THE CADRE, TUES., NOV.

_ KICKIN

"An unexamined University life is not worth living"— Xocrates. V Current criticisms of vat- ious aspects of University education, including the business of examjnations & evaluation, reflect a grow— ing awareness that it is getting to be high time th- at we considered changing the bath water in academic institutions. The more ext— reme positions even mainta- in that in the process the baby has also become too dirty and needs to be thro- wn out along with the bath water. However, it helps to remind ourselves that all babies ultimately get dirty so it may not be such a bad idea to stick with the one we have played with and nu— rtured for so long - and think more along the lines of giving it a good wash. From metaphor to model. A closer examination of the two prongs of evaluation as explicated by Cregier, nam- ely aS'a step in the learn- ing process and as a method of coercing and culling st— udents, suggests the need for some logical, linguis- tic and pSychological clar- ification. It is rather di- fficult to see how a posi— tive step in the learning process can at the same ti~ me be viewed as a negative method cf coercing and cul— ling students. Even if it does not violate the prin- ciple of identity, it is surely confusing. What the author is actually implying but not stating in the tit— le — is that evaluation based on coercive methods

(i.e. compulsory exams, etc.)

is not acceptable to him.

A minor — yet necessary di- stinction. Even then, it is not necessary to grant that

27. 1973 Page 8

G‘THE

H m =

if.

photo by CROMBIE

-prof.M.M.RAHMAN(psych.)

such "coercive methods" are inherrently wrong. But here the author has more than an edge sinCe we are playing

with a term that has negat- ive connotations. Neverthe— less, let me just point out that this is more an appar-

ent than a real vice. Rest— raints and constraints, pr— operly applied, can and do play a very positive role in the learning situation of mice, monkeys and men (and if it will drive the point home better, this is not a uniquely Skinnerian finding either). Furthermo- re, evaluation cannot bg a method of culling. To cull or not to cull is a post—‘ evaluative decision.

Having disagreed with the author on those three coun- ts, let me go on to disagr— eeing with him on yet anot— her count. Evaluation by definition, is a fixing ofr value or worth on something or someone. Academic insti— tutions, then have no bUSi- ness evaluating, since the value of a person is not contingent on academic per- formance. And this is not a mere fuss over a minor poi— nt, for I believe that most of the problems and disagr- eements derive from the co- nnotations of this term. , Since evaluation has to do with setting values — high, low, etc. — it could debase not just the educational process but also the indi— viduals who go through with it. So I would disagree th- at "evaluation" of any sort is a positive step in the learning process. But let me hasten to add, although I am running ahead of my story, that examinations & grades are such steps (and very important ones at that) in the learning process.

Furthermore, I suggest that since the’use of the term "evaluation"/has trapped us into endless debates, we get out of this semantic muddle by not using this value-laden term at all. Unless, of course, we can be mature enough to keep the word from becoming mas; ter of our thoughts. - Again, running ahead of my

istory, let me just add thatr

we can conceive of grading based on exams as a useful feedback device providing. for the student a profile of his strengths and weakfl’ esses. In turn, the student can Egg this self—knOwledge to find out for himself an appropriate place - maybe not in the sun — but certas inly in this world. A great deal ofrunecessary quibbli- ng can be saved by so con- ceiving of grades as appro— ximate "guides". More about

grades and their correlati--,

REP LY» T(

’ u

-,‘A

of hypothesisn statement has ; ly violated.

ate.r A useful. hypothesis mu& following crim terms used mu& uOus and clear Even if the d& not very preci st not be so

in meaning, Sm is in the te

tening, info . at these terms interpretation ms used must h referents, for exactly what m ved,to infer M 3. the terms .

\Value-laden, 1

atic, professL punitive, etc hypothesis-def pose, becomesc cular, and beg which it is on several possib answers. 4. a. thesis must be

_On this one cm

on to adult achievement etc.

later.v An opinion by anv other name (especially 'hvpothes- is') does not smell as swe- §§.My second major problem begins where Qregier's fir- st paragraph leaves off. The author states that he has "evolved three hypothe- ses", and goes on to elabo- rate these in the next thr- ee paragraphs. The point of objection here is the use of the term "hypotheses" to represent what really are the author's well—consider—

~ed opinions: thereby giving

the impression that the in— quiry into the problem is impartial, objective and

ese.opinions f fv as_hVDothes they ar assum. guiding the i lect the evi& his opinions. at does not. eat his cake. too — thereby tale. -Consulting e« idence) withm testable hypo sufficient - eks hard enom find what he' Now let's try the author ha in his "Odyss Just how bem bod of emoin The author fi motion of get brass tacks h ens up a clow dsts of opinb Ellul, etc. w

\ide may I pen

the,"evidence

‘Bakan,'(who b

based on the canons of log—.

ic and the scientific meth— od. On no account whatsoev- er can these so-called "hy— potheses" qualify as "hypo- thesis" — scientific or ot-

herwise. Every single rule .

ting your infi ed to York U a while ago) teresting hm a scholar li is also onef enchant criU psychology U well with p5 scars (whim aquired gofl“ traditional and evaluaty us make doub do all we Cg ch,psycholog this point: nded of a r? ychologist V diagnosed 51 chill as'one red a sever? 'complex (Pry "his school 9 "would he h? chill;withm§

«