CS1大班公平评分:灵活截止日期和重新提交的经验

Frank Vahid, Ashley Pang, Kelly Downey
{"title":"CS1大班公平评分:灵活截止日期和重新提交的经验","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

计算机科学教育者对公平评分越来越感兴趣,以支持不同学生的背景、观点和当前生活状况。我们的课程是高度脚手架式的(公平评分的一个方面),每周都会给阅读、家庭作业和实验作业打分。所有这些项目都是自动分级与即时反馈,部分学分,并重新提交。以前,我们不接受迟到的工作,除非极少数例外。在2022年春季,根据公平的评分建议,以减少对截止日期的强调,我们允许在目标日期后14天内提交(和重新提交)作业,每天扣除1%,学生将获得这14天内的最高分数。本文分析了学生如何利用这一“迟到政策”。主要的发现是,学生们并没有像我们最初担心的那样,在1-2周内完成所有的工作;相反,学生们在预定日期前完成了大部分作业。我们发现,在265名学生中,有许多人只是轻微地(51%)或适度地(35%)使用这项政策,以便在目标日期后1-2天内获得更多的分数。只有14%的人是该政策的重度使用者,他们有合理的课程结果。学生的反馈是积极的,老师们表示,由于减少了迟到的请求,他们节省了时间和精力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards Grading for Equity in a Large CS1 Class: An Experience with Flexible Deadlines and Resubmissions
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Toward AI-infused Game Design Activities for Rural Middle Grades Students Translate Together: Managed Translation and Peer-Review Automatic Feedback During Coding Exams: Curse or Blessing? Technocamps: Highlighting 20 Years of Transforming Digital Education in Wales Understanding Computer Science Teacher Capacity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1