Re: Concerned about grades

["Michael N. Monce" <mnmon@CONNCOLL.EDU>]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Dick Heckathorn wrote:

> Greetings,
> While teaching physics in high school in the 60's, I came across a study
 in The Physics Teacher that looked at why students were not taking physics.
 There were two main reasons. One was that previous science teachers had
 turned them off. The other was that physics teachers were too hard a grader.
 The first, I had no control over. The second I did.
>

        As a follow-up to this: I was influenced by Sheila Tobias' report
for The Research Corporation from a few years back wherein she made the
case that it is not so much the "harder" grading, but the competitive
environment created by using a bell curve grading scheme that is
detrimental to retaining science students.
        I moved to a straight scale grading scheme, modified by using the
example given in the book by a chem person at Harvard.  In this scheme,
points lost on an hourly exam can be made up on the final.  The grading
structure thus rewards learning over the course of the semester.  For the
instructor, this requires a segmented final to correspond to the material
on the hourly exams, and a little more book keeping that is easily done on
spread sheet.
        Grade inflation?  I've found I have to have a good range of
questions on the exams, from straight forward short answer to a
challenging problem that I would expect only the "A" student to get.  My
class grade averages now for 6 years of such grading are sitting right at
the C+ level.
        The best benefit is when I get to tell students that what their
neighbor got on an exam has no bearing on their grade; they are
responsible for their performance in the course, and they alone.  If they
screw up an hourly, they can redeem themselves if they take the
responsibility to learn the material they should have known in the first
case.  Some do, some don't.

                        Mike Monce
                        Connecticut College