Holy Christ, Cathy! Didn't anybody think of suing OISE or anything? I'm
being facetious because I know that no-one has ever been successfully
sued just for being stupid, but that testing system certainly does beat
all. And on the face of it, it sort of looks intelligent. At least our
test, be it ever so flawed, is marked by human beings and has
disagreements settled by human beings.
Incidentally, we have never gotten our reliability much bove 75%, and
we're proud of it. We figure that the only way to get an essay test to
score much above 75% reliability is to have a marking scheme that's so
mechanical that it takes all human judgement out of the picture.
Phillipa, I'm interested in your story, as it puts a new perspective on
what a WI course can turn out to mean. I always thought of a WI course
as any course in a content area which teaches primarily content but does
so in the context of a lot of writing and thereby teaches writing more or
less by-the-way, which is the best way to do it if it can be engineered
that way. But if your WI courses are perceived as remedial, and students
are not allowed to take them unless their writing is judged to be
defective, then they must teach mostly writing and relatively little
content. Otherwise it couldn't possibly matter what their writing skills
are. Is it that the writing in the course somehow _takes over_ from the
context, or is perceived to?
Tell me more about WAC at Laurentian. Something isn't adding up for me
here. And I sense a major pitfall that I may appreciate having been