|
||
|
||
September 20, 2005 |
||
|
||
|
||
September 20, 2005 |
||
Guest Opinion: Is our gradign policy broken? |
||||
|
I would like to initiate a discussion of grading on this campus. I am a faculty member in the Department of Geology and Geophysics and really enjoy teaching at UAF. I like preparing lectures. I look forward to “performing” for the students in lecture. I like writing problem sets and exams. I even like grading those exams and calculating grades to multiple decimal points. I like everything about my job EXCEPT when that final grade sheet comes around and I have to take my multi-decimal place grades and write down A, B, C, D or F. Assigning these little letters causes me as much agony, soul searching and guilt as anything I do in my job. Why do I feel this way? I don’t know but it might have something to do with having to reduce a student’s performance to one of only five letters. To me, this system seems too restrictive and simplistic and not very accurate. I would like more options for assigning grades! Right now, with only four passing grades, my entire grading exercise comes down to where I draw a few lines on my grade sheet (the A/B line, etc.) If student grades clustered into groups, my life would be easy, but grades don’t usually do that. Lets face it; the B category has a wide range, from almost an A (4.0) to almost a C (2.0). Did these two students do the same quality of work? Of course not, but I find myself having to give them the same grade (and having to live with guilt). I would like a system where the grade I assign more accurately reflects the performance of the student. One system is the use of half-grades (3.5, 2.5, 1.5, 0.5). This is a minor change and has the advantage of giving the instructor more choices in grading (more precision). I suppose that a disadvantage would be that some students who would have gotten a B under the current system might now get a 2.5. Of course an equal number of students who would have gotten a C, would presumably also get a 2.5, so I do not see this as a problem. In this system, we would get rid of A, B, C, D, F all together, and just use a number grade (4.0, 3.5, 3.0, etc.). A second option would be to reinstate the plus-minus system. These additions to the grade could count. For example an A- would be a 3.7, a B+ would be a 3.3, etc., creating a full spectrum of grades. By the way, I am not for any system that gives grades greater than A (4.0) as this just leads to grade inflation. Years ago, we had a plus-minus system that could be used, but did not enter into GPAs. Instructors could use these “feel good” plusses and minuses to "motivate" students, but I wonder about this motivation and did not like using them. If you get a B+, what is that saying? “Well, you almost got an A, but tough luck”? If you got a B- does this say “You almost got a C, so you should count your blessings”? Neither of these seems to be very “motivational” and seem more like consolation prizes. If we had plus-minus grades, I would prefer them to mean something. Should we keep things the way they are, add half grades (3.5, 2.5, 1.5), add plus and minus that mean something (A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, etc.) or plus and minus that don’t show up in GPAs, but are used as motivators? My goal is for us to have a system whereby a student’s performance in class is accurately (and precisely) reflected in the grade he or she receives. I encourage students and faculty to discuss this. Talk to your ASUAF representatives or faculty senators or email me at fysenat@uaf.edu. Let’s move UAF’s grading policy into the 21st century! |
||||
Sun Star Newspaper • P.O. Box 756640 • Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
fystar@uaf.edu • editorial (907) 474-6039 • advertising (907) 474-7540
