I've lost the threaded subject here at work, but Tina mentioned the
issue of students averaging a 57 on tests, and this was mentioned
again as being not uncommon.
What I have seen is that you can actually use this to your advantage.
First, grade on a curve. When I was in undergraduate school, my
professors told us up front that they expected an average student to
score only 50 or below on tests, but that did not mean that the
average student failed the tests. A similar situation prevailed in
grad school.
Among the other students at the college/university, this became an
odd mark of respect. It was obvious that the physics students were
'treated differently' even though in truth it was only cosmetic. We
were perceived as super-smart because we were in a subject for which
getting it only "half right" was a sign of intelligence. Of course,
the real situation in the physics dept was not so warped as it was
perceived from outside. But getting the outside respect was not so
bad.
If you can get these students to not freak at a 57, you may be able
to get them to see it as a badge of honor.
------------------------
And on another subject, no one has mentioned the venerable and
thoroughly frightening oral exam. Done improperly, one can pretty
much turn even stable students suicidal. Done well, I think it is a
great idea.
First and foremost, it may not work well for large classrooms, but I
think this is primarily due to the teacher being unwilling to take
the time. And I admit, a lot of students begrudge the fact they even
have to go to class, much less attend a private session outside of
class. OTOH, an oral exam can be as short as you want really,
although short ones may not test the comprehensiveness of what you
have taught over time. And of course, it does not have to replace the
traditional written tests completely (nor should it probably)
To overcome students' fears, start orals early and make them simple
so they will see that it's not about embarrassing the hell out of
them in the most public way possible. Then build up. Make them
conversational and give-and-take. Done well, you can find out what
you want to know and they will hardly know you are doing it. Plus, I
learned something really concise in every oral exam I ever took.
You can a) have intimate interaction with each student, b) find a way
to make -their- specific scientific interest a grading opportunity,
c) tailor-make each exam to match what you perceive as the student's
strength or weakness, d) prove to them they won't die from the
experience (and by extension many other experiences), e) strengthen
your communication skills, f) possibly learn something from the
student (!), g) give them an even better reason to be proud than
getting that 57, h) I could go on.
After being in school and now working, I found that the oral exam is
the closest thing to a real work experience anyway. At work, there
are never multiple choice tests, never true-false tests, never
concisely defined algebraic problems with answers in the back of the
book. Sometimes there's the equivalent of an essay test. But far and
away, there are the chalkboard stints, watercooler conversations,
weekly meeting-room discussions, and hallway give-and-take sessions
that are mostly reminiscent of oral exams. An when you walk away from
one, you are really sensitive to what your own weaknesses are - what
to go bone up on is obvious, because you want to do well at the next
water-cooler... er, oral exam.
Now, I'm not naive, sounds like Tina doesn't have a fart's chance in
the wind of doing this at an Iowa community college. But, if she's
going to go out, she can at least do so with a lot of attention ("can
you believe it, she dared to give an ORAL EXAM before we had to fire
her!").