Syllabus

I use an approach in assessing graduate course performance that may be a little different. I grade components using a standardized approach that generates a numerical score. I interpret this number based on two factors - the numerical scores from all members of the group and the range of scores generated by the group. One way to think about this approach is to suggest that I do not feel I know how difficult the tasks are so I let the performance of the group provide me this information. I assume grad grades should be As and Bs unless the range of the sums is very great (i.e., on rare occasions I have given a C). Another way to think about my approach is to understand that you do not want to consistently earn the bottom scores especially if the range of scores is great.

Here are some specific comments about how the discussion board contributions.

Discussion Board

My goal in the discussion board tasks is to create a system that promotes consistent thoughtful responses from all participants and rewards exceptional responses. In evaluating responses, I will use a simple triage system. Most responses will be scored as meets expectations unless the responses are shoddy, missing, or off-target. To assure serious effort, if I find reponses that I feel are different from the rest, I will identify such as responses as exceeds expectations. After scoring each set of responses, I will contact students if I feel responses fall into fails to meet or exceeds expectations. Others can assume they have met expectations. At the end of the semester, I will tally the number of hits within each of these three categories for each student and note the variability that is present. I will then assign the 25 points based on this variability. It is my expectation that most of the variability in final points will come from the two examinations and the paper. I say this assuming what I regard as exceptional posts will be distributed across the group. This may not end up being the case.