---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: rafitalk <rafitalk@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: log versus test Beg to differ .... The test only tests the ability to answer according to a preset rubric It does not allow for any individual interpretation It does not test English communicative ability as the weighting is skewed in favor of answers that fit the format That is not a literature exam -that is regurgitation The log is open to misuse and copying- it may seem more creative but this is the first year There will be a brisk trade in recycled material so that it defeats the object of the exercise Use the exam to allow students to interpret literature in their own words without binding them to fanciful and synthetic catch phrases. Mark them on their ability to explain their ideas. Mark their English not their ability to follow a rubric The beauty Of literature is personal interpretation and not stultifying jargon Rafi Adele wrote: > The old f (as well as all of the non literature modules) reflected > performance. Not achievement. The lit modules reflect both. > Sandra wrote: > i suggest that the ministry decide: log for all or test for all. there > is a difference in the results. there are problems with the test. > is there a silent majority out there who found that the results of the > test were way less than expected and significantly lower than the > magen grades? > and if F is supposed to be harder than e and easier than g, why the > discrepancy? the grades of the old F were more reflective of the > pupils' achievements. > it seems unfair to penalize the kids so that we can feel that the kids > are tested on material they were taught. weren't they always? ************************************** ** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org ** post to list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ** help - ask@xxxxxxxx ** David Lloyd: ETNI founder & manager http://david.greenlloyd.com ***************************************