首页> 外文会议>American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition >Not all curves are the same: Left-of-center grading and student motivation
【24h】

Not all curves are the same: Left-of-center grading and student motivation

机译:并非所有曲线都一样:左侧分级和学生动机

获取原文

摘要

Despite a substantial body of research that criticizes norm-referenced (i.e., "curved") grading for fostering a competitive climate, the practice remains a staple in STEM education and is unlikely to change. One reason educational critiques of the practice may not have hit home is that not all normreferenced grading is the same. There is likely a big difference between what we refer to as left-of-center grading, where exam means are in the 20 or 30 percentiles and a score of 40% can translate into an A, and exams where means are near 60% and a score of 80% translates into an A. This study tests the hypothesis that students will distinguish between different types of norm-referenced grading practices. One hundred and seventy seven engineering students at a private, research I university completed surveys asking about their perceptions of norm-referenced exams with means in the 20's vs. those with means in the 60's. The results overwhelmingly show that students found exams with means in the 20's - but not those with means in the 60's - discouraging and as evidence of bad and uncaring teaching. Students receiving an "A" for exam scores in the 30's were unlikely to feel proud of their accomplishment and were highly unlikely to feel that they had learned what the instructor expected. These same students, however, did feel proud when an "A" was based upon an exam score in the 80's. Students were also more likely to consider cheating and were less motivated to study when the median score was in the 20's. Over 90% of students indicated that a primary purpose of exams should be to measure mastery of concepts, and nearly 80% indicated that measuring what a student had learned should also be a primary purpose. By contrast, only 12% of students indicated that "distinguishing exceptional students from others" should be a primary purpose. These results are at odds with the assumptions of left-of-center grading, which prioritizes distinguishing among different groups of students and only indirectly seems to measure a student's mastery of course content or learning.
机译:尽管有大量的研究批评了规范参考(即,“弯曲的”)分级培养竞争气候,但这种做法仍然是茎干教育的主食,不太可能改变。这种练习的教育批评可能没有击中家是,并非所有规范的分级都是一样的。我们称之为左侧评分可能有很大的差异,其中考试手段在20%或30个百分位数中,40%的分数可以转化为A,以及近60%的考试得分为80%转化为A.本研究测试了学生将区分不同类型的规范参考规范实践的假设。一百七十七名工程学生在私人,研究我大学完成了调查,询问他们对20年代与20年代的手段的规范参考考试的看法。结果压倒性地表明,学生在20年代的手段中发现了考试 - 但不是那些有60年代 - 劝阻的手段,而且作为糟糕的教学证据。在30年代接受“A”进行考试成绩的学生不太可能为自己的成就感到自豪,并且非常不太可能觉得他们已经了解了教练的预期。然而,这些同样的学生在“A”基于80年代考试得分时确实感到自豪。学生也更有可能考虑作弊,并且在20年代中位数分数时,就会对研究的动机不那么激励。超过90%的学生表明考试的主要目的应该是衡量概念的掌握,但近80%表示衡量学生所学到的东西也应该是一个主要目的。相比之下,只有12%的学生表明“区分别人的特殊学生”应该是一个主要目的。这些结果与左侧分级的假设有所差异,该假设能够区分不同的学生群体,并且间接似乎衡量学生掌握课程内容或学习。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号