Now I think that the first can be, perahps is, pernicious, but that is a complex and separate issue.
The second is pernicious with no redeeming features, as are most measuresd instistuted for thecontrol of the labor force and increasing management flexibility.
Carrol
cqmv at pdx.edu wrote:
>
> Quoting Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>:
>
> > I was in our meeting yesterday about a new gen ed, and we just
> > can't have any "objectives" that are not assessable, so this means they have
> > to be framed in terms that render them "assessable," and this actually
> > alters the content and direction of the goals. I can't see what about it is
> > *not* pernicious.
>
> What is the point of having a student learning objective that cannot
> be assessed? I've been teaching for about 20 years now, and I
> consider it my responsibility to provide students with explicit
> learning objectives and let them know how I will evaluate their
> learning. Is it pernicious to claim that learning can be measured?
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk