{"title":"Towards Grading for Equity in a Large CS1 Class: An Experience with Flexible Deadlines and Resubmissions","authors":"Frank Vahid, Ashley Pang, Kelly Downey","doi":"10.1145/3587103.3594200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"CS educators have increasing interest in equitable grading, to support differing student backgrounds, perspectives, and current life situations. Our course is heavily scaffolded (one aspect of equitable grading), with points for readings, homeworks, and lab assignments, every week. All those items are auto graded with instant feedback, partial credit, and resubmissions. Previously, we did not accept late work, except for rare exceptions. In Spring 2022, following equitable-grading advice to reduce emphasis on deadlines, we allowed work to be submitted (and resubmitted) up to 14 days after target dates, with a small 1% deduction/day, with students receiving whatever max score occurred across those 14 days. This paper analyzes how students made use of this \"late policy.\" The main finding was students did not shift all work by 1-2 weeks, as we originally feared; instead, students did most work by target dates. We found many of our 265 students only used the policy lightly (51%) or used it moderately (35%) to earn a few more points 1-2 days after target dates. Only 14% were heavy users of the policy, and they had reasonable course outcomes. Student feedback was positive, and instructors stated they saved time and energy due to reduced late requests.","PeriodicalId":366365,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3587103.3594200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
CS educators have increasing interest in equitable grading, to support differing student backgrounds, perspectives, and current life situations. Our course is heavily scaffolded (one aspect of equitable grading), with points for readings, homeworks, and lab assignments, every week. All those items are auto graded with instant feedback, partial credit, and resubmissions. Previously, we did not accept late work, except for rare exceptions. In Spring 2022, following equitable-grading advice to reduce emphasis on deadlines, we allowed work to be submitted (and resubmitted) up to 14 days after target dates, with a small 1% deduction/day, with students receiving whatever max score occurred across those 14 days. This paper analyzes how students made use of this "late policy." The main finding was students did not shift all work by 1-2 weeks, as we originally feared; instead, students did most work by target dates. We found many of our 265 students only used the policy lightly (51%) or used it moderately (35%) to earn a few more points 1-2 days after target dates. Only 14% were heavy users of the policy, and they had reasonable course outcomes. Student feedback was positive, and instructors stated they saved time and energy due to reduced late requests.