Here's an interesting discussion of whether you should grade on a curve or not. Dr. Rhett Allain (@ Dot Physics) and Professor Chad Orzel (Union College), as well as others (see the comments sections), present the pros and cons.
My take on this? I have never curved an exam. I do look to make sure that there are some A's to make sure the test was doable. A former colleague of mine used to make her exams so difficult that the top score would be 40 out of 100 points and then she would curve. To me, this doesn't make sense-you're really not motivating the students to do their best as they don't have the expectancy that they CAN do well. It also puts the professor in the position of giving points rather than having the students earn these.
I'd be interested in hearing what others think...
As a student, one of my professors gave us tests that were not passable based on the literature and lecture material. Some of the questions were so off-base that no one in the class could imagine where the professor could have gotten the question from. The highest scores would be 40 or 50 out of 100. Then, he'd curve.
To me, it always seemed silly. Why test us over material we shouldn't know, just to curve? Or, if this information is important (more likely), why wasn't it covered in class or in the literature? Why wasn't it mentioned?
Curving every test seems illogical, to me.
Posted by: Katherine | February 12, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Katherine: You confirm what I thought the students were thinking. It's OK to challenge students, but the exam should be doable. I would think knowing that no one will be able to pass would demotivate the students from even trying. Thanks for commenting.
Posted by: Dr. Delaney Kirk | February 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM
No, I do not curve grades on exams, assignments, or for the course. I believe that every student starts out at the same place and thus, has the same opportunity as the next person to reach an A. I'm not there to make it look good for me or them; I'm there to help them understand material they may not know, may not understand, or haven't come in contact with before, thus I feel everyone should be on a level playing field (so to speak). Does this mean that I'm out for people to fail, or for only to give out a certain number of As, Bs, etc.? No, definitely not. In fact I tell my students "you have to make a concerted effort to fail my course." Education isn't about getting an A in everything you do. It's about growing intellectually, professionally, and personally. Not doing perfectly on everything is sometimes a better teacher than the traditional "sage on a stage."
Posted by: Alec Hosterman | February 21, 2009 at 01:09 PM
I have a peer who uses an idea he calls "test point recovery," where he makes his tests extremely hard, and then allows students to rework the problems after the test is handed back and turn in their corrections. If these are correct, he gives them half their points back; so a person who scores 20 on an exam could "recover" to a score of 60.
My point of view is that this is inappropriate, because the scope of the material on the test is, by design, much more difficult than the student can be expected to complete within the time frame of the test. In effect, one never knows what the students CAN do within the testing window, which is (allegedly!) what the test is designed to measure.
Posted by: Stephan DeLong | April 07, 2009 at 01:24 PM