Hi Paul, Thank you for taking time to reply. These are EXAM appeals, referring to the 3 major exams given periodically throughout the semester (perhaps we should call them "exam challenges"), we give 6 IRAT/GRAT, 3 module exams, and 1 final exam. We do
follow the TBL format of group appeals after the GRAT, and those are going well. I concur with all your points. It may be time for us to try something different (we used to hold optional "Review" sessions for students to review the correct answer and rationale
for the exam, but changed our approach when we switched to TBL). Perhaps we could start with the very next class reviewing any PROBLEMATIC questions with the class (where the exam stats told us the question was a poor quality question or only a small % got
the question correct). I would advocate that we NOT agree to change any answer option at that time, but have students just make individual appointments, and bring a written evidence-based rationale. Any other ideas??
I just want to avoid confrontation, and having only 1 faculty stand in front of a large class to defend their answer.
June
June Felice Johnson, BS, Pharm.D., FASHP, FCCP, BC-ADM
Professor of Pharmacy Practice, Clinical Sciences Department
Drake University College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences
June: I'm not sure I understand when the students are taking "their exams into a side room". Is this before or after the Team RAT? Are you using IF-AT cards that reveal the faculty's opinions before they go off to the room? Are the appeals being generated
after there has been whole group interactive discussion focused on questions that some of the teams missed?
I understand that students may become upset, angry, and even aggressive (unprofessionally) when they miss questions individually or as teams. However, there is a designated time in the TBL sequence to voice these concerns to the faculty and whole class:
after the team RAT decisions have been finalized by all teams. The facilitator must manage that discussion to insure that teams with dissenting opinions (i.e., disagreements with faculty's best answers) have opportunity to express why they disagree by
supporting their opinions with facts and concepts. These rationalizations for alternate answers may be of significant value for the whole class, because it forces the other teams to re-consider their positions. However, once all opinions and evidence are
"on the table", the facilitator must bring the discussion to an end with an invitation to write cogent appeals that are supported by authoritative resources (including the advance assignment). Teams or individuals that want to continue discussion because
they are upset or angry, but cannot verbalize additional evidence to support their position, must not be allowed to take the rest of the teams and the faculty hostage by continuing to burn up valuable time. When the facilitator perceives that no new information
is being shared, it's time to say, "I appreciate the passionate and vigorous discussion we have had, but it's time to move on. Feel free to submit a written appeal or talk with us after the session today."
A final point: I never make decisions as to accepting or rejecting an alternate answer DURING a heated discussion, as my judgment is typically altered by a stubborn attitude that despises whining and digs my heels in to defend MY opinion. The only exception
is when the faculty's question is written so badly that most students cannot interpret the language in the stem and/or the answer options. Such lame questions may be suspected when the IF-AT cards show considerable lack of support for the faculty's favorite
answer. /PK
On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Sibley, James Edward wrote:
Hi
It sounds like these are individual appeals…we only allow appeals from teams…there is a nice moderating effect when the antagonizing student must convince their team mates to do a team appeal
jim
--
Jim Sibley
Director
Centre for Instructional Support
Faculty of Applied Science
University of British Columbia
2205-6250 Applied Science Lane
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6T 1Z4
From: June Johnson <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: June Johnson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 8:46 AM To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Appeals Process after Exams: Self Care and Therapeutics Course with over 100 students-Concerns and Need for Ideas
Colleagues, I teach in a clinical therapeutics course at Drake University where all 3 semesters are TBL, and also teach in a Self Care course in the TBL format. The issue of concern is our appeals process after exams.
Currently, we allow students to hand in their scantrons, and take their exams into a side room to view multiple copies of an exam key with rationale for correct/incorrect answers. Students pick up an index card with a few short notes that they can take
with them to file an appeal for the question within 48 hours of the exam.
The concern: This has become a very emotionally charged situation for a number of students, who argue in writing (without solid evidence) that their answer, not the faculty's, is correct. This has negatively impacted student evaluations of our teaching
in some cases.
We would appreciate suggestions on how to better conduct these appeals, as we feel they are an important extension of their learning, to avoid antagonism.
Thank you in advance for your ideas!
June Felice Johnson, BS, Pharm.D., FASHP, FCCP, BC-ADM
Professor of Pharmacy Practice, Clinical Sciences Department
Drake University College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences