Re: adjusting marks
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! :-) Generic wrote: My wife wants to adjust marks for a course she is marking. Does someone have a formula or something for using a bell curve to move them up or down? I have done this sort of thing about 15 years ago, but I can't remember any of it! --
Re: grading on the curve
In article 83umq6$75s$[EMAIL PROTECTED], a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article 83ugke$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22 Dec 1999 14:47:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote: Actually, I see where I might want to be more arbitrary that just changing a cutoff. How do you reward someone who is really trying hard, vs. someone who is smart but is blowing it off? Why should you? The grade should be on knowledge and the ability to use it, not on effort. If somebody is born with the knowledge, he deserves the grade and credit. If someone works full time and cannot do it, he deserves to fail. Hm, just because a student is born with the knowledge, he/she should deserve the grade and credit although he/she didn't do well in the class??? What is the purpose of a grade? The legitimate purposes are to tell the world what the student knows and can do, and to advise the student on the same matter. One can have the latter without the former; I believe in comprehensive examinations to provide information to others. I respect students who try hard and give their best. I have no respect for smart students who don't live up to their talents. If a student works full time and still can't do it, I'll never ever fail him/her. To me, the most important thing is that you give your best. This might be from the standpoint of socialist ethics, but not from the standpoint of education. Especially if grades are not public knowledge, one is doing a service by failing a student who is unable to grasp the material. The current system is too much of pass them up the line, adjusting to the level of those in the classroom, and reducing the level of the education received by almost everyone. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Re: grading on the curve
Herman Rubin wrote: In article 83umq6$75s$[EMAIL PROTECTED], a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article 83ugke$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22 Dec 1999 14:47:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote: Actually, I see where I might want to be more arbitrary that just changing a cutoff. How do you reward someone who is really trying hard, vs. someone who is smart but is blowing it off? Why should you? The grade should be on knowledge and the ability to use it, not on effort. If somebody is born with the knowledge, he deserves the grade and credit. If someone works full time and cannot do it, he deserves to fail. Hm, just because a student is born with the knowledge, he/she should deserve the grade and credit although he/she didn't do well in the class??? What is the purpose of a grade? The legitimate purposes are to tell the world what the student knows and can do, and to advise the student on the same matter. One can have the latter without the former; I believe in comprehensive examinations to provide information to others. Your comment suggests that our primary job as educators is to rank the students. I disagree. Our primary job to educate the students. The latter purpose (advising) is indeed legitimate. The former (tell the world what they know) is what we use in our current educational system, and its value as a predictive tool is questionable. In the case of the student who slacks off and gets an "A", the predictive use of the "A" is highly questionable. A future employer might see the "A" as indicative of diligence, hard work, when such is clearly not the case. If the student already knows the material and slacks off through my class, I would be happy to tell the world that this student is not someone you want (to hire, to be in your class, to work with). My advice to such a student would be not to take my class, especially if their thought is to receive an easy "A". Related to this discussion is the well-documented low predictive ability of SAT scores. Use of such tools (grades, SAT scores) that have low predictive ability to make decisions that affect individuals' lives amounts to little more than a lottery, mentioned previously in this discussion group by Eric Bohlman. There have been at least three empirical examples presented in the current discussion that suggest that the use of ranking is detrimental - one my example about Texas Instruments, another a study on how ranking stifled creativity in art students (see Steve Simon's post), a third mentioned in Eric Bohlman's post. What empirical evidence is there to the contrary? I respect students who try hard and give their best. I have no respect for smart students who don't live up to their talents. If a student works full time and still can't do it, I'll never ever fail him/her. To me, the most important thing is that you give your best. This might be from the standpoint of socialist ethics, but not from the standpoint of education. Especially if grades are not public knowledge, one is doing a service by failing a student who is unable to grasp the material. Better yet, such a student should be properly advised. Peter
Re: grading on the curve
it is one thing to try to accurately assess and indicate what someone knows or can do, this is not too difficult to accomplish ... but it is quite another thing to give a grade .. which is a VALUE judgement as to the "worth" of a performance ... while we have decent tools to indicate the former, it is apparent that society still has not quite figured out about WHAT the latter should represent ... level of capability? current performance? effort? potential? mixture? this is why grading is sort of a crap shoot ... since there really are NO clear rules and definitions ... then this translates into unclear procedures for doing so in real practice ... and, college catalogs don't help ... have a look at where grades are discussed and see if that helps much i doubt it == dennis roberts, penn state university educational psychology, 8148632401 http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/droberts.htm
Re: adjusting marks
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.
No Subject
unsubscribe
Re: adjusting marks
I also want to add a bit about my predjudices. In my seventeen years in industry, I rarely heard of anyone getting praise for "trying". The emphasis was on "results", even at the cost of some formal policies. However, in the twelve years I spent in academia, both before and after my industrial work, I have heard of getting rewarded for "effort". Somehow, I think there is a correlation. Teachers don't get rewarded for results, but for effort. Maybe that's why we consider rewarding students in the same way. Educational institutions have not come to grips with measuring the effectiveness of teachers. It's about time we did!
Adjusting marks (Evaluating effectiveness of teachers)
Richard, You posting should results in a number of opions regarding the evaluation of teachers. I spend 30+ years in education as well as working in industry for 30 years. Much of my educational time was spend while working in industry and teaching at a local university. I have had many discussions with regard to 'evaluation of teachers.' As a classroom teacher, department chairman and principal of a senior high school I was continually faced with this problem. I had to evaluate teachers in all subject areas but for continued emplyment and for permanent tenure. It ain't easy. I was with a major corportation for many years and as a plant manager I had to evaluate, promote, give raises, suggest for bonus, and terminate many workers from the entry level to middle management. It is easier than evaluating teachers. I'm very interested to see what your post will stir up. Recently there was quite a discussion of student evaluation of teachers. Enjoy the Holiday Season Dr. Robert C. Knodt 4949 Samish Way, #31 Bellingham, WA 98226 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
