TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Team-Based Learning

TEAMLEARNING-L@LISTS.UBC.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Christine Kuramoto <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:30:59 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Christine Kuramoto <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone uses the if-at in a strictly 'right or wrong' 
way rather than 3 points for correct answer, 2 on second try, 1 on third 
(or whatever other variation).  I've used the system for both the iRAT 
and tRAT, but my students are used to black and white tests, so don't 
seem to appreciate the partial credit for partial knowledge system.

I'm thinking that it might be better to just say you get points if it's 
the right answer and nothing if it's wrong--that's something they 
understand.  The partial credit for partial knowledge system also tends 
to really inflate the grades (which could be considered good, but here 
just seems to give me a reputation as teacher of the class that everyone 
passes).  I get the feeling that even colleagues think that if someone's 
not failing, then the class is too easy (but have no evidence to back up 
this "feeling").

Any thoughts on this?

C

-- 
*******
Christine Kuramoto, Assistant Professor: Medical English
Kyushu University, Department of Medical Education
Faculty of Medical Sciences
3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582 Japan
Phone: (+81)92-642-6186 Fax: (+81)92-642-6188
E-mail: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2