Topic: Bang Your Head on Your Desk - the thread of teaching despair!

[dismalist]

I don't think I'd let students who have a B- or higher in the class have the re-write option -- regardless of the grade they got on their paper -- because it probably wouldn't be of significant help. But I think that a student who has a C or lower in the class AND who received a C or lower on their paper, could potentially improve their class grade by rewriting their paper. I have to give this more thought.

I've never understood the logic of this (so please explain it me).  Why are the students who are doing well less deserving of the opportunity to improve?

Desire is understandable. If the lower performers get an extra chance, the higher performers need an extra chance to maintain distance. Allowing retakes, do-overs, improvement opportunities, and so on, just fuels the arms race.

Therefore, stop the arms race!

[downer]

LOL that's one way of looking at it. Not my way. I'd allow rewrites if I had the time to look at them. Students learn from the process.

[dismalist]

LOL that's one way of looking at it. Not my way. I'd allow rewrites if I had the time to look at them. Students learn from the process.

Absolutely! The trick is knowing when to stop.

[FishProf]

Desire is understandable. If the lower performers get an extra chance, the higher performers need an extra chance to maintain distance. Allowing retakes, do-overs, improvement opportunities, and so on, just fuels the arms race.

Therefore, stop the arms race!

I'd be leery of any opportunity that allows the lower performing a chance to surpass the higher performing by dint of extra opportunity.

If Timmy earns a C and Stacy gets a B-, it seems grossly unfair that Timmy gets to rewrite and earn a B while Stacy just has to live with her mediocrity.

In my experience, the few who do rewrite isn't much of an additional burden, but SPADFY.

[Langue_doc]

I allow rewrites on essays. Essays have to demonstrate that they have been revised and not just "touched up". I use two computers to grade these so that I can compare the original essays with the revised ones.

[mythbuster]

I would allow rewrites for all, but limit how much they can improve.  I might say rewrite for a possible improvement of 1 full grade (eg. from C+ to B+ max). With this, most of the A- kids will skip it. This is also a way of rewarding those who put in a good effort the first time.

I also might include a calculation of how this potential change would impact the overall grade, if I really wanted to cut down on the number of submissions. Students for whom the course grade would not change then are even more likely to skip it at that point.

[dr_evil]

Five weeks into the semester and less than 2 hours before the exam, a student (who claims economic hardship) informs me that Stu does not have the textbook. I'm not a wizard who can waive a magic wand or Dr. Evil with many minions at my beck and call to provide you with the textbook on such short notice (even if you happen to be a speed reader).

You rang?

I also don't provide the text on short notice, or any notice, but my institution does usually have a copy of the text in the library. However, I had a student one term that refused to buy our in-house, inexpensive lab packet.

[OneMoreYear]

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Not gonna do it.
Attendance points? At the graduate level.  Not gonna happen.  I don't assign attendance points in my undergrad classes, and I'm certainly not going to assign them here.  Students should attend class because they want to learn this material, as it is related to their professional goals.  Students earn points in my classes for demonstrating competency on assignments related to the course objectives.
I am required to have an attendance policy, so I have one. There is no requirement for me to assign points because students sat in chairs in the room where I was talking. No.

[ergative]

Desire is understandable. If the lower performers get an extra chance, the higher performers need an extra chance to maintain distance. Allowing retakes, do-overs, improvement opportunities, and so on, just fuels the arms race.

Therefore, stop the arms race!

I'd be leery of any opportunity that allows the lower performing a chance to surpass the higher performing by dint of extra opportunity.

If Timmy earns a C and Stacy gets a B-, it seems grossly unfair that Timmy gets to rewrite and earn a B while Stacy just has to live with her mediocrity.

In my experience, the few who do rewrite isn't much of an additional burden, but SPADFY.

This is getting us back to our discussion of test corrections for partial credit back. This situation is why I put a cap on the grade that could be earned by corrections when I was allowed to do this. E.g., if you got less than a 70, you could earn back credit up to a 70. Applied here, that principle could be something like 'If you earn under a C+, you can rewrite to earn credit up to a C+.'

Then Timmy can bump up his grade, but Stacey stays mediocrely ahead of him.

[marshwiggle]

Desire is understandable. If the lower performers get an extra chance, the higher performers need an extra chance to maintain distance. Allowing retakes, do-overs, improvement opportunities, and so on, just fuels the arms race.

Therefore, stop the arms race!

I'd be leery of any opportunity that allows the lower performing a chance to surpass the higher performing by dint of extra opportunity.

If Timmy earns a C and Stacy gets a B-, it seems grossly unfair that Timmy gets to rewrite and earn a B while Stacy just has to live with her mediocrity.

In my experience, the few who do rewrite isn't much of an additional burden, but SPADFY.

This is getting us back to our discussion of test corrections for partial credit back. This situation is why I put a cap on the grade that could be earned by corrections when I was allowed to do this. E.g., if you got less than a 70, you could earn back credit up to a 70. Applied here, that principle could be something like 'If you earn under a C+, you can rewrite to earn credit up to a C+.'

Then Timmy can bump up his grade, but Stacey stays mediocrely ahead of him.

I'm sort of confused. Does "up to" refer to the next letter grade? I would take that to mean everyone could in principle rewrite for an increase of exactly one letter grade. Otherwise, everyone with less than an A+ could presumably correct up to an A+.

[ergative]

Desire is understandable. If the lower performers get an extra chance, the higher performers need an extra chance to maintain distance. Allowing retakes, do-overs, improvement opportunities, and so on, just fuels the arms race.

Therefore, stop the arms race!

I'd be leery of any opportunity that allows the lower performing a chance to surpass the higher performing by dint of extra opportunity.

If Timmy earns a C and Stacy gets a B-, it seems grossly unfair that Timmy gets to rewrite and earn a B while Stacy just has to live with her mediocrity.

In my experience, the few who do rewrite isn't much of an additional burden, but SPADFY.

This is getting us back to our discussion of test corrections for partial credit back. This situation is why I put a cap on the grade that could be earned by corrections when I was allowed to do this. E.g., if you got less than a 70, you could earn back credit up to a 70. Applied here, that principle could be something like 'If you earn under a C+, you can rewrite to earn credit up to a C+.'

Then Timmy can bump up his grade, but Stacey stays mediocrely ahead of him.

I'm sort of confused. Does "up to" refer to the next letter grade? I would take that to mean everyone could in principle rewrite for an increase of exactly one letter grade. Otherwise, everyone with less than an A+ could presumably correct up to an A+.

No, sorry, the 'up to' refers to an absolute boundary, not a relative boundary . So the idea is that no one can rewrite for more than a C+. C+ is the absolute hard line and it applies to everyone equally--Timmy and Stacey both. If a student earned less than a C+ they can rewrite for a higher grade, but that higher grade won't go above a C+. So it's worth Timmy's time to rewrite, but it's not worth Stacey's time to rewrite, because her grade won't go above that original B-. 

And if Hippolyta earned exactly a C+, then Timmy might catch up to her, but he'll have to do a rewrite to get there, while she's done with the assignment the first time.

[marshwiggle]

I'm sort of confused. Does "up to" refer to the next letter grade? I would take that to mean everyone could in principle rewrite for an increase of exactly one letter grade. Otherwise, everyone with less than an A+ could presumably correct up to an A+.

No, sorry, the 'up to' refers to an absolute boundary, not a relative boundary . So the idea is that no one can rewrite for more than a C+. C+ is the absolute hard line and it applies to everyone equally--Timmy and Stacey both. If a student earned less than a C+ they can rewrite for a higher grade, but that higher grade won't go above a C+. So it's worth Timmy's time to rewrite, but it's not worth Stacey's time to rewrite, because her grade won't go above that original B-. 

And if Hippolyta earned exactly a C+, then Timmy might catch up to her, but he'll have to do a rewrite to get there, while she's done with the assignment the first time.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm kind of curious; how do you determine the boundary for a particular assignment? Is there some non-arbitrary process (such as "the 75th percentile") or something like that?

[the_geneticist]

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Not gonna do it.
Attendance points? At the graduate level.  Not gonna happen.  I don't assign attendance points in my undergrad classes, and I'm certainly not going to assign them here.  Students should attend class because they want to learn this material, as it is related to their professional goals.  Students earn points in my classes for demonstrating competency on assignments related to the course objectives.
I am required to have an attendance policy, so I have one. There is no requirement for me to assign points because students sat in chairs in the room where I was talking. No.

Ugh.  I inherited a graduate course that has "participation points", which are basically for attendance.   My thought is that if someone is present, but so disengaged that they are not participating, then they should leave.  I agree that graduate courses should be graded on demonstrating skills, not just for showing up.

[mamselle]

We had a required grad seminar where there were participation points, but it had to do with doing what Sewall called a "commonplace," (summarizing a reading, giving topic headings and a precis of each section, and then leading a short discussion on it)--sort of a mini-lecture, as it were, with each person doing that once in the semester...I think a similar format is used in some journal clubs.

They were assigned in advance, and you could flunk them, too. We had one guy come in who barely understood the reading enough to summarize it, just kept quoting parts of it in a monotone, and couldn't lead the discussion at all.

He disappeared the next term.

M.

[arcturus]

Note to future students: If your professor contacts you about possible plagiarism in your work, with an option to resubmit without penalty, don't blow them off with a reply that states that you will not revise your work because the item in question is "from Google." That pretty much guarantees that the professor will be motivated enough to go through with the full academic misconduct reporting process, even though it is super annoying and time consuming.