Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:31:46.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Grading and the “Fairness Doctrine”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

James S. Nairne
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Susan T. Fiske
Affiliation:
Princeton University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

At most universities instructors are encouraged to state their grading policies in the class syllabus, preferably along with numerical ranges for each grade. Ignoring these guidelines can get you in trouble, especially if a disgruntled student chooses to file a grade appeal. If the student can demonstrate that his or her grade does not match what has been given to other students, or if the grade criteria are not explicitly outlined in the syllabus, then the student has a reasonable chance of winning a grade appeal. Special attention is typically given to a “fairness” criterion – all students in the class should be graded in the same way.

But for those of us who teach large classes, in my case more than 400 students in an introductory psychology course, sticking to the “fairness doctrine” can be a challenge. The final grade is based almost entirely on three or four multiple-choice tests, so poor performance on the first (or any) test can put the student in a hopeless situation. Imagine that I give three 100-point multiple-choice tests and the cutoff for a C is a cumulative 210. Student A flunks the first test, receiving a score of 44, but judiciously comes to office hours and performs well on the second exam (70) and even better on the third (90). Student B never comes to office hours, shows no improvement across tests, but ends up with the same final total (68 + 68 + 68). Do these two students really deserve the same grade?

Type
Chapter
Information
Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Case Studies and Commentaries
, pp. 22 - 24
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×