The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
Previous entry. Next entry.
1:27pm on Sunday, 26th May, 2013:
So far, I've marked 3 questions of the 5 I set for my CE217 students in the exam they took yesterday. Only two of them have mis-spelled the word LOSE as LOOSE so far.
Judging from the number of envelopes the exam scripts came in, just under a third of the students taking CE217 have some kind of disability that means they get extra time in the exams. That seems a little high.
One of my questions this year had what I call a "golden mark", meaning that if you made one particular point in answering it you got full marks for that question no matter what you would have got otherwise. It was in my question on story structure, which went something like this:
a) Introductory standard bookwork.
b) Follow on from a) with a twist.
c) Application of seemingly unrelated knowledge.
d) Discussion of a story structure that reveals b) and c) to be related.
The students could have got full marks by answering these straight, of course. The thing is, the story structure in part d) was Kishotenketsu, which was new to the students so I explained it in the question. It's a four-act structure as follows:
a) There's an introductory situation.
b) The situation in a) develops a twist.
c) There's a seemingly unrelated situation.
d) The events of b) and c) are revealed to be related.
If a student had noted that the exam question itself followed Kishotenketsu, they'd have got the golden mark. None of them did, though.
It's probably just as well; if they had, I may have found myself required to attend the external examiners' meeting to explain my apparent generosity (which I would have done by pointing at the mark scheme they'd pre-approved, but it would still have been something of an unpleasant experience).
Oh, the reason for the golden mark was that anyone who spotted the connection clearly has a future in game design.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2013 Richard Bartle (firstname.lastname@example.org).