Miguel wrote� (SNIP) However, in the absence of concrete evidence and given the possibility that the students' behavior was unintentional I ask that you reconsider giving them a more difficult make-up. Here are my reasons (SNIP)
Although I am not aware of any cases where a university make-up exam has been legally challanged for being more difficult than a regular exam, I am certain that legal precedents already exist in the field of employment testing. However, there is even a more fundamental reason why I would not give a make-up that is more difficult than the regular exam. IMO, exams should be given exclusively to assess students' knowledge of the subject matter. (SNIP) I think that to use exams in a punitive fashion contributes to the development of test anxiety and so it is undesirable because you'll likely not be getting a true measure of students' knowledge. Aubyn writes� Most college teachers agree that educational testing should not be (and too often is) punitive, and I too dislike the practice of giving �more difficult� make-up exams, but I do disagree with a couple of points that Miguel is making above. First, I�m not so sure that employment testing and classroom testing are analogous for the point under discussion. To the extent that they are, there certainly are times when there are penalties for missing a scheduled employment test (for selection or promotion) � for example, in many instances (though I understand not in the ones Miguel has been involved in) the applicant simply misses out on the opportunity to be considered for the position or promotion � often far more punitive than having a course grade lowered by a half a letter or so. Second, in the case under discussion, the students missed a Final Examination, the time and date of which was clearly, publicly and repeatedly announced. I don�t think the teacher needs evidence � �concrete� or otherwise � to impose the usual consequence for missing an exam. While we have no way here of judging how intentional the student�s behavior was, it seems clear that the burden of proof lies with the student to show that they deserve some relief from the penalties for missing the exam. Third, one could argue (it is a hoary argument, but rather persuasive nevertheless I think) that allowing students, at will, to take exams late is the most punitive practice a teacher could choose � as it punishes all of the students who took the test on time, and thus had less time to prepare for it. How many of Melady�s students who took the exam on time would have done better had they had an extra week to get ready � especially after their other Finals were over). If teachers were so inclined (and had the permission of their institution) I suppose they could have an at will testing policy, and tell students that they could take exams whenever they felt like it � though this only pushes the problem into the future, as there would eventually have to be a deadline of some kind (6 months, 12 months, 10 years?) at which point one would be faced with the same challenge of how to handle deadline failures. Even in such a case, I think it would only be fair to use such a policy if it were announced in the syllabus at the beginning of the course, so that all students had an equal opportunity to make use of it. I don�t use the �harder make-up test� option myself just because I don�t feel like I have a fine enough control over item difficulty to implement it fairly � that is why I attach penalties to late exams taken without prior arrangement. I went through grades K-12 in an educational system that had almost no points or letter grades, and almost no punitive consequences for any academic behavior, and I think that is an ideal way to teach and learn. I deeply wish that higher education in general, and my institution in particular, functioned in the same way � but we do not. The punitive dimensions of college classrooms do not arise primarily from teacher-based policies and practices, but from the larger grade economy in which these classrooms are situated. Arbitrary, isolated exemptions from the consequences of student behavior do not (it seems to me) reduce the punitive nature of American college education, but simply redistribute the punitive consequences in ways that are usually less fair. I have occasional pangs of guilt for participating in the grade economy too, but as long as we do participate (as opposed to, say, actually guaranteeing every student an �A� on the first day of class regardless of student behavior during the term, or refusing to turn in any grade at all � I have considered both of these and have reasons for rejecting them) then I think the most fair thing we can do is make policies as clear as possible up front, and implement the policies as consistently as possible - while still being flexible enough to deal with the inevitable emergencies. **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
