Mary, I'm not sure how this one designated account is any different from the Guest account except for the fact that the restrictions on the Guest account are hardcoded.
Itamar Tzadok
Posts made by Itamar Tzadok
It's probably the same problem reported by Joseph at Links Display bug in the Documentation wiki. When you collapse the TOC, the 'show' link (and the title) is covered by the span tag of the first heading and so you can't click it.
The point is that the answer to Matt's question
Otherwise, how would it be any different from trial and error?
is that it is no different from trial and error because learning is all about trial and error. The crux of the matter is that where there is a possibility of error, there must be a criterion to determine when a trial ends with error. The problem with the convention of skilled, experienced teaching practitioners is that it allows for not providing a clear consistent criterion on grounds that the expert teacher can just tell what's correct and what's an error by virtue of his/her experience and expertise. The problem with that is not that it's necessarily false but that it can be easily abused and that it is abused. If you take the time to build a well defined problem domain for the learning, automated assessment is likely to be more effective than human assessment. But who has the time?
So, I'm arguing that an effective mastery learning curriculum requires skilled, experienced teaching practitioners - or in some cases, trained, experienced teaching assistants, or even experienced, trained learners themselves (as demonstrated in peer-review writing programmes) - to provide effective formative assessment/instructional scaffolding to help learners. Otherwise, how would it be any different from trial and error?
A possible problem with this argument is that it does not specify the criterion for being a skilled, experienced teaching practitioner and thus it can be charged as falling into social conventionalism rather than social constructivism. The question always remains who assesses the masters who assess the apprentices.
Expert domains are full with Winograd Schemas which non-expert humans fail miserably to disambiguate until they have been sufficiently initiated which in turn is determined by the ability to pass a final assessment by guessing correctly 70-80% of the distinctions instructed by the expert. The real world domain is one domain that people experience on a daily basis from day one. Given that more than 70% of the news items that cover demonstrations show violence on part of the demonstrators, and that there are significantly less reports of violence by councilpersons in council meetings, people are likely (if not conditioned) to guess that councilpersons fear violence and demonstrators advocate violence. Here the "expert" is simply mass media.
Both computers and humans can at best guess the intention of their interlocutor, be that a computer or a human. This is no less evident in the case of humans, considering the fact that humans are easily inclined to think that computers express feelings and thoughts when the appearance of these computers is made to look human and generate human gestures.
What's a non-pseudo-journal functionality and what makes it streamlined in a way that cannot be emulated in the database and dataform modules?