In the UK they claimed that girls did worse on one-off exams and so the one-off exams structure favoured boys. When course had more graded coursework, girls did better.
So that was the justification used to switching to a less impactful final exam.
No idea how true that is.
We were also told learning a phonetic alphabet was better for young children learning to read than using the old ABC system.
As far as I have heard, that turned out to be based on one person's fantasy and zero evidence and has actually had negative impact on children learning to read.
The UK has a real problem with pseudoscientific nonsense invading the education system.
To my knowledge they still teach about audio/visual/kinetic learners and how you should structure the way you learn around which one you are. This has been debunked for decades.
> The UK has a real problem with pseudoscientific nonsense invading the education system.
Not just the UK, pedagogy/education is a very soft science, along with any other field that revolves around human behavior (psychology, sociology, etc...).
Using AIs in experiments and studies will be an improvement even if they do not accurately reflect human behavior, just because you don't need a harm review and you can repeat your experiments multiple times under different variables.
So that was the justification used to switching to a less impactful final exam.
No idea how true that is.
We were also told learning a phonetic alphabet was better for young children learning to read than using the old ABC system.
As far as I have heard, that turned out to be based on one person's fantasy and zero evidence and has actually had negative impact on children learning to read.