Oops, I let this one slide through; I thought it was more music stuff but it's back "on task"!
At 09:43 PM 7/3/2014, Joe Niederberger wrote: > >I'd change the focus a bit and ask if "machine grading" of > mathematics is OK. > >Is grading of mathematics OK?
Yes, although I've never given any such myself in 100 years of teaching at the high school and college level. However, on broad-screen external testing (sometimes even schoolwide let alone district, state, or federal it must be. Several issues trump everything else: cost, objectivity of scoring, zero-sum math time wasted learning to "mouse" to put answers in the desired form, and more. The traditional tests are meaningful, genuinely well-written conceptually-based grade-level-appropriate readily machine scored mathematics tests can be written but they are difficult to write (hence not appropriate for my own use) and we don't have the political clout to do it in a statewide level much less nationally. California had made great progress along that line (resisted at every turn by GSC's beloved Education Mafia) but the whole effort has been trumped statewide and nationally by people with all mathematics background but deep industry tentacles.
>Who grades mathematics? Mathematicians, of course.
What's this "of course" stuff. It only happened in California's CSTs and they've been replaced by the (as yet unseen) product of SBAC, the math portion by Phil Daro (BA in English) who also led the math portion of the earlier (and even more meaningless) incarnation the New Standards Reference Exams in Mathematics after being 1 of 3 in writing the math "standards" of the CCSS itself. Under Common Core Has Even Parents Stumbling http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/us/math-under-common-core-has-even-parents-stumbling.html?_r=0