Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 1www.physics.uiuc.edu The Problem with Exams The Problem with Exams M. Selen, UIUC Physics l Why exams are a sensitive.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FEEDBACK! WHATS FEEDBACK? Did you know that..... Feedback you receive is not just confined to coursework and formal assessments. It will not always come.
Advertisements

Applying to Graduate School and MBA Programs
We’ll be spending minutes talking about Quiz 1 that you’ll be taking at the next class session before you take the Gateway Quiz today.
How do you think this exam compared to the first one? A. It seemed more challenging B. It seem about the same difficulty C. It seemed a bit easier.
Exam Writing and Grading Nan D. Hunter Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs November 2013.
Professional Perspectives: Electronic Engineering Paul Spencer Dean of School, Electronic Engineering Kal Winston* Adviser, Study Skills Centre.
Learning and Teaching Conference 2012 Skill integration for students through in-class feedback and continuous assessment. Konstantinos Dimopoulos City.
PKAL Workshop (June/02): Pg 1www.physics.uiuc.edu The Introductory Physics Course Revisions at Illinois The Introductory Physics Course Revisions at Illinois.
Taft College’s Fall Assessment Team November 7, 2008.
Introduction to Organizational Behavior Week 6 – Welcome Back!
The Test Assessment Questionnaire Katherine M. Sauer William Mertens Metropolitan State College of Denver University of Colorado at Boulder
June Presentation Outline: 1.Defining the Technical & Logistical Requirements 2.Establishing Expectations: Faculty, Students, & Administrators.
Adapted from Prof. Necula CS 169 Project Planning1 Project Planning.
Technology Enhanced Learning Efficient Feedback in Sulis Facilitator: Angelica Risquez.
Technology Enhanced Learning Efficient Feedback in Sulis Angelica Risquez PhD Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor.
Computer Organization TI1400 Alexandru Iosup (lecturer) Henk Sips (original slides) Parallel and Distributed Systems
Physics 1100 –Spring 2012 Physics Conceptual Physics Dr. James Wolfson.
10th Workshop "Software Engineering Education and Reverse Engineering" Ivanjica, Serbia, 5-12 September 2010 First experience in teaching HCI course Dusanka.
Cottrell Meeting (July/13/01): Pg 1 Check it out at: Can Students Learn Concept-Based Problem Solving on.
LON-CAPA 1 Knowing what 400 students know Gerd Kortemeyer Michigan State University... before it’s too late.
PHYS 214: The Nature of Physics Physics 214: The Nature of PhysicsSpring 2004 Lecturer:Professor D. Koltick Office:Room 335 Physics Building Phone:
The physics GRE Mark Messier Indiana University. Resources on the web General information and Physics Test Practice Book:
Please CLOSE YOUR LAPTOPS, and turn off and put away your cell phones, and get out your note-taking materials. Today’s daily quiz will be given at the.
Recitation Week #1 Chem Queens College Spring 2010.
SAT 411.
When to use computers as a teaching tool:
IL-AAPT Spring ‘04 : Pg 1www.physics.uiuc.edu Giving the Physics Bug to Elementary Education Students Mats Selen, UIUC Inga Karliner, Sheila Ashbrook,
EGS 1001C Introduction to Engineering Succeeding in the Classroom Professor: Dr. Miguel Alonso Jr.
Robert W. Arts, Ph.D. Professor of Education & Physics University of Pikeville Pikeville, KY The Mini-Zam: Formative Assessment for the Physics Classroom.
How to Evaluate Student Papers Fairly and Consistently.
Grading Exams and Papers. Why should you work on this skill? Grades matter There are simple steps you can take to be as fair as possible!
Overview of LTI Graduate Programs Alon Lavie (filling in for Robert Frederking) Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University August 2004.
Physics 101: Lecture 1, Pg 1 Course Format (Spiral Learning) l Lecture Preflights 25 l Lecture Participationclickers 25 l Homework100 l Lab 150 l Discussion.
What We’re Going To Do: Explore the teacher perspective on assessment Use design thinking to understand how students experience assessment Use our insight.
Delta State University College of Education Annual Student Update Part II Dissertation January16, 2010.
Welcome – You’ve found CSE120 OR Computer Science Principles OR UWIT…  Announcements are usually listed here and displayed before the start of class 
A Streamlined, Quantitative, Web-based, Course-Level Assessment Process Jörg Moßbrucker Glenn Wrate Mike O’Donnell Milwaukee School of Engineering.
TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN STEM HIGHER EDUCATION Benjamin C. Flores, Ph.D. Director, Computing and Electrical and Engineering Division MIE Project.
CSC/ECE 517: Object-Oriented Design and Development Web site:
Introducing Every CS Major to Parallel Programming: Baby Steps at Ohio State Gagan Agrawal Feng Qin P. Sadayappan.
Effective Grading Strategies Alison Morrison-Shetlar Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning Adapted from the book Effective Grading by Barbara Walvoord.
FOR 500 The Publication Process Karl Williard & John Groninger.
Evaluation & Assessment 10/31/06 10/31/06. Typical Point Breakdown COURSE GRADES: Grades will be assigned on the basis of 450 points, distributed as follows:
Introduction to Management
Professor Evaluation #1 MGMT 362 Fall General Comments n n Most people have chosen to reserve judgment until they get the first test back n n “Sometimes.
Teaching in a Research University ISSTA New Faculty Workshop July 2006.
1 CS 101 Today’s class will begin about 5 minutes late We will discuss the lab scheduling problems once class starts.
AP Physics 1 – 2014 Semester 1 Final Exam Info.. The Real AP Exam in May…. Exam Format The AP Physics 1 Exam is approximately 3 hours in length. There.
Syllabus Highlights CSE 1310 – Introduction to Computers and Programming Vassilis Athitsos University of Texas at Arlington 1.
1 CS 490JL Midterm Review Midterm in-class Tuesday, October 26 With thanks to Wai-Ling Ho-Ching.
We’ll be spending a few minutes talking about Quiz 2 on Sections that you’ll be taking the next class session, before you work on Practice Quiz.
Physics 218 towards a set of guidelines. Why guidelines for 218 ?  This guidelines need to be created for several purposes: 1.to be as fair as possible.
ITM 353 Final Project Demos. Your Last Assignment There’s one more fun presentation in store for you all: the Transition Readiness Review (TRR) aka your.
Physics 101: Lecture 27, Pg 1 Welcome to Physics 101! Lecture 01: Introduction to Forces l Forces l Kinematics l Energy/Momentum l Rotations l Fluids l.
Strategies for Teaching Multiple Choice. My course pre-test is a full AP MC test from a previous year This exposes them to the type of questions they.
CSE6339 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS FOR COMPUTATIONAL JOURNALISM CSE6339, Spring 2012 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Texas.
Physics 101: Lecture 1, Pg 1 Welcome to Physics 101! Lecture 01: Introduction to Forces
Keep C.A.L.M. Implementation of a Chemistry Assisted- Learning Module at Khalifa University Leigh Powell Instructional Technology Specialist.
CSC/ECE 517: Object-Oriented Design and Development
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Clickers in a Biology Lab
Midterm in-class Tuesday, Nov 6
We’ll be spending minutes talking about Quiz 1 that you’ll be taking at the next class session before you take the Gateway Quiz today.
common expectations (5)
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Amy Lavin
ACUE Program at Salem State
Syllabus Highlights CSE 1310 – Introduction to Computers and Programming Alexandra Stefan University of Texas at Arlington.
Information Systems in Organizations
CS a-spring-midterm2-survey
Topics for Final Exam Lecture 26 Autumn Quarter.
Presentation transcript:

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 1www.physics.uiuc.edu The Problem with Exams The Problem with Exams M. Selen, UIUC Physics l Why exams are a sensitive issue… l Hand graded versus multiple choice. l How we do it in the intro Physics courses. l What is the cost?

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 2www.physics.uiuc.edu èExams typically represent > 50% of the final course grade. èStudents really focus on exams (perhaps too much). »Any perceived problems (real or imagined) will generate enormous resentment. èFaculty often don’t focus on exams. »Doing it right is time consuming, in particular of you are working alone. è“Fairness” is not a trivial issue. »Exam content. »Grading.

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 3www.physics.uiuc.edu l Hand Grading (what we used to do): l PROS: èStudents feel like everything they write is taken into account (i.e. partial credit). èAny mistakes in the exam can be adapted to (exam is more forgiving to the professor…less quality control is needed). l CONS: èHard to make grading fair & consistent. »TA, Handwriting, time, before/after pizza etc.. »Whiners are rewarded (i.e. re-grades). Hand Graded vs. Multiple Choice

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 4www.physics.uiuc.edu l Multiple Choice (what we do now): l PROS: èUniform & Fair. Everyone is treated exactly the same. »Fixing a bug in a problem help everyone. èLends itself to electronic publishing. »WEB interface possible for practice (before exam night) and help/explanations (after exam). èVery useful for analysis. »tracking changes, education research, exam problem quality control, problem “bank” etc. l CONS: èHarder to give partial credit (but not impossible…). èMore care is needed when preparing exam. èConsidered “inferior” by some (mostly faculty).

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 5www.physics.uiuc.edu About 1/3 of exam score is conceptual (2 & 3 choice) Quantitative problems (5-choice) allow students to select up to 3 answers. Partial credit ! Conceptual and quantitative problems are often paired.

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 6www.physics.uiuc.edu Analysis of exam “data” is very interesting (and useful for education research). Physics 101 Midterm Exam 1, Spring 2000

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 7www.physics.uiuc.edu More sophisticated analyses can be used to rate the effectiveness of each exam questions: not so good good

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 8www.physics.uiuc.edu We can look at the discriminating power of each problem: Not so good (weak correlation with the rest of the exam) Good (strong correlation with the rest of the exam) We can learn, quantitatively, how to build better exams.

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 9www.physics.uiuc.edu Instant exam feedback is possible: l The minute they leave the exam, students can go on the web, enter their answers into a web version of the exam they just took, and see what their raw score is: l After the exam has been graded (next day) students can find detailed statistics on each problem on the web. Students LOVE this !

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 10www.physics.uiuc.edu The Cost (is it more work?) l These courses are team-taught. èTypically 3 faculty »Lecturer, Discussion director, Lab director l The team course works together to produce exam. èThe subject material is divided up and each faculty submits a set of problems. »Old problems can be used for guidance. »Format is fixed (MS word in our case). èOne of the faculty is in charge of assembling exam (secretarial staff can help). èThe team meets several times to discuss & iterate the problems until the final draft is ready. »A senior TA works the exam out and provides comments on difficulty, length etc. èThree version of exam are produced by scrambling the order of the problems. »Secretaries do this. èAfter the exam, OIR “machine reads” the scantron forms and gives us the “raw data”. We have scripts that do the final analysis to yield grades etc.

Seminar on Grading (1/24/2002): Pg 11www.physics.uiuc.edu l We are getting good at this. Exam averages are consistently 70-75%. èCurving is unusual. èWe never curve down. èWe can honestly tell students that they are not competing against each-other. »Everyone could, in principle, get an “A” in Physics 11x. »This is a great motivator. èWe can tell students on the first day of the semester what final semester score they need to get the various letter grades: From Physics 101 web page