Nicholas: I believe that this is common to TBL…to avoid these issues of grading discrepancy, our course policy states that a student must obtain at least a 70% average on all individual work (IRATs, exams) for group work to be factored into a final grade…thus, if a student obtains a 68% average on individual work, and group work average is 92%, then the final grade is a 68%…we've used this policy for 4 years and it has worked well…it is important to explain this, and have students be clear on this policy at semester start… Best of luck Ed Edward A. Bell, PharmD, BCPS Professor of Pharmacy Practice Drake University College of Pharmacy Des Moines, IA 515-271-1841 From: Nicholas DiFonzo <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: Nicholas DiFonzo <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:27 AM To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Grade Inflation A professor (who shall remain nameless!) teaches a course using TBL for the first time. At the beginning of the term, students discuss, negotiate, and agree upon a grade weight formula for 1) individual performance (worth 40% of final course score), 2) team performance (40%), and 3) peer evaluation (20%). At the end of the term, the instructor notices that there is great variation in individual performance scores (which range from 45% to 95%), little variation in team performance scores (96% to 97%), and great variation in peer evaluation scores (70% to 124%). Using the agreed upon grade formula, final course scores are calculated (which range from 70% to 102%). When the individual performance score and the peer evaluation score are both high or both low, the professor finds it easy to assign a grade. However, the mixed cases—where individual performance is much lower than team performance and peer evaluation scores—are problematic for this newbie to TBL. For example, in one case the individual performance score is quite low (55%), the team performance score is of course quite high (97%), and the peer evaluation score is high (90%), resulting in a final course score of 80%. This particular student did few individual assignments and their IRAT scores were poor—indicating that they came to class unprepared and they did little work outside of class. Despite this, the student’s peers rated his participation highly. In sum, this student did little work outside of class, their team did well (of course), and they somehow were able to be helpful to the team. The professor’s gut sense is that this student’s performance is in the D range; this is typically what this student earned in past (pre-TBL) courses with the professor (because he typically failed to turn in assignments and he did poorly on tests, even though he always came to class and participated). Yet the 80% score doesn’t seem to correspond to a D. The professor would like to avoid this sort of situation in the future. For the next term, which alternative seems most effective? A. Do nothing, this was a fluke and atypical of what other TBL-ers experience. B. Explain in the syllabus that what constitutes an A, B, C, D or F is determined at the end of the term, and that, for example, an 80% might result in a D. C. In the next syllabus, set severe limits on the weight of the team performance component, say, it can be no more than 20% of the final course score, and at the same time raise the floor on the individual performance component, say, it can be no less than 70% of the final course score. D. In the next syllabus, tie final course score to the individual performance score by some narrow limit, for example, “Final course scores can be no more than 10% higher than your individual performance score, e.g., if your individual performance score is 55%, then your final course score can be no higher than 65%, and using the conventional grade scheme you would receive a D.” E. Write in candidate: ______________________________. Nicholas DiFonzo, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology 18 Lomb Memorial Drive Room 1-2363 Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 Phone: 585-475-2907 FAX: 585-475-6715 Faculty Website: http://people.rit.edu/nxdgss/ Personal Website: www.ProfessorNick.com<http://www.professornick.com/> Skype: nicholas.difonzo