jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » There's not much to the forms. The work is in gathering your data, making a spreadsheet and ranking your class. Predicting grades then, I went through marking schemes again for each student considering what they knew and how they wud be marked, that took a good while.
amacca wrote: » theres obviously still a hell of a lot of subjectivity though too id assume? different teachers may use different data etc etc.......dont put too much emphasis on mocks, use professional judgement etc what do you mean by went through marking schemes.....did you look at a marking scheme in your subject and imagine what they would have got or are you talking about a marking scheme for project work they have submitted or something?
rainbowtrout wrote: » You were the very one for the last two weeks just constantly going on about 'just inflate their grades'. Why don't you just read the documentation and maybe see what is involved. Being 'tempted' to give someone 55 because their grades have gone between a B and a D sounds like someone throwing darts and a board and picking a grade out at random.
Bobtheman wrote: » Is there a video on this ?
Bobtheman wrote: » Sorry I forgot I was talking to King Solomein. You can attack me all you like but in the end its guesswork. I don't know or care what you're subject is-its still guesswork because unless you have corrected the LC lately-how can you say you are accurate or not? Who has checked YOUR Work? How accurate have your previous predictions been?? You can get hung up on the word 'inflate' all you like-it simply means err on the side of cautin. The mocks must be approached with caution plus kids do surge and there is no tablets of stone to work this out with. When they invent a time machine where my colleagues and I can use standardised testing and check it externally from 2018-20 then we would have an objective system. But we don't and please don't give the impression we have one now. 55 for a student whose grade has varied greatly sounds fair to me.
Treppen wrote: » Not sure he said he was going to give 55 to the same student who got a B in the mocks
Legend Numerous Fig wrote: » To be fair 55 for the D to B student isn't far off the vague and fairly meaningless "scale" in the document. I mean, it would be "disappointing" if he got below, and it'd be "pleasing" if he did better. Got to avoid the multiples of 5 though - 56 is apparently safer.
Treppen wrote: » I think averages aren't correct as it assumes that you will regress if your latest mark is the highest one. . I hope teachers aren't considering averages.
rainbowtrout wrote: » I've been marking papers for the SEC for 19 years, 16 of those at LC level, so ya I'd say I have a fair amount of experience of correcting LC. My previous predictions have been pretty much bang on. Inflate does not mean err on the side of caution, it means the direct opposite. I never said this was an objective system, you've just made that up right now. And teachers have been given fair warning about including mock results in their deliberations because students can cheat the mocks.
rainbowtrout wrote: » He did, he edited it out of his post while I was writing mine.
Bobtheman wrote: » Sorry I got a bit emotional there. It was the wrong word choice- inflate. But I think you need to realise that the vast majority of teachers have not corrected. So you need to stop picking holes in the arguments of teachers who have not corrected and have a different subject to yours. What is your subject btw ?
Bobtheman wrote: » Rainbow you are pontificating based on your one subject. One subject. We don't know your type of school either or your subject. I'm glad you can sit back after 19 years of correcting. Time machine time again - if only we knew we'd be put in this position we'd all have corrected for 2 decades. Thus taking grade avg and the students very decent mock results plus benefit of the doubt plus a possible late surge I'd say moving a student 10% up is reasonable.
Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: » Agreed. Dougal, Ted and the car for the raffle come to mind.
Bobtheman wrote: » To say the subject does not matter is ridiculous.But you have a point. I have not read the document but I seriously doubt it will change my views Yes the school matters. Middle class schools generate more data because parents are more involved.kids generate more work etc You have clearly stated it's not objective. But be careful of thinking you know it all in however many LC subjects there are. My advice stands bang them up a few percent unless you are in the 10% or less miniority who correct regularly.
Buddhas belly wrote: » Hi, hope it is ok to ask this question here? My niece is in leaving cert and she is wondering if the previous exam results from the school will affect her grade. Eg. in science and languages they have excelled in the past few years and she thinks this may boost her grade, which would be great. Is this the case or should she be more realistic regarding her grades?
Treppen wrote: » So is everybody clear on what they have to do?
Bobtheman wrote: » Apologies to Rainbow trout but I think I was misunderstood. We all have varying levels of Data. Some have corrected at LC levels -MOST have not. I didn't give a huge amount of tests because my class attendance varied wildly and it was hard to get any homework from them. I had no idea this was coming-who did? I do have students who averaged mid 40s on Exams but got 70% in the mock. Kids often do better on the day. They would also normally have had March-May Teaching. I was making huge headway in March before this. A lot of students only really tune in the last few months. Thus it is not a huge leap to move a student up by 8% in their grade from 47 to 55%. It is erring on the side of caution. Also I don't take the Mock as Gospel. I doubt the guidelines say just use Tests-there is your professional knowledge of the student. That is allowable? So it's not throwing a dart at a dartboard or anything like that. But there will be random guesses no matter what anybody says. Because even class tests are quite random. Perhaps we should have all been forced to correct at least once but alack-alas that was not the case!
