Final exam weighting as part of course design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.9Keywords:
final exam weighting, assignment weighting, course design, prefinal grades, grading plateausAbstract
The weighting of a final exam or a final assignment is an essential part of course design that is rarely discussed in pedagogical literature. Depending on the weighting, a final exam or assignment may provide unequal benefits to students depending on their prior performance in the class. Consequently, uncritical grade weighting can discount student learning, by ensuring that improved mastery of material at the semester’s end is not reflected in the course grade. Problems related to several common final exam weights are explored, as are potential solutions to unequal student outcomes made possible by uncritical grade weighting. Ultimately, this essay argues that choosing a weight for a final exam or a final assignment determines what types of student success ought to be possible in the class; therefore, instructors should assign exam weights intentionally, being fully aware of the potential benefits and problems of the weights that they choose.
References
Aufrecht, S. E. (1997). Grading as performance evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(1), 43-57.
Allen, J. D. (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic achievement of classroom learning. The Clearing House 78(5), 218-23.
Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for Learning. Hong Kong: Kong University Press.
Bhaskar, R., & Dillard, J. F. (1983). Using cognitive science to assign test weights. Instructional Science 12(4), 375-82.
Campbell, C. M., & Cabrera, A. F. (2014). Making the mark: Are grades and deep learning related? Research in Higher Education 55, 494-507.
Cole, J. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). Investigating differences between low- and high-stakes test performance on a general education exam. Journal of General Education 57(2), 119-30.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Farias, G., Farias, C. M., & Fairfield, K. D. (2010). Teacher as judge or partner: The dilemma of grades versus learning. Journal of Education for Business 85, 336-42.
Feuerman, M., & Weiss, H. (1973). A mathematical programming model for test construction and scoring. Management Science 19(8), 961-66.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses (2nd ed.). Somerset, US: Jossey-Bass.
Glass, A. L., Ingate, M., & Sinha, N. (2013). The effect of a final exam on long-term retention. Journal of General Psychology, 140 (3), 224-41.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66 (1), 64–74.
Kohn, A. (1999). From grading to de-grading. High School Magazine (March issue). Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/degrading-de-grading/
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100053/chapters/What-Are-Grades-For%C2%A2.aspx
Milton, O., Pollio, H. R., & Eison, J. A. (1986). Making Sense of College Grades. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mostrom, A. M., & Blumberg, P. (2012). Does learning-centered teaching promote grade improvement? Innovative Higher Education 37, 397-405.
Napoli, A. R., & Raymond, L. A. (2004). How reliable are our assessment data?: A comparison of the reliability of data produced in graded and un-graded conditions. Research in Higher Education 45 (8), 921-29.
O’Brien, J. G., Millis, B. J., & Cohen, M. W. (2008). The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sloane, F. C., & Kelly, A. E. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory Into Practice 42 (1), 12-17.
Walvoord, B.E., & Anderson, V.J. (1998). Effective Grading: A Tool For Learning and Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wise, S. L. (2009). Strategies for managing the problem of unmotivated examinees in low-stakes testing programs. The Journal of General Education 58 (3), 152-66.
Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education 8 (3), 227-42.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Matthew Franke
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
