Assessments for my web design course are finally finished, after a two hour phone meeting with the external examiner. We had 27 students complete the course, and the assessment was budgeted at 90 minutes per student per examiner, which is pretty close to what we actually used, I think. That means that between us we spent 81 hours on grading. That’s more than two weeks full time. Just imagine if we could have spent that time in a way that would have actually had some learning effect for the students! I’m so glad that the system is changing…
Previous Post
assessment ideas Next Post
save /dev/null 3 thoughts on “81 hours”
Leave A Comment Cancel reply
Recommended Posts
In 2022 I learned about FAIR data, the movement to make research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reproducible. One of UiB’s brilliant research librarians, Jenny Ostrup, patiently helped me make the dataset from the Machine Vision project FAIR in 2022 – I wrote a little bit about that in my […]
Thanks to everyone who came to the triple book talk of three recent books on machine vision by James Dobson, Jussi Parikka and me, and thanks for excellent questions. Several people have emailed to asked if we recorded it, and yes we did! Here you go! James and Jussi’s books […]
Finally I can share what I’ve been working on! I absolutely loved writing this book, taking the time to dig deep into histories, ideas and theories that I think really help understand how machine vision technologies like facial recognition and image generation are impacting us today. I wanted the book […]
Last night I attended the OpenAI Forum Welcome Reception at OpenAI’s new offices in San Francisco. The Forum is a recently launched initiative from OpenAI that is meant to be “a community designed to unite thoughtful contributors from a diverse array of backgrounds, skill sets, and domain expertise to enable […]
I’m thrilled to announce another publication from our European Research Council (ERC)-funded research project on Machine Vision: Gabriele de Setaand Anya Shchetvina‘s paper analysing how Chinese AI companies visually present machine vision technologies. They find that the Chinese machine vision imaginary is global, blue and competitive. De Seta, Gabriele, and Anya Shchetvina. “Imagining Machine […]
Whenever I give talks about ChatGPT and LLMs, whether to ninth graders, businesses or journalists, I meet people who are hungry for information, who really want to understand this new technology. I’ve interpreted this as interest and a need to understand – but yesterday, Eirik Solheim said that every time […]
torill
May you always be this enthusiastic about the assessment forms the reform brings us. And may your enthusiasm be justified. I think I’ll add that to my daily prayers.
Jill
*grin*
kari
As an American uninitiated in the arcana of European assessment rites, I found your recent entries on student evaluation fascinating. I can’t help but wonder if the Norwegian system, with all its rigour, promotes greater effort on the part of its students than the American system does on its own. Stateside we are afforded a lot of latitude in designing our curricula and developing evaluation criteria, but too often at the cost of rigour. There is a real problem with grade inflation (too many students receiving the highest marks for mediocre work in the absence of real grading standards), and students, for their part, perceiving this laxity on the part of their instructors, often respond to assignments in a lackadaisical spirit. I do hope Norway finds a way to sidestep the shortcomings of the American system in its reform effort. (Which is not to say there aren’t real virtues to our system–there are! I’m constantly inspired by the creativity of my colleagues–just a fair share of pitfalls as well).