Paul:
Perhaps I should have worded it better. I agree with your characterization
of the purpose of assessment. When I worded it that way, I was trying to
say that students need to be given the opportunity to give their best
possible performance, not a skew toward grade inflation, but a situation
wherein they cannot show up later and say, "the noise was bad," or "I
didn't have enough time." An example might be that in my Intro classes,
students are allowed to replace one exam grade with a retake of that same
exam. I don't believe in dropping the lowest grade, because I believe it
implies that not all the information is important (i.e., to earn an A, one
should have to master all the material). This gives students a chance to
show me what they can do. Moreover, it gives them the perception of greater
control over their own grades, which students may often be far too willing
to claim the instructor has (e.g., "why'd you give me this grade?"). My
exams are actually in-class, and there are time constraints (for some of
the same reasons Jim so cogently enumerates in his post), but I avoid
"speed tests." (I may be overcompensating, since I was always that pain in
the butt who finished the exam first in every class, whether I made an A or
a C!).
Anyway, this is a good thread...
David W.
At 09:48 AM 1/11/01 -0600, Paul Smith wrote:
>David Wasieleski wrote:
> > Finally, to anticipate the questions of some list members
> > (and you know who you are), I actually believe that as much as possible,
> > students should not be overly burdened by time contraints on exams, and
>noise
> > issues, etc. That is, exams and assignments should be given in an
>atmosphere
> > that maximizes the students' chances of giving their optimal performance.
>
> I'm fairly certain that I agree with you on this in practice, but I
>would have worded it differently. It seems to me that the goal isn't to
>"maximize students' chances of giving their optimal performance", but rather
>to provide circumstances that give the best opportunity for students to
>demonstrate what they do _and do not_ know (and what they are and are not
>able to do). In other words, if exams and assignments are to have diagnostic
>power, they have to provide opportunity for failure where that is the
>expected outcome for a particular student in light of that student's
>knowledge/ability.
>
> In practice, my exams probably look quite a bit like yours. Almost
>everything I require in my classes is open-book/open-note/takehome, and
>involves integrating responses into reports and papers (as opposed to simply
>figuring equations and giving short answers). I also generally allow
>students to revise work, which leaves me having to make subjective judgments
>about the degree to which the revised work reflects independent
>understanding (as opposed to simply responding to my feedback in such a way
>that I was really the one providing the answer). I don't believe that my
>subjective judgments of a student's ability are or should be irrelevant to
>that student's progress in my course and in the program, so this doesn't
>really bother me (though of course it bothers some of the students who fail
>my courses...!).
>
>Paul Smith
>Alverno College
>Milwaukee
David T. Wasieleski, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
229-333-5620
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
"Why there is no perfect place
Yes I know that it's true
I'm just learning how to smile
That's not easy to do..."
--Everclear
"Learning How to Smile"
