Is alternative grading more resistant to bias?
I appreciate the spirit of these past two articles, but the full realization of it seems impossible. Some examples:
(a) nowhere in my program or campus objectives do we require to communicate in English, but that is a tacit requirement in all of our courses
(b) in my digital design (logic circuit) class, it is difficult to imagine that a visually impaired student could be successful, primarily because the simulator software we use involves many small, multi-colored lines and symbols. Providing a student the alternative of, for example, drawing circuits larger by hand reduces one barrier but adds others such as increased time and the inability to run a simulation
(c) students with overbearing extracurricular commitments come to lab with more distractions and less mental energy than other students--they are at a disadvantage in accomplishing lab tasks in a 2-hour period (so offer them extra lab time, right? I do, but then we run into the issue of them not having the time to come in)
(d) "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." But the end of the semester has a fixed date.
I really don't intend this as complaining. I intend it as "I want to improve my students' learning experiences, but need help getting there."
Do you consider this goal of equity as something that is achievable? Or more of an aspirational goal?
I love "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." May I borrow it?
This is a very clear and helpful examination of how behaviors find their way into grades and how inequitable and inaccurate the resultant grades are.
Of course, part of the reason I approve is that what is written here is completely in line with the first six of my fifteen fixes for broken grades that have just been updated in a new edition of my "Repair Kit."