When I do the grading where students have to do "all of the below" to make a
grade, I many times put in some work such as papers, reports, or
presentations where a student has to demonstrate an ability to apply
concepts. In that category, each student has to complete a certain number
of those to my satisfaction to meet the competency. Any of the categories
can demonstrate the ability to perform rudimentary processes as well as to
demonstrate an understanding of concepts.
Martha
-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu>
To: Martha Haehl <haehl@KCMETRO.CC.MO.US>
Cc: Bret Taylor <bret@IAG.NET>; mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
<mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu>
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MATHEDCC] Philosophical discussion
>Martha:
>
>But doesn't this play directly to the objection previously raised: that a
>student can conscientiously complete all of these objective requirements
>without really developing any deep understanding of the material? It's
>almost counterintuitive, but I've seen it, and it's not especially rare.
>
>I am reminded of an event in Michner's _The Fires of Spring_, in which
>Michner's persona literata was a grader for a math professor. The
>professor was sorting the test papers with comments of "this person will
>never make it" and "this person understands it," or words to that effect.
>
>Untenable, but tempting, sometimes.
>
>John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu> The equation is the final arbiter.
>Assistant Professor, Mathematics --Werner Heisenberg
>Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final
arbiter.
>4303 Diamond Head Road --Bill Walton
>Honolulu HI 96816 History is the final arbiter.
>(808) 734-9371 --Edward Gibbon
>
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Martha Haehl wrote:
>
>> I've put this out here before, but here is a grading model that can make
all
>> kinds of out-of-class-work count substantially without inflating the
grade.
>> Not all points have to be put in the same basket.
>>
>> To make an "A" you must do ALL of the following:
>> 1. Make 90% or higher average on tests and quizzes.
>> 2. Complete all of your journals to the specifications required by the
>> instructor.
>> 3. Make 90% or higher on graded group work.
>>
>> To make a "B" .........
>> etc.
>>
>> You can make provisions for some averaging.
>>
>> Another model is to put all points in the same basket, but put in a
policy
>> that a student can make no more than one letter grade higher than the
grade
>> average on tests and quizzes.
>>
>> Martha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John M. Flanigan <johnf@HAWAII.EDU>
>> To: Bret Taylor <bret@IAG.NET>
>> Cc: mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu <mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 10:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MATHEDCC] Philosophical discussion
>>
>>
>> >Sure. I think everyone I know has noticed it, dispises it--and uses it.
We
>> >can tell, can't we?, to a reasonable degree, by individual conferencing,
>> >whether a student understands the material. But we can't assign the
>> >required numeric grades on that basis; for that, we have to have numbers
>> >that can be defended in court--whether or not they really indicate
>> >learning. I have sat on grievance committees where such numbers were
held
>> >in very high esteem. I certainly wouldn't want to be caught in that
>> >situation without the numbers to "justify" the grade I gave. My own best
>> >judgment wouldn't suffice.
>> >
>> >I don't really think it's a "philosophy" so much as a self-defense
>> >mechanism.
>> >
>> >John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu> The equation is the final
arbiter.
>> >Assistant Professor, Mathematics --Werner Heisenberg
>> >Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final
>> arbiter.
>> >4303 Diamond Head Road --Bill Walton
>> >Honolulu HI 96816 History is the final arbiter.
>> >(808) 734-9371 --Edward Gibbon
>> >
>> >On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Bret Taylor wrote:
>> >
>> >> A few faculty memebers were sitting around our lounge late one
afternoon
>> >> waiting to either go home or to a night class and we started waxing
>> >> philosophical. (I guess we are administrators at heart. :-) )
>> >>
>> >> We came up with two observations.
>> >>
>> >> 1. It seems like there is more and more prevalent a philosophy that a
>> >> student should be able to take one of two paths in order to pass a
class:
>> >> learn the material or "jump through hoops." By the latter I mean do
work
>> >> that is related to the course but not necessarily indicative of
learning
>> the
>> >> material. Examples: Keep a homework notebook; class attendance; time
>> spent
>> >> in the computer lab; time spent in the tutorial center; correct exams
and
>> >> turn them back in. All of those activities *should* increase
learning,
>> but
>> >> do not guarantee an increase. But, it seems like there is more and
more
>> >> prevalent a philosophy "in education" that those activities should
count
>> a
>> >> larger and larger percent of a grade.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Colleges tend to grade "success" by asking, "Did the student pass
>> this
>> >> course?" rather than by asking, "Is the student prepared to pass the
next
>> >> course?" (When our school presents data on "student success" it is
>> always
>> >> measured in grades in a particular course. Example: We had a 55%
>> success
>> >> rate in Algebra.)
>> >>
>> >> Anybody else notice either of these phenomena?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
****************************************************************************
>> >> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>> >> * To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu
>> *
>> >> * In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc
>> *
>> >> * Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>> >> * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
>> *
>> >>
>>
****************************************************************************
>> >>
>> >
>>
>***************************************************************************
>> *
>> >* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>> >* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu
>> *
>> >* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc
>> *
>> >* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>> >* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
>> *
>>
>***************************************************************************
>> *
>> >
>>
>>
****************************************************************************
>> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>> * To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu
*
>> * In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc
*
>> * Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>> * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
*
>>
****************************************************************************
>>
>
>
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************