The computer tells you the result at the end of the test. SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella >> I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get >> it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> (And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science >> degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews, > That's disgraceful! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called > "teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling. Richard was writing about Computer Science degrees, not Maths degrees. To be fair, Computer Science is about a lot more than programming. I've been quite heavily criticised by people in the IT industry when I've been involved in this sort of discussion in the past for being so focussed on programming. They tell me that only a small part of the workload in IT these days is programming oriented, and they don't want a Computer Science degree to be primarily a test of programming skills. To me, it's still the core skill of the subject, and I'd expect anyone with a 1st class degree in Computer Science to be a competent programmer. But we do see people who have gained high marks in the other modules in the Computer Science degrees, enough to be awarded a 1st class overall, while not doing particularly well in the programming modules, and having chosen modules which don't require programming skills wherever possible. Matthew Huntbach Reposted with misquoting corrected..... > > That's disgraceful! > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach No, it isn't. Computer "Science" is an application of mathematics whereby computers are programmed to perform algorithms. Computer "Science" is about programming. And "Science" means knowledge. Therefore, someone who is incompetent in the programming of computers cannot by any stretch of the imagination be thought of as a Computer "Scintist". Whatever mathematical algorithms you may conceive, they remain as pure maths until they are programmed into a computer. > Reposted with misquoting corrected..... > > To be fair, Computer Science is about a lot more than programming. > No, it isn't. No, what isn't? What are you talking about? Oh, sorry, I see you are replying to a quote you have actually put at the bottom. Anyhow, let's rearrange your posts to the usenet convention and continue: > Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> To be fair, Computer Science is about a lot more than programming. > No, it isn't. > Computer "Science" is an application of mathematics > whereby computers are programmed to perform [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > remain as pure maths until they are programmed into a > computer. The term "Computer Science" has come to be understood as a discipline covering a wide range of topics. I tend to agree with you that programming and algorithms are the central core of it, but as it has developed it has come to cover much else. There is a fair argument over whether "Computer Science" as actually a science, rather than a term which has come to be adopted and stuck. You will see that I didn't say that "Computer Science is not about programming", but rather that it is about some other things as well as programming. For some discussion on this issue, you might like to see what the leading professional association in the topic says: http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html I myself am guided in my comments on this by industrialists who have criticised Computer Science degrees for being too narrowly focussed, and have told me they want it to be about more than just programming. Also, since Computer Science first developed as an academic discipline, there has been an explosion in the use of computers, with the result that there is much more applications theory that must be covered than used to be the case. I'm not knocking programming, far from it. It's where my own interest in Computer Science lies - it's what I teach, it's what I research in, and if anything I tend to have a personal attitude which regards all the add-on stuff our discipline has gained over the past two or three decades with a little disdain. So if you think you're arguing with someone who's anti-programming, you couldn't be more wrong. Matthew Huntbach I was replying to the matter quoted at the foot of my page - in the best traditions of publication where footnotes, citations, quotes and bibliographies come at the end. > > No, it isn't. > > No, what isn't? What are you talking about? >I was replying to the matter quoted at the foot of my >page - in the best traditions of publication where >footnotes, citations, quotes and bibliographies >come at the end. Do these "best traditions" consist of short comments followed by pages and pages of long quotations that are mostly irrelevant to the comments at the top? dave Misquoting corrected.... > > No, it isn't. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > >> To be fair, Computer Science is about a lot more than programming. > No, what isn't? What are you talking about? > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach Most engineering and scientific subjects cover a wide range, and pure mathematics, for an example, is taught in many such degree courses. that is not to say that the prime subject matter of Chemical Engineering is pure mathematics. Computer Science is all about Computer "Knowledge" and if someone doesn't have the knowledge to be able to get a computer to do something then that someone isn't a Computer Scientist. > Misquoting corrected.... > > > The term "Computer Science" has come to be understood as a discipline > > covering a wide range of topics. I tend to agree with you that > > programming and algorithms are the central core of it, but as it has > > developed it has come to cover much else. : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists. I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising vocabulary. I didn't see the need for french or german either. Ian : : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. : : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists. : : I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising : vocabulary. I didn't see the need for french or german either. Sorry, to be clear, I meant I didn't see the need for memorising french or german vocabulary. That's a pretty last ditch strategy. Ian > : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. > : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists. > > I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising > vocabulary. So, if you did not memorise it, did you understand it? If so, then you forgot that 'English', 'French' and 'German' have capital letters! SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella : > : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. : > : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : So, if you did not memorise it, did you understand it? If so, then you : forgot that 'English', 'French' and 'German' have capital letters! Sez who? It was a deliberate choice on my part. Ian > > You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and > > in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g. > you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists. But knowing lots of French vocabularly is useless if the student does not understand how to use it correctly. > 2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer > Science. I feel that that is dependent on the student! I find it hard to believe that all would think that. It is no more difficult than learning to read, except I would > guess at least 70 percent of the population are suited for reading, > while less than 5 are suited for programming. Programming is far, far more abstract. Everyone I know who had a > brain suitable to learn programming had already taught himself how to do > it by the age of ten. Of course! This looks very closed! In your definition of who has a brain "suitable to learn programming" it is a necessary condition that the person be male and self-taught by the age of the ten, then I am not surprised that that is what you find, since you do not allow for the possibility that somebody may be able to program, but not be male and self-taught by the age of ten. > I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get > it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it Then they have 'got' nothing from you, since they already had it, as you freely admit. and it is just > revision for them, while some of them never get it. So, in conclusion, you end up not teaching those who knew it already, and those that do not know it already do not ever get it from you! So how are you managing to get a salary from the educational establishment if you teach nobody anything that they did not already know? Eventually they > memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never > be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains. Or they do not have the right type of university lecturer! After all, you have admitted that you teach none of them! > (And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science > degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it. The difference is I would never try to get a job as a chef, or > expect the tax payer to subsidise my taking a course in my hobby.) No, but the taxpayer is paying your wages, I assume, and you admit that you do not teach anything to people! > In contrast, some of the 3rd and 4th year CS classes are much more > difficult and only a small percentage of students could ever be expected > to truly grep them. "Grep"? Meaning? SignatureMESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > "Richard Smith" <spam_if_you_want_to@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>> You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and >>> in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> 2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer >> Science. > I feel that that is dependent on the student! I find it hard to believe > that all would think that. Yes, for Richard and I that is true - for a relatively small number of people, programming is an easy task which comes naturally. For a large number of people, even those who one assumes must have some interest in it as they've chosen to do Computer Science degrees, it doesn't. Look at any conference on Computer Science education, and you'll find one of the main topics being discussed is why there's such a high failure rate in 1st year programming, and why so many students enter the 2nd year wanting to do as little programming as they can. >> Everyone I know who had a brain suitable to learn programming had already >> taught himself how to do it by the age of ten. > Of course! This looks very closed! In your definition of who has a brain > "suitable to learn programming" it is a necessary condition that the person > be male and self-taught by the age of the ten, then I am not surprised that > that is what you find, since you do not allow for the possibility that > somebody may be able to program, but not be male and self-taught by the age > of ten. Well, I had never touched a computer when I started my Computer Science degree, but it still came naturally to me. These days it is unlikely that anyone coming to university, particularly to do Computer Science, won't have had extensive experience with computers, but not everyone will have sat down and written programs. It's still the case that one gets a few people who start programming at university and find they have a natural gift for it. Richard's figure of about 5% of the population doesn't seem far off to me. And they aren't all male! >> I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get >> it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it > Then they have 'got' nothing from you, since they already had it, as you > freely admit and it is just revision for them, while some of them never get it. > So, in conclusion, you end up not teaching those who knew it already, and > those that do not know it already do not ever get it from you! So how are > you managing to get a salary from the educational establishment if you teach > nobody anything that they did not already know? Well, I am sure it is the same in other areas. Some people have a natural aptitude for sport, some people have a natural aptitude for playing music. That does not mean there is no role for sports coaches and music teachers. I freely admit I have no aptitude whatsoever for either of these, and anyone trying to teach me has had a frustrating job. Teaching people who already have the natural skills is a far more enjoyable experience, because there's so much more you can do with them. In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style. Indeed, there are some Computer Science educators, and I have some sympathy for them, who warn against self-taught programming, feeling that it leads into "bad habits" which are more difficult to teach people to get out of than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done it before. >> Eventually they >> memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never >> be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains. > Or they do not have the right type of university lecturer! After all, you > have admitted that you teach none of them! Go and look at some of those papers in conferences on teaching Computer Science. What Richard reports here, and it's my experience as well, seems to be absolutely universal - you find people across the world saying exactly the same thing. There are thousands of us doing the job - are we ALL hopeless at it? NO-ONE, despite the thousands of us working at it, seems to have found the magic trick which turns people who find programming difficult into people who find it easy. Matthew Huntbach > In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some > quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done > it before. When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic. And I agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely to have more problems when introduced to structured and object oriented programming. For my generation (and specific small group of friends), most started by the age of ten with Basic, on 8 bit microcomputers. Throughout our teenage years some of us moved 'up' to C and some 'down' to assembly language on 16 bit machines. This was all quite easy in those days - the machines often came with programming tools and manuals out of the box. It was all quite low level and close to the machine - you couldn't entirely trust your C compiler so it was still quite common for a C programmer to hand-optimize the compiler's assembly output. (And the assembly people seem to have ended up working on embedded systems and hardware. I wonder if your choice of language at age 13 can predict your future career.) Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand what is really happening at the machine level, then when you are introduced to objects at university you just shrug and say "oh that's a more convenient higher level abstraction for what I'm already doing". The biggest problem I saw with undergraduates was they couldn't understand the abstraction because they hadn't experienced the problems of programming without objects, and they didn't know what was being abstracted. I realise that advocates of the 'objects first' approach that seems popular lately will disagree with me here! SignatureRichard >> In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some >> quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done >> it before. > When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic. And I > agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely to have more > problems when introduced to structured and object oriented programming. You are, of course, familiar with what Dijkstra said about Basic, and if you won't take it from Dijkstra, Eric Raymond quotes him and agrees: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/BASIC.html I appreciate Basic has itself developed - are there still people who use Basic as it was when I first started to program i.e. think of a program as a long list of statements about which you jump using GOTOs? I thought in its modern version it had at least caught up with structured programming. > For my generation (and specific small group of friends), most started by the > age of ten with Basic, on 8 bit microcomputers. Throughout our teenage years [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > working on embedded systems and hardware. I wonder if your choice of > language at age 13 can predict your future career.) Yes, I'm familiar with the sort, and yes, it's good to see people who can quickly hack together code to do things when the majority of the programming class have trouble getting that far. However, I do find a common phenomenon with this sort of person is that they end up writing C programs in whatever language you throw at them. Their approach to some problem is often some incredibly complex mess. I've seen it happen plenty of times, and the biggest problem is because they're good hackers, it's hard to convince them of the benefit of switching to a more disciplined style. > Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand what > is really happening at the machine level, then when you are introduced to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I realise that advocates of the 'objects first' approach that seems popular > lately will disagree with me here! My own experience is that constantly wanting to think of abstractions in terms of "what really goes on underneath" serves as a barrier to good use of them. So, yes, I am an objects first person - when I program in an OO language I want to think of it in terms of abstract objects passing messages between each other, and not as just one big block of code and one big block of memory where the OO constructs are just a way of organising it. A good example of the way in which wanting to see it in terms of what goes on at machine level is the difficulty I've often experienced in teaching self-taught hackers the use of recursion. Somehow they just can't get away from thinking of it as "this calls that then that calls this, then, oh woops, it's all too difficult, I'll cobble together something with a while loop and global variables". However, the big problem with the sort of argument we're having here is that there isn't the control group of self-taught programmers who aren't self-taught in Basic graduating to C. As you say, you all start that way. We can't show that had you started from a more abstract language you'd be better. Matthew Huntbach On the discussion of programming technique: I can not help but agree with all that you say. That is for very good reason. You are clearly someone who can program at a higher level than the amateur, or at least understand that level of programming. In particular, I understand the concept of being well organised initially, and that being facilitated through a dicsciplined approach. Is it not the same in all studies these days? No-one wants to go through the tough bits, and just get to the meat and potatoes. All want to play Chopin, but not practice their scales. Well, the result is that you will be employable as a programmer and others, self included, will not. It's sort of like typing skills. A well-disciplined start gives good results. An undiciplined hunt-and-peck, allows one to type, but... In my own case, I'm probably still stuck at around 5wpm if you count the time to go back and find then correct the many small erors ...some devilishly tough to fathom. After all, if I wrote that program it HAS TO work, right? Two days later still trying to find what in H... I did wrong, then lots of head slapping. Companies in business don't have time for that. [snip] >[T]he biggest problem is because they're good hackers, it's hard to >convince them of the benefit of switching to a more disciplined style. And they tend towards arrogance, with the attitude that they are good enough to hack *anything*. This comes from only ever having worked on self-selected hack-able problems -- they haven't yet met "the program with their name on it", meaning one that is just too complex to hack without doing a decent design first. I had the fortunate early experience (although it didn't feel fortunate at the time) of having to do a lot of maintenance work on large messy programs, which convinced me in my bones of the need for clean design. >> Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand >> what [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >messages between each other, and not as just one big block of code and one >big block of memory where the OO constructs are just a way of organising it. Yes, but.... The sad fact is that most students seem to be generally hopeless at *anything* abstract. Of those students, the ones who have some sort of concrete model of "what really goes on underneath" have a big advantage over the ones who don't. >A good example of the way in which wanting to see it in terms of what goes >on at machine level is the difficulty I've often experienced in teaching >self-taught hackers the use of recursion. Somehow they just can't get >away from thinking of it as "this calls that then that calls this, then, >oh woops, it's all too difficult, I'll cobble together something with >a while loop and global variables". Indeed. IMO, recursion is the /pons asinorum/ of introductory programming, where the abstraction-challenged students visibly hit the wall. But note that it can be taught in a less abstract manner, e.g. by starting with recursive function patterns that are actually iterative in structure (i.e., tail-recursion). Signature--------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message