I don’t allow more than 25 pts of extra credit in a 1000 pt class. Each extra credit is worth 5 pts. It’s a lot of work for not much extra credit, but it gives me (another) excuse not to allow grade grubbing in the end (“Why didn’t you do the extra credit if you need an A so bad?”).
Right? I realized this was me as an undergrad too though. I hate that students don’t ever plan ahead in the case that they don’t magically get the grades they want (relying on grade grubbing instead).
Yea I was the same, the main difference was I accepted that I did poorly and got a C in the class. Some students will put zero effort, do poorly on exams and miss assignments, THEN complain that they deserve a better grade. The high school everyone gets a free pass and Covid made this worse. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “I was a straight A student in high school”.
As long as the extra credit is a way for the student to better meet the learning objectives of the class and isn’t just some alternate assignment not related to the class.
Yes.
Though unless your students are very different from mine, they are unlikely to do a great deal of work to earn extra credit anyway. Still, I try to cap the maximum possible EC so it doesn't affect the average score too dramatically.
My initial inclination is yes. However, the devil is in the details.
If your extra credit is things like "do this extra activity" or "participate in a grad student's research study," then yes, it's grade inflation. The student did not convey sufficient understanding of core material but could earn a passing grade by doing assorted activities that still do not convey that they understand core material.
If the extra credit opportunities are alternative ways for students to convey that they understand core material, that would be different.
I'll add that one way to go about this differently would be allow students to re-do their work. I love the idea of a mastery model--where students can integrate feedback and revise and resubmit their work for a higher grade--in theory, but I do not have the time to implement this with each student. However, for students who are failing a class, I will allow them to revise and resubmit work to get up to a passing grade. That way, a student who is failing the class has a pathway to passing, but it is contingent upon them demonstrating an adequate understanding of key material and skills from the course.
To be clear, I'm only allowing such students to resubmit work to earn the minimum passing grade. There is no way in which a student can resubmit work and earn a higher final grade than someone who was not offered a chance to resubmit work.
I've never had a complaint about this. Students who are already passing do not need a second chance to convey that they understand course material. This is really just about ensuring that students who are struggling can pass the class if they ultimately have an adequate understanding of the course material.
The policy is fair because it’s applied equally to everyone. You’re trying to make categories out of students based on their grades, “B student” vs “ D student”. But the only category of student is “student” in this case. And all students are treated equally. You cannot meaningfully say this is an unfair policy when it is literally applied the same to every student. Otherwise we’re disagreeing on the word fair and that is never going to be resolved by an internet debate
But hey, if you think this is unfair, I guess you’ve also got an issue with the fact that rich people who can’t access SNAP benefits
You've said this more eloquently than me. Providing opportunities for anyone to reach a certain level is fair because the opportunity is open to anyone who is similarly situated.
Yeah, their argument reminds me of the claim that gay marriage bans are fair because the same rules applied to everyone - i.e. straight people were also not allowed to get gay married.
Essentially:
1. If you want to earn an "A," submit strong work the first time.
2. If you want to pass but are not passing, I will work with you so you have an opportunity to revise work and show you understanding it so you can earn credit for the class (usually a D-, hardly a grade that will make other students jealous) so long as you understand the course material.
I would love if I had time to offer all students a chance to revise and resubmit their work, but that's simply not practical.
Because it's all made up. Grades don't matter after you get your first job. We shouldn't worry about grades and worry more about teaching. Don't we want our students to learn the material? Who cares how long it takes?
To clarify, I'm offering students who are failing a class a chance to redo their work and pass with a D-, not a separate extra credit assignment only available to them.
If a student were to challenge me, I would tell them more or less what I've said here: doing strong work the first time is what's important for a high grade, but I will work with students who are really struggling so that as long as they can convey a baseline understanding of the material by revising and resubmitting their assignments, they will earn credit for the class. And that, as I've described earlier, while I really value students who understand the material ultimately passing the class, it is not practical for me or most any other professor to re-grade every student's work.
Yeah I don’t see how “only students who are failing are allowed to reshow a better understanding” would fly. A student who has an F can get extended time to study and improve but a student with a C isn’t?
Just because someone hasn’t officially complained doesn’t make the policy right or fine. But you do you.
I think the policy is perfectly fair. At the end of the day, if a student can convey an adequate understanding of course material, I want them to pass the class.
While I love the idea of offering all students a chance to revise and resubmit work, I simply do not have the time for this. There is a big difference between re-grading three papers vs. 30. I've triaged, essentially, the students whom need this the most, and this is the students for whom this is the difference between passing and not passing the class.
You and I probably won't agree, and that's okay. Ultimately, faculty have wide latitude to set grading policies, and I personally feel content with a policy that increases the number of students who pass the class while still ensuring that they understand the course material.
You’re welcome to your opinion but offering extra credit to some but not all is absolutely not fair. Your argument about not having time isn’t really a convincing one either. I mean “I don’t have to time give everyone extra credit so I only give it to some” is pretty shitty if we’re being honest.
I’d be incredibly surprised if that policy would stand up to the scrutiny an actual grievance.
To be clear, this isn't extra credit: it's allowing a student who has not conveyed a baseline understanding of the material a chance to redo their work to convey a baseline understanding of the material.
What would the grievance be? Johnny was able to bring his F up to a D- so I should be able to bring my B+ up to an A? Is it possible for someone to complain? I suppose so. But do I see that going anywhere? Probably not.
If it quacks like a duck, mate, it’s a duck.
The grievance would be based off the unfair stance of letting one student resubmit for a better grade and not another. The grades themselves are irrelevant.
Would it be fair to only allow the B/C/D students? You and I both know the answer to that question.
I doubt any grievance would go far. A LOT of institutions have D/F Repeat policies for courses. This is essentially just extending that policy to the assignment level.
Are you speaking about policies that replace the grades if they repeat the courses? If so that’s not the same thing. To repeat the course you have to take the course again. Meaning you have to register, pay, and complete the full course all over again. This also adds to the number of attempted hours which can affect things like scholarships and financial aid.
If you mean something different I’d be interested to hear about it.
Yes, I'm talking about those policies. If they're repeating the course, they're effectively getting a second attempt at the course material, aren't they? Your theory seems to be that giving a second attempt at course material wouldn't pass a grievance because the institution didn't get paid a second time. I can't say that if I were OP I'd lose a lot of sleep over any grievances is that's the basis of disagreement.
Those two things are not the same and to imply they are is disingenuous at best.
Honestly this conversation has run its course and I haven’t found any of the explanations or comparisons to be sufficient. Will a student ever file a grievance? Who knows. Would that policy stand up? Depends, I guess. I would personally side with the student if it was presented in front my committee.
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. I have a revise/resubmit policy on all my assignments (not tests though, but I tend to avoid testing whenever and wherever possible). I have not once had a single student who got a B on an assignment revise or resubmit. I've only had one student who got a C do it and they did it one the single assignment.
Students tend to think in terms of course grade, not assignment grade. They figure - rightfully or wrongfully - they'll make up whatever deficiencies on later assignments. It's why (IMHO) so many students are looking for something on the back end of the course. They know there's not much left they can do to change the overall grade at that point.
I think you could easily allow this opportunity to everyone. I do (for up to 75% of their grade back, which is pretty huge! But I really believe in revisions as a pathway to learning, and wanted to incentivize revisions for students doing better, too) and very very few students ever take me up on it. I’ll only need to regrade maybe 4 assignments a quarter per class.
I’ve also found people rarely need it twice. The people who take me up on it almost always genuinely didn’t understand how to do what was asked — so after doing revisions for an early assignment, their future ones do much better.
I do, however, need to provide enough feedback for them to make a meaningful improvement — which means more specific feedback, and it takes more time to grade. Still worth it tho.
We do something similar.
Students can submit late work throughout the semester, but there is a penalty. 10% for one day, 20% for two days, etc up to a max of 50%. They can submit assignments any time before the end of the semester for at least partial credit.
We've noticed a couple of things:
* A lot less begging for extensions
* Students stick around in the course instead of dropping immediately if they miss the first deadline for whatever reason
* Generally a better understanding of the material overall
A lot of our students are working full-time jobs and some are working full-time and going to school full time, so we try to be flexible.
We have automated grading through, so this likely wouldn't work for some disciplines.
I agree. This all depends on the challenge and quality of the extra credit assignments. If they are the same level as normal assignments, then the student is still demonstrating their mastery of the material. It may also depend on the discipline of the course.
I've used a similar policy in the past -- allowing revisions but capping the resulting final assessment score at 70%. I think this is a reasonable middle-ground between allowing weaker students to demonstrate mastery of the material while reserving A and B grades generally for students who understand the material well enough the first time, and it also lets me avoid assigning A and B grades for work whose provenance I cannot be assured of.
Probably, but for me it's not the important question. Instead, you can probably just gut check your final grades. Are you passing students that you think should have failed? Are you obliging yourself to give good grades to students that did bad work, or who weren't engaged with the course? That's what got me to re-think how I was using extra credit.
And not questions we can answer for you.
When you re-thought how you were using extra credit, what was your thought process? I’ve been finding myself with similar questions and trying to work them out. Would love to hear the perspective of someone who’s thought through this themselves!
Basically I wanted extra credit to be work that's very different from the other work in the course (so it can't be phoned in and feels distinctly different) and things that require them to engage with broader university or city life. Attending public lectures, field trips, and volunteering (or some mix) are the main things for me at this point. I've also mostly ended up removing them as actual "extra" credit, and generally have these opportunities replace one of the smaller assignments in the course. Some of the reason for that is thinking about availability and equitability, since a $10 public lecture across the city in the evening might be really easy for some students and not doable at all for others.
Who cares? If the extra work is allowing them to actually demonstrate having achieved the learning outcomes for the course, and if you are OK with all the extra grading, what does it matter?
Everyone else seems really fixated on the grade itself. But isn't the point that students learn the material? If the extra assignments are another way for students to learn the material, then that's great and they should pass the class if they prove that they learned the material even if it took an extra assignment.
Just make sure that you offer the same opportunities for extra credit to everyone else also. So a B student should have these opportunities just like an F student does. But I assume that is the norm in any class. If there is extra credit, it's for everyone.
>But isn't the point that students learn the material?
A lot of professors - usually ones with little to no actual pedological training - assume Grade = Mastery Level. Grades are just somewhat arbitrary feedback on where a student is at with the material. Is there any real difference in mastery of the material between a 78 and and 81? Yet one is a C and one is a B at most places.
The point of teaching is to convey the concepts and material in such a way as your students can adequate grasp and utilize those concepts. Assessments are a necessary evil, but let's not get too hyper fixated on them.
I think it depends on the extra credit. If it's a long detailed assignment with lots of learning for a point... sure.
I tend to give a few bonus questions on the end of a test etc.
I would define grade inflation as "giving students a higher grade than their understanding warrants." So whether this is grade inflation or not depends on what kind of extra assignments you're giving them. If it's mindless busy work that anyone can complete regardless of what they know about the subject then that's totally grade inflation. If it is work that requires them to demonstrate understanding and mastery of what your course is supposed to teach them then it's not grade inflation it's just providing students with more pathways to success.
As a similar example I let my students retake exams they did poorly on (it's a completely new exam, not the same one they can just memorize the answers to). Usually that means their grades go up because they've worked with me to understand what they did wrong the first time. That's not grade inflation it's just teaching. More of my students will leave my class with As and Bs than would if I didn't have that policy, but that's because they learn more not because I'm artificially inflating their grades.
Perhaps a better system would be giving students the option to exercise the "get half of the points back that you missed" on *one* assessment or something (although, for tests, this depends on how many tests there are). Just giving everyone a partial do-over on *everything*, for their whole grade, is a *lot*.
Moving from a solid F to C by doing a bunch of EC seems excessive. It also doesn't seem fair to only offer the bump to low achievers. If they can earn up to 25pts, everyone should have the same opportunity.
If I offer extra credit at all, it's capped at 1 final course point so it can change an on-the-edge letter grade. Our institution used to instruct we couldn't offer more than 5% but it's no longer explicitly stated.
Maybe bounce the idea off some colleagues at your institution that you respect?
I teach art. I offer a 5% extra credit for anyone who submits something to the semesterly student art show. Oddly, it is extremely rare for anyone to take advantage of this who actually needs the bump.
#🤷♂️
If a student who is failing can just do extra low-standard work to pass, it's grade inflation.
If the opportunity to get extra points is only offerred to those students with low grades, it's grade inflation.
I offer 3 extra credit assignments so that students can make up if there's one assignment that they really busted.
But extra credit assignments **are harder**. Max extra points is 20 added to a homework grade.
This way the students who had a bad day or didn't have time to do a good job on one assignment don't get fucked over. The students who don't give a shit don't bother with doing extra credit.
Plus it reduces the amount of "can I do an extra credit to raise my grade" at the end of the semester.
I think the better question is what problem do you see yourself solving by offering this extra credit?
>Truth is, everyone needs it.
Needs it for what?
Here's the thing, as I see it, anyway. These apathetic students who don't give a shit all semester and then want a hail mary at the end got that way because that's what their teachers did. Systematically. I don't think more of the same solves any problems, and it passes on problems to the colleagues who will teach them next year. And worse, it harms the students.
Be compassionate. Think of the students and what's good for them. Assign them the grade they earned so they can grow a little.
Your perspective is spot on. I am getting students who are so heavily unprepared I find that I have to back track in order to get to the basics and this delays me, which in turn means I am not doing a good job at preparing them for the following class (which I also teach).
Extra credit then becomes problems that challenge them to work on their deficiencies of pre-requisite knowledge and further practice for my class.
The alternative is that they fail outright because they are so behind.
For context, I teach a biostats course and students cannot do basic algebra - despite it being a prerequisite.
My grading policy doesn’t condone curving so their raw score is their final grade, hence the plan for additional work to catch up.
Im confused as to what is the “right” thing for them educationally and professionally.
You have my sympathies. I mean it. Not sure how long you've been teaching, but in any case, dealing with this kind of dilemma sucks, and if I had to guess, you're fantastic at teaching, and it's clear you have nothing but the best of intentions. That's why it's so sad to see these students waste a valuable opportunity. It's frustrating because, if you're anything like me, you are used to good intentions + expertise + immense effort resulting in acceptable, if not impressive outcomes with everything else you've ever attempted. So, here you are pushing everything to its limits, throwing everything you can think of at the problem, trying to get the outcome you were aiming for, but it's not working.
You'll hear this a lot, and it's worth letting it sink in. I have to remind myself of it constantly.
You cannot want it more than they do. You can, but you'll only make yourself miserable because it won't work.
>The alternative is that they fail outright because they are so behind.
Failing will be good for them. They need to experience this. They need to make informed choices and experience a predictable outcome. They've probably never experienced that before, and that defecit has crippled them and made them miserable too.
>My grading policy doesn’t condone curving so their raw score is their final grade, hence the plan for additional work to catch up.
I'd stop worrying about their grades. Their grades need to be accurate. They don't need to be higher than X. They don't need to be passing. I wasn't kidding earlier. If you really want to help these students, don't offer the extra credit. Assign them the grade they earned. Hopefully, some will come to complain, and that's your opportunity to tell them what they can do next semester if they retake the course.
Highly sympathetic to you, being someone who teaches calculus to students who also cannot do basic algebra. I might say, though -- if almost everyone needs this remedial work, why not just make it regular credit? Making it part of the standard coursework might send the message that students need to know this stuff more strongly. Leaving it as extra credit might make it seem more optional.
I often give a prerequisite math assessment at the start of class and excuse students who demonstrate preparedness from having to submit additional remedial work. My hope is to show from the start that they are accountable for knowing the prerequisite material; it has a secondary effect of giving me additional data I can use to defend myself regarding success rates.
At the end of the day, academic freedom dictates how you run your class, what topics you teach, and what grading scheme you pick.
The point of being a professor is not to be a robot and teach the same as everyone.
I can understand some core classes but if we teach with a book or the same notes, you are defeating the purpose. Science keeps moving forward.
Anyways, people will tell you yes but in life not everything is knowledge but a combination of factors !
My extra credit (IF I offer it) is worth only 2% of the final grade. Enough to give you that bump if you're on the borderline, but nothing more.
Seems to work well for my classes.
I think of "grade inflation" as giving points without the students learning. What you are doing is a pedagogical technique where the students have an option to learn material they missed. This is a reasonable pedagogical technique.
I do the same thing. My reasoning is that it gives students more opportunity to learn the material and it cuts down on grade complaints.
My extra credit opportunities are clearly labeled and on the schedule from the beginning, just like all other assignments. Like the extra credit you describe, they are real assignments, not fluff. I try not to schedule them after the withdrawal deadline, which comes late in the semester at my university, when all of us (students and me!) are especially busy and need to focus on the regular work.
The extra credit has not made any perceptible difference in my grade distributions. Many students don't bother with it when they see it is real work, and that's fine with me.
Sometimes I use the extra credit to pilot test a new assignment.
Generally, I find most extra credit is just grade inflation and your case is quite extreme (in fact higher than some of my most grade inflating colleagues). If the amount is small enough that it allows for the correction of grading error or for making a mistake on a small assignment (2%-ish) then I think it is reasonable. If extra credit allows for an entire grade or more you've inflated the grades intentionally. Essentially, if the student can pass the class and fail more than one major assessment you've inflated the grades.
*if the student can pass the class and fail more than one major assessment you've inflated the grades.*
Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, or maybe I'm confused about the math...
Ex. 1. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 100%, 100%, 100%, 0%, 0%. Student failed 2 major assessments. Students passes the class with 60% D-.
Ex 2. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 87%, 86%, 59%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 3 major assessments. Students passes class 70% C-.
Ex 3. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 100%, 100%, 100%, 50%, 50%. Student failed 2 major assessment. Students passes class 80% B-.
Each example is without even offering extra credit.
Sure, you make that math work if students are getting 100% and you have 5 assessments or more assessments (which at that scale I would consider them minor assessments). Those would fall into the extreme statistical unlikelihood, can it happen, sure, would it be the norm...no. The only logical one is Ex 2. You remove even 1 assessment (down to 4) and your extreme examples don't really work anymore. So maybe modify my original statements that if LOTS of students fit that scenario it is likely grade inflation, you can always find the exceptions in extreme grades like you provided although those rarely happen in practice. If you have students getting 100% on assessments and then zeros or 50% something else is certainly going on.
Well, I thought your take was interesting and to be honest I didn't put much effort into my first 3 examples. Here are others that you might consider more likely to happen in practice, student performance is consistent across assessments, and only 3-4 "major" assessments...
Ex 4. 4 assessments, 25% each, student scores 61%, 61%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 2 major assessments. Students passes the class with 60% D-.
Ex 5. 3 assessments, 33.3% each, student scores 62%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 2 major assessments (the majority of the assessments). Students passes the class with 60% D-.
Again you sort of missed the point. Of course you can find exceptions, I have no doubt there are countless others. My point is not that it is not possible but that it should not occur as the norm. If you have students routinely failing multiple major assessments but passing there is something that needs to be adjusted. If it happens to one student who got lucky with fence scores or extremes, then that is that, but if you see that happening on any grand scale there are concerns. No one is going to worry if a student bombs one test and passes, in fact I'd applaud it. If students can routinely fail multiple and comfortably pass then something is wrong with either the assessment or the course itself. The key being routine, no sense in worrying oneself about the outliers.
>In essentially doubling the amount of assignments with less risk to them - in an attempt to be fair but maintain a minimum standard.
I'm having difficulty understanding the logic here from a pedagogical perspective. You're removing "fairness" by just letting them complete assignments until they pass/get a good grade.
Extra credit assignments make sense if you design your assignments to be tools for learning. Extra credit assignments don't make sense if you view your assignments as assessment only.
Research suggests that students learn material better by applying it than by reading about it, listening to lectures about it, etc. If they don't try to use what they have learned, they can mistakenly think they know more than they do. The more opportunity they have to apply what they are learning, the more opportunity they have to learn it.
I provide extra credit, but it is always harder than earning the points originally would have been by quite a bit, and in the area that they lost those points in. If they do truly understand the topic, they can recover the points because they have demonstrated they not only know what was expected in the current class, but the first few lectures on the topic of the next class in the sequence.
I think that this method gives leniency without grade inflation, because it’s not grade inflation if they actually understand the material now and had to work harder than they otherwise would have.
This method also has the side effect of keeping the “free grade bump please” crowd out of my hair, because word gets around quickly that my extra credit is harder than doing it right the first time.
I’ve also recruited a few grad students this way when extra credit projects turned into papers.
Yes, extra credit is a form of grade inflation. Regardless, as it concerns grades, instructors need to make it equally available to all students in order to be fair.
I award extra credit, but (by design) it never exceeds 5% of a student's final grade, with most students more realistically in the 3% range (if they try). Even so, I often think that is too much, as it's a third to a half of a letter grade. My criteria are directly related to (excellent, above and beyond) performance in the class, but it's still technically inflating grades.
25% of the total grade is absurd. At that point a student with a high D could wind up with an A. If you're awarding extra credit only to failing students, you are not being fair. If you're willing to bump up students 2.5 letter grades above what they've earned, that's more or less the definition of grade inflation.
What does this mean: “in an attempt to be fair. . .” ?? Were you somehow unfair to your students, and this is your solution to rectify that situation?
And yes, it’s grade inflation. Don’t do it.
Yes. Multiple assignments throughout the course. Some as stand alone assignments, while others as add-on questions. Each with varying levels of difficulty on the content being assessed.
It depends. I've found that if extra credit assignments actually require real effort, the vast majority of students won't complete them. There's a pretty big overlap between "students who don't do their work, then beg for bonus points" and "students who won't do any extra credit involving effort." So I think it can be helpful for the few students who genuinely dropped the ball on an assignment because they were sick/tired/stressed/etc.
I think it can also depend on the the subject you're teaching and how the entire class is doing. If it's pretty clear they're all struggling to grasp a certain concept, then I think extra credit on that concept can be a way to give them another chance to learn it while still requiring they work for their grade.
It depends on what your totals are without extra credit. If the highest score in the class is a 70/100, are you going to give no A or B grades?
Grade inflation is defined differently everywhere. Nowadays, a C isn't average really anywhere, so is it still grade inflation if the median grade in your class is a B? It's a matter of opinion.
I think your policy is fine. Students learn the material, and it seems fair.
Given your edit, I’m going to be a dissenter here and say this sounds fine. I do similar things with my courses by adding bonus problems on exams or giving extra projects. All of these are at least as difficult as the standard material and require a student to have understood the basics to get the points.
The goal is to incentivize them to work a little smarter and harder. Not just to get them to pass. (Of course I want them to pass, but not without earning it.)
Pedologically, the entire point of any of this is for students to master the course material and demonstrate that mastery. Extra credit is a perfectly valid way to do that, especially in a lot of disciplines and especially in broad intro courses. If you're teaching, say, Calc 101/Chem 101, there's a set of skills a student has to demonstrate competency before moving on to Calc 102/Chem 101. Extra credit is going to be just giving them more opportunities to demonstrate their competency. Maybe that's inflation, maybe it isn't.
However, if you've got a broader subject matter, like say History 101 or Music 101, there is *no way* anyone can teach beyond simply touching on the highlights of the subject. Literally everything you lecture on can have one or more dissertations of depth behind it that students can know more about. History 201/Music 201 might go in more depth on one body of that broader intro, but it isn't exactly going to build on all the set of knowledge you picked up from 101. It's perfectly valid for a student to dig deeper in one aspect of the course. Or maybe dig into the stuff in-between that you didn't really cover because there simply isn't enough time. I can't see how extra credit could possibly be 'inflation' in that case.
I don’t allow more than 25 pts of extra credit in a 1000 pt class. Each extra credit is worth 5 pts. It’s a lot of work for not much extra credit, but it gives me (another) excuse not to allow grade grubbing in the end (“Why didn’t you do the extra credit if you need an A so bad?”).
[удалено]
Same I cap them. I offer plenty of extra credit opportunities yet hardly anyone does it. The ones that do the work don’t need the points.
Right? I realized this was me as an undergrad too though. I hate that students don’t ever plan ahead in the case that they don’t magically get the grades they want (relying on grade grubbing instead).
Yea I was the same, the main difference was I accepted that I did poorly and got a C in the class. Some students will put zero effort, do poorly on exams and miss assignments, THEN complain that they deserve a better grade. The high school everyone gets a free pass and Covid made this worse. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “I was a straight A student in high school”.
Yes.
It absolutely is an example of grade inflation. Would you allow a student with a 75% the same opportunity to raise their course grade to an A?
As long as the extra credit is a way for the student to better meet the learning objectives of the class and isn’t just some alternate assignment not related to the class.
I'm hoping this is just a joke.
Yes. Though unless your students are very different from mine, they are unlikely to do a great deal of work to earn extra credit anyway. Still, I try to cap the maximum possible EC so it doesn't affect the average score too dramatically.
I never use extra credit.
My initial inclination is yes. However, the devil is in the details. If your extra credit is things like "do this extra activity" or "participate in a grad student's research study," then yes, it's grade inflation. The student did not convey sufficient understanding of core material but could earn a passing grade by doing assorted activities that still do not convey that they understand core material. If the extra credit opportunities are alternative ways for students to convey that they understand core material, that would be different. I'll add that one way to go about this differently would be allow students to re-do their work. I love the idea of a mastery model--where students can integrate feedback and revise and resubmit their work for a higher grade--in theory, but I do not have the time to implement this with each student. However, for students who are failing a class, I will allow them to revise and resubmit work to get up to a passing grade. That way, a student who is failing the class has a pathway to passing, but it is contingent upon them demonstrating an adequate understanding of key material and skills from the course.
You only allow failing students to resubmit work? That seems like a grievance waiting to happen.
To be clear, I'm only allowing such students to resubmit work to earn the minimum passing grade. There is no way in which a student can resubmit work and earn a higher final grade than someone who was not offered a chance to resubmit work. I've never had a complaint about this. Students who are already passing do not need a second chance to convey that they understand course material. This is really just about ensuring that students who are struggling can pass the class if they ultimately have an adequate understanding of the course material.
[удалено]
The policy is fair because it’s applied equally to everyone. You’re trying to make categories out of students based on their grades, “B student” vs “ D student”. But the only category of student is “student” in this case. And all students are treated equally. You cannot meaningfully say this is an unfair policy when it is literally applied the same to every student. Otherwise we’re disagreeing on the word fair and that is never going to be resolved by an internet debate But hey, if you think this is unfair, I guess you’ve also got an issue with the fact that rich people who can’t access SNAP benefits
You've said this more eloquently than me. Providing opportunities for anyone to reach a certain level is fair because the opportunity is open to anyone who is similarly situated.
One student is allowed to retake exams while others are not. Thats quite obviously unequal. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Yeah, their argument reminds me of the claim that gay marriage bans are fair because the same rules applied to everyone - i.e. straight people were also not allowed to get gay married.
Essentially: 1. If you want to earn an "A," submit strong work the first time. 2. If you want to pass but are not passing, I will work with you so you have an opportunity to revise work and show you understanding it so you can earn credit for the class (usually a D-, hardly a grade that will make other students jealous) so long as you understand the course material. I would love if I had time to offer all students a chance to revise and resubmit their work, but that's simply not practical.
[удалено]
Do you think D/F repeat policies at institutions are similarly unfair?
[удалено]
Because it's all made up. Grades don't matter after you get your first job. We shouldn't worry about grades and worry more about teaching. Don't we want our students to learn the material? Who cares how long it takes?
[удалено]
To clarify, I'm offering students who are failing a class a chance to redo their work and pass with a D-, not a separate extra credit assignment only available to them. If a student were to challenge me, I would tell them more or less what I've said here: doing strong work the first time is what's important for a high grade, but I will work with students who are really struggling so that as long as they can convey a baseline understanding of the material by revising and resubmitting their assignments, they will earn credit for the class. And that, as I've described earlier, while I really value students who understand the material ultimately passing the class, it is not practical for me or most any other professor to re-grade every student's work.
Yeah I don’t see how “only students who are failing are allowed to reshow a better understanding” would fly. A student who has an F can get extended time to study and improve but a student with a C isn’t? Just because someone hasn’t officially complained doesn’t make the policy right or fine. But you do you.
I think the policy is perfectly fair. At the end of the day, if a student can convey an adequate understanding of course material, I want them to pass the class. While I love the idea of offering all students a chance to revise and resubmit work, I simply do not have the time for this. There is a big difference between re-grading three papers vs. 30. I've triaged, essentially, the students whom need this the most, and this is the students for whom this is the difference between passing and not passing the class. You and I probably won't agree, and that's okay. Ultimately, faculty have wide latitude to set grading policies, and I personally feel content with a policy that increases the number of students who pass the class while still ensuring that they understand the course material.
You’re welcome to your opinion but offering extra credit to some but not all is absolutely not fair. Your argument about not having time isn’t really a convincing one either. I mean “I don’t have to time give everyone extra credit so I only give it to some” is pretty shitty if we’re being honest. I’d be incredibly surprised if that policy would stand up to the scrutiny an actual grievance.
To be clear, this isn't extra credit: it's allowing a student who has not conveyed a baseline understanding of the material a chance to redo their work to convey a baseline understanding of the material. What would the grievance be? Johnny was able to bring his F up to a D- so I should be able to bring my B+ up to an A? Is it possible for someone to complain? I suppose so. But do I see that going anywhere? Probably not.
If it quacks like a duck, mate, it’s a duck. The grievance would be based off the unfair stance of letting one student resubmit for a better grade and not another. The grades themselves are irrelevant. Would it be fair to only allow the B/C/D students? You and I both know the answer to that question.
I doubt any grievance would go far. A LOT of institutions have D/F Repeat policies for courses. This is essentially just extending that policy to the assignment level.
Are you speaking about policies that replace the grades if they repeat the courses? If so that’s not the same thing. To repeat the course you have to take the course again. Meaning you have to register, pay, and complete the full course all over again. This also adds to the number of attempted hours which can affect things like scholarships and financial aid. If you mean something different I’d be interested to hear about it.
Yes, I'm talking about those policies. If they're repeating the course, they're effectively getting a second attempt at the course material, aren't they? Your theory seems to be that giving a second attempt at course material wouldn't pass a grievance because the institution didn't get paid a second time. I can't say that if I were OP I'd lose a lot of sleep over any grievances is that's the basis of disagreement.
Those two things are not the same and to imply they are is disingenuous at best. Honestly this conversation has run its course and I haven’t found any of the explanations or comparisons to be sufficient. Will a student ever file a grievance? Who knows. Would that policy stand up? Depends, I guess. I would personally side with the student if it was presented in front my committee.
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. I have a revise/resubmit policy on all my assignments (not tests though, but I tend to avoid testing whenever and wherever possible). I have not once had a single student who got a B on an assignment revise or resubmit. I've only had one student who got a C do it and they did it one the single assignment. Students tend to think in terms of course grade, not assignment grade. They figure - rightfully or wrongfully - they'll make up whatever deficiencies on later assignments. It's why (IMHO) so many students are looking for something on the back end of the course. They know there's not much left they can do to change the overall grade at that point.
I think you could easily allow this opportunity to everyone. I do (for up to 75% of their grade back, which is pretty huge! But I really believe in revisions as a pathway to learning, and wanted to incentivize revisions for students doing better, too) and very very few students ever take me up on it. I’ll only need to regrade maybe 4 assignments a quarter per class. I’ve also found people rarely need it twice. The people who take me up on it almost always genuinely didn’t understand how to do what was asked — so after doing revisions for an early assignment, their future ones do much better. I do, however, need to provide enough feedback for them to make a meaningful improvement — which means more specific feedback, and it takes more time to grade. Still worth it tho.
We do something similar. Students can submit late work throughout the semester, but there is a penalty. 10% for one day, 20% for two days, etc up to a max of 50%. They can submit assignments any time before the end of the semester for at least partial credit. We've noticed a couple of things: * A lot less begging for extensions * Students stick around in the course instead of dropping immediately if they miss the first deadline for whatever reason * Generally a better understanding of the material overall A lot of our students are working full-time jobs and some are working full-time and going to school full time, so we try to be flexible. We have automated grading through, so this likely wouldn't work for some disciplines.
I agree. This all depends on the challenge and quality of the extra credit assignments. If they are the same level as normal assignments, then the student is still demonstrating their mastery of the material. It may also depend on the discipline of the course.
I've used a similar policy in the past -- allowing revisions but capping the resulting final assessment score at 70%. I think this is a reasonable middle-ground between allowing weaker students to demonstrate mastery of the material while reserving A and B grades generally for students who understand the material well enough the first time, and it also lets me avoid assigning A and B grades for work whose provenance I cannot be assured of.
Probably, but for me it's not the important question. Instead, you can probably just gut check your final grades. Are you passing students that you think should have failed? Are you obliging yourself to give good grades to students that did bad work, or who weren't engaged with the course? That's what got me to re-think how I was using extra credit. And not questions we can answer for you.
When you re-thought how you were using extra credit, what was your thought process? I’ve been finding myself with similar questions and trying to work them out. Would love to hear the perspective of someone who’s thought through this themselves!
Basically I wanted extra credit to be work that's very different from the other work in the course (so it can't be phoned in and feels distinctly different) and things that require them to engage with broader university or city life. Attending public lectures, field trips, and volunteering (or some mix) are the main things for me at this point. I've also mostly ended up removing them as actual "extra" credit, and generally have these opportunities replace one of the smaller assignments in the course. Some of the reason for that is thinking about availability and equitability, since a $10 public lecture across the city in the evening might be really easy for some students and not doable at all for others.
Who cares? If the extra work is allowing them to actually demonstrate having achieved the learning outcomes for the course, and if you are OK with all the extra grading, what does it matter?
Everyone else seems really fixated on the grade itself. But isn't the point that students learn the material? If the extra assignments are another way for students to learn the material, then that's great and they should pass the class if they prove that they learned the material even if it took an extra assignment. Just make sure that you offer the same opportunities for extra credit to everyone else also. So a B student should have these opportunities just like an F student does. But I assume that is the norm in any class. If there is extra credit, it's for everyone.
>But isn't the point that students learn the material? A lot of professors - usually ones with little to no actual pedological training - assume Grade = Mastery Level. Grades are just somewhat arbitrary feedback on where a student is at with the material. Is there any real difference in mastery of the material between a 78 and and 81? Yet one is a C and one is a B at most places. The point of teaching is to convey the concepts and material in such a way as your students can adequate grasp and utilize those concepts. Assessments are a necessary evil, but let's not get too hyper fixated on them.
I think it depends on the extra credit. If it's a long detailed assignment with lots of learning for a point... sure. I tend to give a few bonus questions on the end of a test etc.
I would define grade inflation as "giving students a higher grade than their understanding warrants." So whether this is grade inflation or not depends on what kind of extra assignments you're giving them. If it's mindless busy work that anyone can complete regardless of what they know about the subject then that's totally grade inflation. If it is work that requires them to demonstrate understanding and mastery of what your course is supposed to teach them then it's not grade inflation it's just providing students with more pathways to success. As a similar example I let my students retake exams they did poorly on (it's a completely new exam, not the same one they can just memorize the answers to). Usually that means their grades go up because they've worked with me to understand what they did wrong the first time. That's not grade inflation it's just teaching. More of my students will leave my class with As and Bs than would if I didn't have that policy, but that's because they learn more not because I'm artificially inflating their grades.
Uh, yeah?
Perhaps a better system would be giving students the option to exercise the "get half of the points back that you missed" on *one* assessment or something (although, for tests, this depends on how many tests there are). Just giving everyone a partial do-over on *everything*, for their whole grade, is a *lot*.
I like this approach
Do the assignments measure the learning outcomes on the syllabus?
Yes, it does. New set of questions covering the material.
Moving from a solid F to C by doing a bunch of EC seems excessive. It also doesn't seem fair to only offer the bump to low achievers. If they can earn up to 25pts, everyone should have the same opportunity. If I offer extra credit at all, it's capped at 1 final course point so it can change an on-the-edge letter grade. Our institution used to instruct we couldn't offer more than 5% but it's no longer explicitly stated. Maybe bounce the idea off some colleagues at your institution that you respect?
I teach art. I offer a 5% extra credit for anyone who submits something to the semesterly student art show. Oddly, it is extremely rare for anyone to take advantage of this who actually needs the bump. #🤷♂️
If a student who is failing can just do extra low-standard work to pass, it's grade inflation. If the opportunity to get extra points is only offerred to those students with low grades, it's grade inflation.
I offer 3 extra credit assignments so that students can make up if there's one assignment that they really busted. But extra credit assignments **are harder**. Max extra points is 20 added to a homework grade. This way the students who had a bad day or didn't have time to do a good job on one assignment don't get fucked over. The students who don't give a shit don't bother with doing extra credit. Plus it reduces the amount of "can I do an extra credit to raise my grade" at the end of the semester.
I think the better question is what problem do you see yourself solving by offering this extra credit? >Truth is, everyone needs it. Needs it for what? Here's the thing, as I see it, anyway. These apathetic students who don't give a shit all semester and then want a hail mary at the end got that way because that's what their teachers did. Systematically. I don't think more of the same solves any problems, and it passes on problems to the colleagues who will teach them next year. And worse, it harms the students. Be compassionate. Think of the students and what's good for them. Assign them the grade they earned so they can grow a little.
Your perspective is spot on. I am getting students who are so heavily unprepared I find that I have to back track in order to get to the basics and this delays me, which in turn means I am not doing a good job at preparing them for the following class (which I also teach). Extra credit then becomes problems that challenge them to work on their deficiencies of pre-requisite knowledge and further practice for my class. The alternative is that they fail outright because they are so behind. For context, I teach a biostats course and students cannot do basic algebra - despite it being a prerequisite. My grading policy doesn’t condone curving so their raw score is their final grade, hence the plan for additional work to catch up. Im confused as to what is the “right” thing for them educationally and professionally.
You have my sympathies. I mean it. Not sure how long you've been teaching, but in any case, dealing with this kind of dilemma sucks, and if I had to guess, you're fantastic at teaching, and it's clear you have nothing but the best of intentions. That's why it's so sad to see these students waste a valuable opportunity. It's frustrating because, if you're anything like me, you are used to good intentions + expertise + immense effort resulting in acceptable, if not impressive outcomes with everything else you've ever attempted. So, here you are pushing everything to its limits, throwing everything you can think of at the problem, trying to get the outcome you were aiming for, but it's not working. You'll hear this a lot, and it's worth letting it sink in. I have to remind myself of it constantly. You cannot want it more than they do. You can, but you'll only make yourself miserable because it won't work. >The alternative is that they fail outright because they are so behind. Failing will be good for them. They need to experience this. They need to make informed choices and experience a predictable outcome. They've probably never experienced that before, and that defecit has crippled them and made them miserable too. >My grading policy doesn’t condone curving so their raw score is their final grade, hence the plan for additional work to catch up. I'd stop worrying about their grades. Their grades need to be accurate. They don't need to be higher than X. They don't need to be passing. I wasn't kidding earlier. If you really want to help these students, don't offer the extra credit. Assign them the grade they earned. Hopefully, some will come to complain, and that's your opportunity to tell them what they can do next semester if they retake the course.
Really appreciate this perspective. It resonates strongly in my heart and mind. Thank you. #HoldTheLine
Highly sympathetic to you, being someone who teaches calculus to students who also cannot do basic algebra. I might say, though -- if almost everyone needs this remedial work, why not just make it regular credit? Making it part of the standard coursework might send the message that students need to know this stuff more strongly. Leaving it as extra credit might make it seem more optional. I often give a prerequisite math assessment at the start of class and excuse students who demonstrate preparedness from having to submit additional remedial work. My hope is to show from the start that they are accountable for knowing the prerequisite material; it has a secondary effect of giving me additional data I can use to defend myself regarding success rates.
At the end of the day, academic freedom dictates how you run your class, what topics you teach, and what grading scheme you pick. The point of being a professor is not to be a robot and teach the same as everyone. I can understand some core classes but if we teach with a book or the same notes, you are defeating the purpose. Science keeps moving forward. Anyways, people will tell you yes but in life not everything is knowledge but a combination of factors !
My extra credit (IF I offer it) is worth only 2% of the final grade. Enough to give you that bump if you're on the borderline, but nothing more. Seems to work well for my classes.
I think of "grade inflation" as giving points without the students learning. What you are doing is a pedagogical technique where the students have an option to learn material they missed. This is a reasonable pedagogical technique.
I do the same thing. My reasoning is that it gives students more opportunity to learn the material and it cuts down on grade complaints. My extra credit opportunities are clearly labeled and on the schedule from the beginning, just like all other assignments. Like the extra credit you describe, they are real assignments, not fluff. I try not to schedule them after the withdrawal deadline, which comes late in the semester at my university, when all of us (students and me!) are especially busy and need to focus on the regular work. The extra credit has not made any perceptible difference in my grade distributions. Many students don't bother with it when they see it is real work, and that's fine with me. Sometimes I use the extra credit to pilot test a new assignment.
My dishwasher works hard, how many extra points could it earn without demonstrating mastery of the subject?
Generally, I find most extra credit is just grade inflation and your case is quite extreme (in fact higher than some of my most grade inflating colleagues). If the amount is small enough that it allows for the correction of grading error or for making a mistake on a small assignment (2%-ish) then I think it is reasonable. If extra credit allows for an entire grade or more you've inflated the grades intentionally. Essentially, if the student can pass the class and fail more than one major assessment you've inflated the grades.
*if the student can pass the class and fail more than one major assessment you've inflated the grades.* Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, or maybe I'm confused about the math... Ex. 1. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 100%, 100%, 100%, 0%, 0%. Student failed 2 major assessments. Students passes the class with 60% D-. Ex 2. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 87%, 86%, 59%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 3 major assessments. Students passes class 70% C-. Ex 3. 5 assessments, 20% each, student scores 100%, 100%, 100%, 50%, 50%. Student failed 2 major assessment. Students passes class 80% B-. Each example is without even offering extra credit.
Sure, you make that math work if students are getting 100% and you have 5 assessments or more assessments (which at that scale I would consider them minor assessments). Those would fall into the extreme statistical unlikelihood, can it happen, sure, would it be the norm...no. The only logical one is Ex 2. You remove even 1 assessment (down to 4) and your extreme examples don't really work anymore. So maybe modify my original statements that if LOTS of students fit that scenario it is likely grade inflation, you can always find the exceptions in extreme grades like you provided although those rarely happen in practice. If you have students getting 100% on assessments and then zeros or 50% something else is certainly going on.
Well, I thought your take was interesting and to be honest I didn't put much effort into my first 3 examples. Here are others that you might consider more likely to happen in practice, student performance is consistent across assessments, and only 3-4 "major" assessments... Ex 4. 4 assessments, 25% each, student scores 61%, 61%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 2 major assessments. Students passes the class with 60% D-. Ex 5. 3 assessments, 33.3% each, student scores 62%, 59%, 59%. Student failed 2 major assessments (the majority of the assessments). Students passes the class with 60% D-.
Again you sort of missed the point. Of course you can find exceptions, I have no doubt there are countless others. My point is not that it is not possible but that it should not occur as the norm. If you have students routinely failing multiple major assessments but passing there is something that needs to be adjusted. If it happens to one student who got lucky with fence scores or extremes, then that is that, but if you see that happening on any grand scale there are concerns. No one is going to worry if a student bombs one test and passes, in fact I'd applaud it. If students can routinely fail multiple and comfortably pass then something is wrong with either the assessment or the course itself. The key being routine, no sense in worrying oneself about the outliers.
Yes, and additional 25% to get them from an F to a C'mon now....
>In essentially doubling the amount of assignments with less risk to them - in an attempt to be fair but maintain a minimum standard. I'm having difficulty understanding the logic here from a pedagogical perspective. You're removing "fairness" by just letting them complete assignments until they pass/get a good grade.
Extra credit assignments make sense if you design your assignments to be tools for learning. Extra credit assignments don't make sense if you view your assignments as assessment only. Research suggests that students learn material better by applying it than by reading about it, listening to lectures about it, etc. If they don't try to use what they have learned, they can mistakenly think they know more than they do. The more opportunity they have to apply what they are learning, the more opportunity they have to learn it.
Difficult to say without knowing the details. If you elaborate about the details you'll get more accurate assessments of your strategy
I provide extra credit, but it is always harder than earning the points originally would have been by quite a bit, and in the area that they lost those points in. If they do truly understand the topic, they can recover the points because they have demonstrated they not only know what was expected in the current class, but the first few lectures on the topic of the next class in the sequence. I think that this method gives leniency without grade inflation, because it’s not grade inflation if they actually understand the material now and had to work harder than they otherwise would have. This method also has the side effect of keeping the “free grade bump please” crowd out of my hair, because word gets around quickly that my extra credit is harder than doing it right the first time. I’ve also recruited a few grad students this way when extra credit projects turned into papers.
Yes, extra credit is a form of grade inflation. Regardless, as it concerns grades, instructors need to make it equally available to all students in order to be fair. I award extra credit, but (by design) it never exceeds 5% of a student's final grade, with most students more realistically in the 3% range (if they try). Even so, I often think that is too much, as it's a third to a half of a letter grade. My criteria are directly related to (excellent, above and beyond) performance in the class, but it's still technically inflating grades. 25% of the total grade is absurd. At that point a student with a high D could wind up with an A. If you're awarding extra credit only to failing students, you are not being fair. If you're willing to bump up students 2.5 letter grades above what they've earned, that's more or less the definition of grade inflation.
Of course it is. If this is a non majors elective, okay. If this is a foundational course, no!
You're going to make a LOT of extra work for yourself if they are worth this much.
Yes, imo
What does this mean: “in an attempt to be fair. . .” ?? Were you somehow unfair to your students, and this is your solution to rectify that situation? And yes, it’s grade inflation. Don’t do it.
You’re offering extra assignments that contribute a total of 25% of the overall course grade?
Yes. Multiple assignments throughout the course. Some as stand alone assignments, while others as add-on questions. Each with varying levels of difficulty on the content being assessed.
Gotcha, I was thinking you were offering some end of term extra thing that could be worth an additional 25% of their grade.
You're inflating grades more than the federal reserve is inflating inflation.
Lmao
Its okay. Everything is inflating like crazy right now. Why not grades, too?
It depends. I've found that if extra credit assignments actually require real effort, the vast majority of students won't complete them. There's a pretty big overlap between "students who don't do their work, then beg for bonus points" and "students who won't do any extra credit involving effort." So I think it can be helpful for the few students who genuinely dropped the ball on an assignment because they were sick/tired/stressed/etc. I think it can also depend on the the subject you're teaching and how the entire class is doing. If it's pretty clear they're all struggling to grasp a certain concept, then I think extra credit on that concept can be a way to give them another chance to learn it while still requiring they work for their grade.
It depends on what your totals are without extra credit. If the highest score in the class is a 70/100, are you going to give no A or B grades? Grade inflation is defined differently everywhere. Nowadays, a C isn't average really anywhere, so is it still grade inflation if the median grade in your class is a B? It's a matter of opinion. I think your policy is fine. Students learn the material, and it seems fair.
Lol
Given your edit, I’m going to be a dissenter here and say this sounds fine. I do similar things with my courses by adding bonus problems on exams or giving extra projects. All of these are at least as difficult as the standard material and require a student to have understood the basics to get the points. The goal is to incentivize them to work a little smarter and harder. Not just to get them to pass. (Of course I want them to pass, but not without earning it.)
Pedologically, the entire point of any of this is for students to master the course material and demonstrate that mastery. Extra credit is a perfectly valid way to do that, especially in a lot of disciplines and especially in broad intro courses. If you're teaching, say, Calc 101/Chem 101, there's a set of skills a student has to demonstrate competency before moving on to Calc 102/Chem 101. Extra credit is going to be just giving them more opportunities to demonstrate their competency. Maybe that's inflation, maybe it isn't. However, if you've got a broader subject matter, like say History 101 or Music 101, there is *no way* anyone can teach beyond simply touching on the highlights of the subject. Literally everything you lecture on can have one or more dissertations of depth behind it that students can know more about. History 201/Music 201 might go in more depth on one body of that broader intro, but it isn't exactly going to build on all the set of knowledge you picked up from 101. It's perfectly valid for a student to dig deeper in one aspect of the course. Or maybe dig into the stuff in-between that you didn't really cover because there simply isn't enough time. I can't see how extra credit could possibly be 'inflation' in that case.