Sometimes you go to a conference and come away energized - full of new thoughts and ideas. And sometimes you go to a conference and are lucky to come away with just one new idea. The American Association of University Professor's Annual Conference in DC a few weeks ago was more of the latter than the former for me -- but that one idea was a real doozy!
I had been paired serendipitously with Dr. Alice Armstrong, a computer science professor from Shippensberg University, on a pedagogy panel. While I gave my presentation on "The 5 Myths Of Game-based Learning" (more on this later this week) to the, shall we say, "modest" crowd that had assembled for the 0830 start time, Alice really engaged both me and the crowd with her approach to instilling professional standards in her students (It all revolves around the chart below -- but more on that in a moment).
Their analysis of this problem indicated that the difficulties were not technical or knowledge based - the students had the skills to do the projects. Instead, the problems were behavioral; sticking with a schedule, staying in touch with their technical mentors, meeting intermediate deadlines, etc. Solving this problem seemed difficult if not impossible.
Now comes the brilliant part...
Their solution to the problem was to separate the course grade into two components. The first part is your standard, old grading system based on how well the students did the various assignments. Like any standard course grade, you start with a zero and then, as tests and assignments accumulate, your grade emerges as a function of the average of how well you did on those tests and assignments.
The second part is where they did something different and very, very cool. The second half of the grade is a "professionalism" grade. Students start with 100% and can only lose points for being "unprofessional."
I will define "unprofessional" in a second but think for a moment just how clever this is. In the first place, it does away with the nebulous "class participation" grade. In the second place, it emphasizes something that faculty in applied professions, like law, medicine, engineering, architecture, computer science and intelligence, value dearly -- professionalism. Third (and I love this one), it mimics the employer's opinion of an employee.
Think about it: You just got hired by a company or agency. You were selected to fill a slot over a bunch of other qualified applicants. The assumption is that you are the best available candidate for that job. Because you are new, you are going to be watched and because you are being watched you are going to have chances to disappoint - to make the boss wonder if he really did hire the best candidate - not just with respect to your knowledge but also with respect to your behavior. It may not be particularly fair, but it is true.
Talking about it is all fine and good, but how do you make it real in the classroom? If you are like me, you have probably seen a number of potential flaws in this approach. Here is once again where our friends at Shippensburg impress. Look at the list below. I am hard pressed to find much that is objectionable about it. Lateness, missing appointments, etc. Those are things we are probably counting off for anyway.
I have to disagree with that a bit. I think the key innovation is not in the specifics but in the approach itself. By focusing on professionalism as an attribute that you are expected to have and can only lose, Alice and her colleagues have changed its psychological value. Loss aversion is a well understood effect and Alice reported that her students responded as any good psychologist would expect: They hated to lose professionalism points!
Regardless why it works, it certainly seems to be working. They cut their failure and incomplete rates in half. They are so happy with the system that they are pushing in down their curriculum to their freshman classes (there they do give students the opportunity to earn points back, though). One of the most important endorsements of the process actually came from outside the university: The computer science department's industry advisory council loves it.
I am thinking about implementing some aspects of this system in my own classes. While I think the Shippensburg system is pretty harsh, I can understand their reasoning. I would not want half or more of my points tied up with issues like lateness and missing deadlines, though. Frankly, those kinds of things have rarely been a problem in any of my classes here at Mercyhurst.
More important to me is the point of such a system: To send a signal that professionalism matters and that it is something you are expected to have and can only lose. Getting away from the more wishy-washy "class participation" grade and moving towards something that is both important and helps the students is a strong step in the right direction, in my opinion.
6 comments:
Interesting approach that provides students with a much clearer assessment of how they would survive in the businnes world. The idea of multiplying the professionalism and content scores is, on the surface, pretty astute; however, it seems pretty harsh as depicted in "The Solution" table. It seems a 94 content grade (an "A" grade") coupled with a 94 professionalism grade (an "A" grade) will result in a 88.4 final grade (a "B" grade). Seems to be more punishing than encouraging! I suggest the solution table be adjusted to account for the "nines" problem.
I wonder if multiplying the two scores is the correct way to do it. What you want is the geometric mean which would be the two scores multiplied (as opposed to added for an average) and then taking the square root of the two. That would bias the score down but not leading to the odd results.
A scoring system with a hat tip to the real world would have to include the inevitable crash and burn, lose all your points, scenario, like committing espionage or plagiarism. Some students, like some intelligence professionals, are going to be a train wreck. 10 points off just doesn't cut it.
Likewise I think people should be able to gain back professionalism points, including a mother lode of points related to an intelligence coup or sensational innovation. No doubt the guy who figured out how to successfully target bin Laden got more than ten points.
I love the idea. What an innovation. Thanks for sharing, Kris.
I think this could address a real concern I have with my company's just-out-of-college hires. Some are just absolutely clueless (Yes you have to show up on time, you have to come to work everyday, you have to respect others, you have to meet deadlines, you better speak up when you have an idea).
Brilliant until instructors abuse it and use it as a source of demoralizing control. Not conducive to a positive learning environment at all, as students are afraid to ask questions and comment in class for fear of lost points. Thank you for making my college experience an amazing one.
I am ashamed to say that I went through this program. These two professors are your typical insecure, big-headed "woman in a man's world" types, despite that the Shippensburg University CS/CE department is majority-female-staffed and chaired by a woman. Passive aggression, petty tyranny, and a thinly veiled "Why aren't I at a better school?" attitude of contempt for students comprise their MO, of which "professionalism points" is only one example. I have even overheard them make snotty remarks among themselves while clearly within earshot of me and other students.
If one-third of the seniors cannot be bothered with their capstone projects, I see no need to thus insult decent students like me and even further cheapen a diploma from this low-tier state school. The comment, "Frankly, those kinds of things have rarely been a problem in any of my classes here at Mercyhurst," says it all.
And the manager's comment here about clueless college-grad hires only demonstrates that person's own clueless hiring and leadership skills, and most likely a desire (popular with modern management types) to get the cheapest employees possible. Pay for crap, get crap.
Post a Comment