grade uncertainty
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

27
(FIVE YEARS 10)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Howitz ◽  
Kate J. McKnelly ◽  
Renee Link

<p>Large, multi-section laboratory courses are particularly challenging when managing grading with as many as 35 teaching assistants (TAs). Traditional grading systems using point-based rubrics lead to significant variations in how individual TAs grade, which necessitates the use of curving across laboratory sections. Final grade uncertainty perpetuates student anxieties and disincentivizes a collaborative learning environment, so we adopted an alternative grading system, called specifications grading. In this system each student knows exactly what level of proficiency they must demonstrate to earn their desired course grade. Higher grades require demonstrating mastery of skills and content at defined higher levels. Each students’ grade is solely dependent on the work they produce rather than the performance of other students. We piloted specifications grading in the smaller, third quarter course of the lower division organic chemistry laboratory series held during a summer term. Open-ended questions were chosen to gather student and TA perceptions of the new grading system. TAs felt that the new grading system reduced the weekly grading time because it was less ambiguous. Responses from students about the nature of the grading system were mixed. Their perceptions indicate that initial buy-in and multiple reminders about the bigger picture of the grading system will be essential to the success of this grading system on a larger scale.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Howitz ◽  
Kate J. McKnelly ◽  
Renee Link

<p>Large, multi-section laboratory courses are particularly challenging when managing grading with as many as 35 teaching assistants (TAs). Traditional grading systems using point-based rubrics lead to significant variations in how individual TAs grade, which necessitates the use of curving across laboratory sections. Final grade uncertainty perpetuates student anxieties and disincentivizes a collaborative learning environment, so we adopted an alternative grading system, called specifications grading. In this system each student knows exactly what level of proficiency they must demonstrate to earn their desired course grade. Higher grades require demonstrating mastery of skills and content at defined higher levels. Each students’ grade is solely dependent on the work they produce rather than the performance of other students. We piloted specifications grading in the smaller, third quarter course of the lower division organic chemistry laboratory series held during a summer term. Open-ended questions were chosen to gather student and TA perceptions of the new grading system. TAs felt that the new grading system reduced the weekly grading time because it was less ambiguous. Responses from students about the nature of the grading system were mixed. Their perceptions indicate that initial buy-in and multiple reminders about the bigger picture of the grading system will be essential to the success of this grading system on a larger scale.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 2479-2493
Author(s):  
Kamyar Tolouei ◽  
Ehsan Moosavi ◽  
Amir Hossein Bangian Tabrizi ◽  
Peyman Afzal ◽  
Abbas Aghajani Bazzazi

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Howitz ◽  
Kate J. McKnelly ◽  
Renee Link

<p>Large, multi-section laboratory courses are particularly challenging when managing grading with as many as 35 teaching assistants (TAs). Traditional grading systems using point-based rubrics lead to significant variations in how individual TAs grade, which necessitates the use of curving across laboratory sections. Final grade uncertainty perpetuates student anxieties and disincentivizes a collaborative learning environment, so we adopted an alternative grading system, called specifications grading. In this system each student knows exactly what level of proficiency they must demonstrate to earn their desired course grade. Higher grades require demonstrating mastery of skills and content at defined higher levels. Each students’ grade is solely dependent on the work they produce rather than the performance of other students. We piloted specifications grading in the smaller, third quarter course of the lower division organic chemistry laboratory series held during a summer term. Open-ended questions were chosen to gather student and TA perceptions of the new grading system. TAs felt that the new grading system reduced the weekly grading time because it was less ambiguous. Responses from students about the nature of the grading system were mixed. Their perceptions indicate that initial buy-in and multiple reminders about the bigger picture of the grading system will be essential to the success of this grading system on a larger scale.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Howitz ◽  
Kate J. McKnelly ◽  
Renee Link

<p>Large, multi-section laboratory courses are particularly challenging when managing grading with as many as 35 teaching assistants (TAs). Traditional grading systems using point-based rubrics lead to significant variations in how individual TAs grade, which necessitates the use of curving across laboratory sections. Final grade uncertainty perpetuates student anxieties and disincentivizes a collaborative learning environment, so we adopted an alternative grading system, called specifications grading. In this system each student knows exactly what level of proficiency they must demonstrate to earn their desired course grade. Higher grades require demonstrating mastery of skills and content at defined higher levels. Each students’ grade is solely dependent on the work they produce rather than the performance of other students. We piloted specifications grading in the smaller, third quarter course of the lower division organic chemistry laboratory series held during a summer term. Open-ended questions were chosen to gather student and TA perceptions of the new grading system. TAs felt that the new grading system reduced the weekly grading time because it was less ambiguous. Responses from students about the nature of the grading system were mixed. Their perceptions indicate that initial buy-in and multiple reminders about the bigger picture of the grading system will be essential to the success of this grading system on a larger scale.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-284
Author(s):  
Pablo Koury Cherchenevski ◽  
João Felipe Coimbra Leite Costa ◽  
Ricardo Hundelshaussen Rubio

2019 ◽  
pp. 323-327
Author(s):  
Y.A. Sari ◽  
M. Kumral
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document