Absolute vs. Relative Grading System: Pros, Cons, and Experiences

[kuruman]

I mean the second- for example, each semester we have approximately 200 students enrolled in Intro Physics I (PHY 221 is the course number). PHY 221 usually has 4 independent sections taught at different days and times to accommodate the various scheduling requirements of students. The lecture component is independently taught by different instructors.

This also is the situation for Physics 2 (PHY 222), and calculus-based physics (PHY 241 and PHY 242).

For all of these "Gen-Ed" STEM courses, instructors are given a list of topics to be covered by our State's Education Department, but the list is fuzzy- there are (say) 15 different topics and each instructor is required to cover at least 80% of those topics. Consequently, each section will cover (somewhat) different topics in (somewhat) different order. As a specific example, in my Physics 2 courses I include a lecture on eyes and vision (and optical illusions!) within the "optics" sequence.

That's an interesting way of doing things. Are the labs that go with each section also separate?

If I were you department chair, I would ask the department Curriculum Committee to review the material taught in all multiple-course sections and come up with a mandatory list of topics to be covered in all lecture sections and exams and a second, elective list to be covered in class for enrichment but not on exams at the discretion of the lecturer. In other words, sharpen the fuzziness in the State's Education Department list.

This would be a guarantee to the client departments, e.g. engineering, that their students will acquire the physics background that they expect them to have in their engineering classes. It would also be a guarantee to the students that they will be exposed to and be given the opportunity to learn the same material no matter whose section they enroll in.

Disclaimer
Don't offer this suggestion to your department Chair unless you are ready to be saddled with the task.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's an interesting way of doing things. Are the labs that go with each section also separate?

Yes- in our program, the labs are entirely separate- separate instructors, separate grading, no correlation between enrollment in a particular a lecture section and a particular lab section (which causes me problems when trying to set up small groups).

If I were you department chair, I would ask the department Curriculum Committee to review the material taught in all multiple-course sections and come up with a mandatory list of topics to be covered in all lecture sections and exams and a second, elective list to be covered in class for enrichment but not on exams at the discretion of the lecturer. In other words, sharpen the fuzziness in the State's Education Department list.

I am 100% opposed to this. I take academic freedom seriously; it is a 'hill I am willing to die on'.

 

[symbolipoint]

If I were you department chair, I would ask the department Curriculum Committee to review the material taught in all multiple-course sections and come up with a mandatory list of topics to be covered in all lecture sections and exams and a second, elective list to be covered in class for enrichment but not on exams at the discretion of the lecturer. In other words, sharpen the fuzziness in the State's Education Department list.

Andy Resnick responded with:
"I am 100% opposed to this. I take academic freedom seriously; it is a 'hill I am willing to die on'."


kuruman has an excellent point. The goal is standardization and courses meeting requirements to other courses.

 

[kuruman]

Yes- in our program, the labs are entirely separate- separate instructors, separate grading, no correlation between enrollment in a particular a lecture section and a particular lab section (which causes me problems when trying to set up small groups).

When I taught at my institution labs were also separate from the lecture. As the course lecturer, at the beginning of the semester, I handed a schedule of experiments to the lab coordinator to ensure that labs were in synch with the lectures. How do you achieve synchronization when several lecturers potentially follow differently sequenced syllabi?

Suppose a lecturer is enamored with the idea of starting mechanics with momentum and $F=\dfrac{dp}{dt}$ before going into kinematics as proposed a couple of decades ago. Would separate labs have to be set up in order not to interfere with this person's academic freedom?

I am 100% opposed to this. I take academic freedom seriously; it is a 'hill I am willing to die on'.

I am also 100% for academic freedom and take it seriously. If you are OK with the your State's Education Department mandating that you should teach 80% of a list of topics, leaving the rest to your discretion, then so be it. My overriding concern is the delivery a course of uniform quality to all students. Uniformity is achieved, in my opinion, when a department sits together and agrees at least on a mechanism, if not a syllabus, for achieving uniformity from semester to semester.

That said, I also believe that departments settle down at a local potential minimum, as far as doing things is concerned, that takes into consideration the reality of their environment and constraints. My department settled down at a different minimum from yours. I will say no more.

 

[vela]

When I taught at my institution labs were also separate from the lecture. As the course lecturer, at the beginning of the semester, I handed a schedule of experiments to the lab coordinator to ensure that labs were in synch with the lectures. How do you achieve synchronization when several lecturers potentially follow differently sequenced syllabi?

Is synchronization that important?

I am also 100% for academic freedom and take it seriously. If you are OK with the your State's Education Department mandating that you should teach 80% of a list of topics, leaving the rest to your discretion, then so be it. My overriding concern is the delivery a course of uniform quality to all students. Uniformity is achieved, in my opinion, when a department sits together and agrees at least on a mechanism, if not a syllabus, for achieving uniformity from semester to semester.

For each course here, we have a course outline of record (COR), which lists the topics that should be covered. Other schools can refer to the COR to determine whether it's willing to accept the course for transfer.

The department faculty decide what topics should be included on the COR in part to ensure the course will be accepted for credit at most universities the students transfer to.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andy Resnick responded with:
"I am 100% opposed to this. I take academic freedom seriously; it is a 'hill I am willing to die on'."


kuruman has an excellent point. The goal is standardization and courses meeting requirements to other courses.

The courses already meet requirements, so what's the real motivation for "standardization"? See my post #13.

 

[Andy Resnick]

When I taught at my institution labs were also separate from the lecture. As the course lecturer, at the beginning of the semester, I handed a schedule of experiments to the lab coordinator to ensure that labs were in synch with the lectures. How do you achieve synchronization when several lecturers potentially follow differently sequenced syllabi?

I don't. Intro labs are not experiments and they don't need support from lectures. Students have never complained to me (either in person or via anonymous 'customer satisfaction surveys' that it's a problem.

Suppose a lecturer is enamored with the idea of starting mechanics with momentum and $F=\dfrac{dp}{dt}$ before going into kinematics as proposed a couple of decades ago. Would separate labs have to be set up in order not to interfere with this person's academic freedom?

Funny you mention this, I have been seriously considering ways to start PHY I with 'energy'. The bigger obstacle is the lack of a textbook. Again, I'm not constrained to follow the intro labs.

I am also 100% for academic freedom and take it seriously. If you are OK with the your State's Education Department mandating that you should teach 80% of a list of topics, leaving the rest to your discretion, then so be it. My overriding concern is the delivery a course of uniform quality to all students. Uniformity is achieved, in my opinion, when a department sits together and agrees at least on a mechanism, if not a syllabus, for achieving uniformity from semester to semester.

Ah ha- there it is: "quality": the assumption that other instructors aren't teaching the material to *your* satisfaction.

What is the real reason you want uniformity? Shall I be forced to teach kinematic equations for 3 weeks instead of 1.5? Are students not individuals, with individual career goals and interests? Why not just provide every instructor the same set of powerpoint slides and make everyone read from those?

 

[Fewmet]

In my opinion a novice instructor needs to grade on a curve and an experienced instructor can and should grade on an absolute scale.

(Qualifier: My first 40 years of teaching high school physics and chemistry was at a private high school that did not give grades on report cards. My experience differs substantially from the mainstream.)

The quoted opinion resonates for me at first glance. Presumably the experienced instructor has taught the material enough times to be confident that the explanation for a poor grade is weak student skill, preparation or effort, not inadequate teaching.

On reflection, I am less sure that stands up. As others have pointed out, the skill set and aptitude of any group of students can vary substantially, both within any group and on the whole over time. So the experience of the experienced teacher might well not prepare him or her to support the current enrollment as well as it did five years before.

Personally, I find grades undermining of learning in most instances but see little hope of the massive changes needed to address the problem on a broad scale. Still, I think it is valuable to enter any discussion about grading with a clear sense of what a grade means and what its intended function is.

I see a course in terms of a set of learning goals. When I assess a student, I am interested in how well each of those goals have been attained. It seems reasonably straightforward to assign a relatively objective value to attainment of a single goal. I find aggregating all the assigned values from a marking period to give one meaningful value much more suspect. What does a B- tell you about how well a student met, say, 30 learning goals? A full command of 24 of the goals and no grasp of the others? Excellent understanding of the more concrete goals and little of more abstract ones?

Perhaps more to the point, does the overall grade fulfill its intended use, whether that is to convey student accomplishment, qualify for scholarship, allow moving on to the next level, suitability for employment or anything else?