I don't get wrapped up in individual instances like these. I solve them by
saying everyone on the team gets a "correct" answer for the accepted
appealed question. I don't look at individual answers and say yes or no on
them. I just give them the points. Although, in my course, the students
decided to not give the Irats much weight in the final grade, so one answer
has little effect on the students' final grades.
Jim
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jen Wernegreen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> hello,
>
> what's the best practice in the following scenario:
>
> A team answers a question "incorrectly" on a quiz (let's say, they chose D,
> where I considered the best answer to be A). The team submits an appeal,
> justifying why D is a better choice than A.
>
> Let's say I approve this appeal.
>
> The team quiz score, for that particular team that appealed the question,
> will
> be increased by one point.
>
> What about the individual quiz scores, for members of the team that
> appealed? On the one hand, I understand that appeals are intended to be
> team-based activities, so maybe individual quiz scores shouldn't be
> affected.
> On the other hand, it seems to send a strange message to students, to
> approve "D" as an equally good answer, yet not reward individuals who chose
> "D" on their individual quiz. It was probably those individuals who
> motivated
> (and wrote?) the team appeal in the first place. For individuals in the
> appealing team, should both A and D get equal (full) credit on the
> individual
> quiz?
>
> What if the appeal said that "D is a better choice than A." That's
> actually the
> case here. 4/6 individuals chose A, the team chose D on the team quiz, and
> the appeal states that D is the superior choice, over A. Should both A
> and D
> receive credit on the individual quizzes? I find it odd that team members
> who
> originally chose A would sign off on an appeal where D is promoted as the
> better choice.
>
> Advice?
>
>
> I do understand that accepting "D" as a correct answer should be
> "fire-walled"
> to the team that appealed, and won't extend outside of that team.
>
> any insights would be much appreciated,
> Jen
>
--
*James Aucoin*
*Professor and Chair*
*Department of Communication*
*University of South Alabama*
|
