Richard A. Beldin, Ph.D. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: When my students asked me (as a class) to grade on a curve, I suggested the
: following alternative.
: "Place N chips in a can. Let them marked in the following way: 10%F, 20%D, 40%C,
: 20%B, 10%A. Let each student pick a chip and leave the class, certain of his/her
: grade."
: For some reason, nobody ever wanted to do that! :-)
Thank you! The whole problem with norm-referenced, as opposed to
criterion-referenced, grading or performance assessment is that it
assumes that you can know how many people did a good job, mediocre job,
bad job, etc. *before* any of them have done the job!
This is not to say that all forms of norm-referenced measurement are
inherently bad, but they're generally only useful for *diagnostic*
purposes. Knowing that a student is way behind his peers may give you
information on whether he has some problems that need to be dealt with.
But using norm-referenced measurements inappropriately leads to creating
"designated losers." The best possible position for an individual in a
norm-referenced assessment scheme is to be an achiever among a bunch of
slackers; it's a better position than being an achiever among a bunch of
other achievers.
