Vance and others,

Let me suggest an alternative perspective on setting up your grading system, and one other activity to consider.

One of the reasons Larry used the system he did for determining letter grades, was that he was getting pressure from his department over "grade inflation."  So he had to make sure his final set of grades had something of a bell curve to them.
        I myself was in a different situation: I was never pressured about grade inflation. But philosophically I am also uncomfortable with the idea of using break points to decide which scores get particular letter grades.  That seems awfully arbitrary.
        As a result, I did use a predetermined scale for the course letter grades, and I put this scale on the course syllabus.  However, my scale was usually 92/85/78/etc. - in part to keep a set of standards that argued against the idea that I was "giving away high grades."

Were my grades on the high side? 
        Somewhat, yes.  But I don't mind giving high grades - IF I am convinced that I have kept the standards high and that students really did learn well.  Then they are simply getting the grade they earned.
        Do poor students end up with high grades?  No, not really.  Their group grades were high, yes.  But their individually graded work (usually worth collectively about 60-70% of the course grade) balanced that out, and poor students not always but often had low peer evaluation scores.  And that brought the impact of the high group scores down into balance with the rest of their work.

Two Problems
But I also did have one problem that you mentioned, Vance:  many students did not know from all the numbers, what their going-grade was at any given time in the course. I could sort of tell that, but they didn't know how to translate multiple numbers into an A, B, or C.
        I also had a second problem related to the way I do peer evaluation scores.  I use them to create a number that is used as a percentage multiplier of what the group earns.  (See Appendix B of the basic TBL book for a description of this procedure.)  Because it is a "percentage multiplier" rather than an added figure, it can have a major impact on their group scores.  And some people were blind-sided at the end of the course by low peer evaluation scores.  I don't mind them getting low peer evaluation scores, if they deserve it; but I didn't like them being blind-sided by it.
        
Solution
Therefore I came up with an activity that was effective in solving both these problems:  a mid-semester grade calculation. 
        Sometime around mid-semester, I gave them a sheet of paper onto which they entered both their individual grades and their group grades.  They would then add the numbers up and that sheet would tell them what the letter-grade equivalent of their total score was, at mid-semester.
        But I also wanted this calculation to show how the final grade would be calculated.  Therefore we had to do a mid-semester peer evaluation, and they had to calculate the effect of that on their group scores.
        
This activity was very effective in addressing the several problems described above:  Hope these thoughts offer some new options for you to consider!     Dee Fink




At 11:23 AM 7/24/2008, Fried, Vance wrote:
I’ve used TBL the past couple of years and am quite happy with it.  My only major unresolved problem is the procedure for determining final grades.
In the past I have used the system that Larry suggests in the book—rank ordering everyone by score and then subjectively determining letter grade break points.  I think this approach results in fair grades for students.  However, it is hard for many students to understand where they stand in class until the end of the semester.  Of course the 90/80/70 doesn’t work because so much of the score is from group grades.   As a result often poor students can end up with a score over 80.
Any suggestions? 
Vance H. Fried
Brattain Professor of Entrepreneurship
Spears School of Business
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK   74078
405.744.8633
405.744.5110 fax
 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
L. Dee Fink                                         Phone: 405-364-6464
234 Foreman Ave                            Email: [log in to unmask]
Norman, OK 73069                                   FAX:   405-364-6464
                 Website: www.finkconsulting.info

**National Project Director, Teaching & Curriculum Assessment Project
**Senior Associate, Dee Fink & Associates Consulting Services
**Author of: Creating Significant Learning Experiences (Jossey-Bass, 2003)
**Former President of the POD Network [Professional and Organizational Development] in Higher Education (2004-2005)