NOT typical of my students. I find that our students, maybe because
they are in California and it's a very competitive job market and high
cost of living around here, are MORE likely to do as much as they can
to maximize their grades. They are willing to do inordinate amounts of
extra work to earn a higher mastery grade. The majority are far more
likely to get by on grit and willpower to make up for what they might
lack in intellectual ability and I was thinking that was troublesome.
But maybe I'd better shut up and be happy I have students willing to
bust their buns for mastery.
Annette
Quoting Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I've noted over the past few years that more students in my
Introductory Behavior Analysis course are settling for B's - not even
attempting to get an A.
Since I use a unit/mastery system this can be quantified:
The most common (generally easiest) way to get a grade of B is to
complete all eleven test units and three (out of six) projects.
Therefore, handing in a report on the fourth project is a good proxy
for attempting an A.
When I started teaching this way 35 years ago the model course grade was A.
Over the past decade or so the mode has shifted down to B.
This does NOT seem to be due to a poorer level of student performance;
they do just as well on the work that they attempt -- they just don't
attempt as much.
I've attached a graph of the number of students handing in a report on
the fourth course project over the past five years (I'm not sure if
this listserv will allow attachments, so it's also available on my Web
site at http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/AttemptingA.pdf).
You can see that the number of students attempting an A has gone down
from about 18 (section size is about 25) five years ago to 7 this
semester. There's the variability one would expect from this sample
size, but the trend seems compelling.
The text, Lab Manual and course requirements have not changed over this
period.
Therefore, the change is in either my behavior or that of my students.
Comments?
--
The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that
people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
