4 comments

  • Propelloni1 minute ago
    Maybe the Germans were right? One in-person test, preferably an interview, at the end of the semester should be enough to motivate the smarter part of the bunch to make sure they understand the issues at hand. The rest is chaff anyway. Don't optimize for chaff.
  • nfrankel6 minutes ago
    I have a fairly long experience of both teaching and grading, even though I stopped a couple of years ago. After a couple of years of trial-and-error, I think I found the &quot;right&quot; way:<p>* Alternate between theory and practice in the course of a single 2-hours slot. Theory is necessary, but the attention span of people is very limited. * Grade either a homework assignment in the form of a real project with specifications. You give the assignment half-semester, so that students who start early can ask questions. Otherwise, grade a in-session exam, with every resource available, including the course and the whole Internet. However, you don&#x27;t assess the knowledge, but if the student is able to apply their knowledge to the different tasks at hand.<p>These approaches are now completely moot in the age of AI.<p>I was surprised the first time a colleague asked me to do an oral exam. I thought it was a burden on people with poor social interaction skills. It went surprisingly well: you could see in a couple of minutes if the student had integrated the concepts of the course, even if they were shy. Now I wonder if it&#x27;s the way to go. There&#x27;s one caveat, though: it doesn&#x27;t scale.
  • N_Lens6 minutes ago
    Thanks for sharing. Interesting to see how teachers are adapting to LLMs. I agree that trying to ban AI use is futile.
  • otabdeveloper41 hour ago
    Just grade the process, not the result. It&#x27;s literally that simple.<p>AI can talk the talk, but it can&#x27;t walk the walk.<p>A simple &quot;explain why this is the best solution&quot; will make it shit the bed 10 out 10 times.