1 / 13

Analysis of Grading Practices in SILS Courses

This report analyzes grading practices in SILS courses focusing on undergraduate and graduate grades. It examines factors like instructor type, course level, and GPA averages to draw conclusions on grading patterns. The study includes data from Fall 2008 and Spring 2009, highlighting trends, extremes, and implications for grading standards.

dava
Télécharger la présentation

Analysis of Grading Practices in SILS Courses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of SILS Grading Practices April 28, 2010

  2. Basis for analysis • “Regular” SILS courses • Excludes courses with enrollment under 6 (grad or undergrad) • Excludes independent studies, master’s papers, and dissertations/theses • Courses offered during Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 • Averages/percentages weighted by number of students in class

  3. Grading of undergraduate courses • Overall GPA = 3.38 (3.3 = B+) • Fall 2008 data include: • 12 courses, taught by 12 different instructors • Spring 2009 data include: • 13 courses, taught by 13 different instructors • 7 courses were included in both the analyses of undergraduate and graduate grades

  4. Analysis of UG GPA by course level

  5. Analysis of UG GPA by type of instructor

  6. Analysis of UG GPA for required courses

  7. Conclusions: UG grading • No big differences by course level • No big differences by type of instructor • Individual extremes • 11 of 25 courses had average GPA over 3.5 (9 instructors) • 4 of 25 courses had average GPA over 3.7 (4 instructors)

  8. Grading of graduate courses • In F08, 49% H’s; in S09, 52% H’s • Fall 2008 data include: • 47 courses taught by 37 different instructors • Spring 2009 data include: • 47 courses, taught by 37 different instructors • 7 courses were included in both the analyses of undergraduate and graduate grades

  9. Analysis of graduate grades by course level

  10. Analysis of graduate grades by type of instructor

  11. Analysis of graduate grades by requirement level

  12. Conclusions: Graduate grading • A slightly higher proportion of H’s is assigned in 400-level courses (461, 490) • No big differences by type of instructor • Individual extremes • 47 of 94 courses with 50% or more H’s (36 instructors) • 30 of 94 courses with 67% or more H’s (25 instructors) • 6 of 94 courses with 95% or more H’s (6 instructors)

  13. Discussion • Are these grading practices acceptable? • If not, what action should be taken by whom?

More Related