AY 300 Fall 09: Fifth day plan

• Ask any or all of the following:
  • How did section go?
  • What did you do?
  • What didn't work?
  • What would you have changed?
  • Any cool/interesting/sad stories?
• Get people who haven't talked about their section yet in 300 to speak briefly on the above questions.
• Keep track of who speaks.

• We also have a handout about this that will be given out.
• The most important part of grading: Grade fairly and consistently for ALL students.
• Try not to look at student names while grading anything.

• Most questions should have 1 and only 1 correct answer (matching, fill in the blank, put in order, etc.).
• Paragraph or few sentence responses or plotting can be uglier.
• Try to give partial credit where you can. Always give points for correct steps even if the final answer's wrong. If they get the final answer but their steps or logic to get there is wrong, give them some points, but not too many.
• Obviously if they screw up part (a) by a factor of 2, but carry that extra factor through parts (b) through (f) and get everything else right (while including the factor of 2), they should only lose points on part (a). Also, stress this fact to your students so they don't get frustrated if they can't do (a), but the rest are doable (maybe even tell them to make up an answer to use for later parts, or in the question say 'use 5km for the rest of this question if you don't get part (a)').
• In longer answers, you should usually reward for correct information more than you punish for incorrect information. With that said, if they say something really wrong or even contradictory to the rest of their answer, they should be penalized a decent amount.
• Hopefully on your quizzes and exams you stress to students that they must write clearly and explain their steps and logic clearly. If you can't read their writing or understand what's going on, you should usually assume it's wrong.
• Be suspicious: If you see similar, very wrong answers, flag the tests and compare their answers to other questions. Hopefully you can look out for cheating while the quiz/exam is actually going on, but you won't be able to see everything.
• Talk (probably through e-mail) to students in your section(s) who performed very poorly (grades of less than 40% or 50%). They may be too shy to ask for help even if they know they need it!

• You'll grade these kinds of tests with your fellow GSIs, in the 6th floor lounge most likely.
• Have a few people people double-check the answer key Scantron for each version of the exam BEFORE you start running all the tests through the machine.
• Note any questions that are missed quite frequently. Reasons for this can include:
  • The question was poorly written or possibly too hard
  • The students just didn't know that material very well
  • There's an error on the answer key
  • Something went wrong with the machine or the answer key Scantron
• Note anyone who missed a TON.. Reasons:
  • They really just don't know what's going on
  • They marked the wrong test version (you might be able to re-run it through the machine with the correct answer key or their GSI or the Head GSI might have to grade it by hand)
  • They used some writing utensil that the machine doesn't like (their GSI or the Head GSI might have to grade it by hand)
  • Their test is too wrinkled or has coffee spilled on it or whatever (their GSI or the Head GSI might have to grade it by hand)
  • Use your judgment here; it's annoying to grade a Scantron by hand, but if they really just accidentally spilled something on it, then you should probably grade it by hand with no penalty. If they're dumb enough to mark the wrong test version, well, they might deserve some extra points off for that.
• It's a good idea to skim over each of your student's tests to see if there were any obvious bad erasure marks or anything like that which may have led to an answer being marked wrong unfairly. However, don't feel bad if you don't catch every one of these – your students will not miss any!!
• Like after quizzes, strongly consider talking to students in your section(s) who performed very poorly (grades of less than 40% or 50%).

• Usually not the GSI's responsibility to grade.
• Basically, all of the above rules apply.
• Cheating is certainly more of an issue since you can't watch everyone do their homework, so beware! As mentioned before, hopefully the graders will flag any possible cases of cheating and then you can take a closer look at the actual assignments and decide whether or not any academic dishonesty actually occurred.

• You should come up with some objective grade calculation (unless one is already provided to you by the prof and/or Head GSI).
• A grade for Discussion Section might include (ONLY if these aren't assigned grades on their own elsewhere in the course grading rubric):
  1. attendance in section
  2. participation in section (group work, coming up in front of the class, asking the GSI questions, worksheet diligence, etc.)
  3. in section quiz(zes)
  4. star party attendance
• Usually this isn't a huge part of the overall course grade, but it's sometimes a non-zero amount of points and you should be fair and consistent about assigning them.
• With that said, if someone really went above and beyond and worked really well in section, usually you have the authority (as long as it's cool with the prof and/or Head GSI) to give them a little something extra in their section grade (though you probably shouldn't give them over 100% of the section points).
• On the other end of things, sometimes students with borderline grades will try to wring a few extra section points out of you to push their grades up to the next letter.

• Usually GSIs don't have much control over this. However, GSIs occasionally help decide the course grading rubric before the semester starts.
• The course grading rubric should be well-defined and a (relatively) simple calculation.
• It should be spelled out in detail on the syllabus (which should be handed out or posted online at the very beginning of the semester).
• Converting numbers to actual letters is the hardest (and usually the most mysterious and opaque to students) part of this process.
• Finally, most profs/Head GSIs will let each GSI have a small amount of discretion in final letter grades (with pluses and minuses) for their students who are right near a letter grade cutoff.
  • Most profs/Head GSIs will try to choose the cutoffs such that no one is close to any of the boundaries.
  • However, this discretion is fairly common practice since the GSI should know the student (and their performance in the course) better than either the prof or Head GSI.
  • Thus the GSI can use the student's performance in their section to decide whether or not to bump them up above or below the cutoff.
  • With that said, unless the student was absolutely horrific in section, GSIs should probably never bump anyone down below a cutoff!

Hand out the grading handout.

• Go over example quiz.
• Discuss developing a key and rubric.
  • emphasize that reading some responses first is important.
  • emphasize treating erroneous info.
• Look at some example student responses. Grade in groups.
• Present grading to class.

• Much of this is on the handout we distributed last week (so we won't belabor the points – most of the time should be spend critiquing exam questions).
• Exams exist to:
  • Evaluate student learning for University-required grading
  • Motivate students to study and understand the material
  • Allow the instructor to evaluate his/her progress educating students about the material
  • Provide feedback to students about their understanding and study habits and illustrate specific gaps in their understanding of the material

• What makes good multiple choice exam questions?
  • Not too long/wordy (neither the question nor the possible answers)
  • Not too much calculation
  • Not too tricky (i.e. there shouldn't be two extremely similar answers)
  • Relevant to important material (as opposed to really obscure/minute details)
  • Very clearly written, precise wording in both question and answers
    • E.g., 'Which best describes…' as opposed to 'What is…' or 'How does…happen'
  • Pedagogical as well as evaluative (e.g., some questions should probe common misconceptions)
  • Questions that are very easy or very difficult are OK as long as the test has questions with a variety of difficulties

• What makes bad ones?
  • Long answers!
  • Excessive use of 'all of the above' (some people say any use of 'all/none of the above' is a bad thing)
  • Questions that can be solved without knowledge of the material (usually because of the use of too many blatantly wrong or “funny” possible answers)
  • Multiple potentially correct answers (usually from vague questions or possible answers)

• Non-multiple choice questions (very similar to quizzes)
  • Types of questions:
    • Matching
    • Fill-in-the-table/blank
    • Simple calculations
    • Short answers and paragraph/free responses
    • Diagrams, plots, graphs
  • Most of the same points discussed above, and for quizzes, apply here:
    • Questions should be clear, easy to read, and unambiguous
    • Questions should be relevant to the material presented and emphasized (do not test on obscure passages of the textbook)
    • For high-value questions, allow for partial credit
    • Make the questions easy to grade! Don't give students the opportunity to 'core-dump' for a problem: be very specific about what you're looking for in free response type questions.
  • Can be be slightly more time-consuming than quiz questions, depending on the overall length of the exam.

• Break into groups
• Distribute anonymized exam questions
• Critique some of the questions
  • Note that evaluating others' exam questions is equally or more important as knowing how to write them, since GSIs almost always vet exams but only contribute a few questions at most.
• Discuss with entire class

• Now critique some past exam questions
• Use old Alex/“proven to be good” questions
  • Have the practice final from the 2007 AY C10 reader
  • Have some MC questions from the back of Slater & Addams.
  • LSCI questions: http://aer.noao.edu/auth/LSCIspring2006.pdf
  • ADT 2.0: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/aae/adt/
  • More concept inventories: http://astronomy101.jpl.nasa.gov/tips/index.cfm?teachingID=32 . (Most of these don't publicize the questions online; you have to email the author to get them.)
• Assign each group a set of a few questions to critique
  1. Notice flaws & strengths of each question.
  2. Discuss ways to improve questions.
  3. Any common threads among questions from same source.
• Discuss with entire class

• Collect worksheets from experienced GSI visitation.
• Solicit common themes seen in sections of EGSIs.
  • How are their sections? (loud, quiet, attentive..)
  • What do you think they do that produces these results?
• Solicit innovative techniques you saw used (e.g., starter questions)
  • How did these go? Effective? How are you rating that?
  • Will you incorporate anything specific into your sections?
• How did your impression compare to the EGSI? Did you notice things from in the crowd that they didn't?
• If you do similar things in your sections, do they go better? Worse? Same? Why?

• Meta-analysis: Was this useful activity?

• List key points brought up from my viewings on the board:
  1. BE EXPLICIT/USE FULL DISCLOSURE! (With instructions for group work, with expectations, etc.) Tell them what you want and expect from them. Tell them why you do things the way you do.
     • James used an opener question and said he saw another GSI use it effectively.
  2. HW is disruptive. Consider passing it out at the end of class or before class starts (sharp cuttoff at the beginning of class, i.e. late students can pick up theirs after class).
     • Several of you passed homework back early in the section while the students considered a question, or worked on something themselves. This led to distraction and off-topic discussion. It also opened the floor to hw grade questions during other activities.
  3. Take charge of your class. Be the authority in the room. Don't validate off-topic discussion by getting involved. Defer things to OH, after class, and/or TALC.
  4. Repeat soft comments and questions. Just because you can hear, doesn't mean all students can.
  5. Bounce quickly from group-to-group as a “wandering facilitator,” NOT a “wandering expert.” If you are the expert in the room, they will wait until you come around to really try to decide things (in many cases).
  6. Be OK with an unfinished worksheet. If you have to cut things short in order to have time to synthesize the activity, then do it! They can go do the worksheet later when they realize they need to know it for the exam.
  7. No explanation can be better than a rushed one. Everyone is tempted to squeeze in that last thing on their lesson plan as the final seconds tick off the clock. A rushed explanation will most likely teach nothing, and may even cause more confusion.
  8. Try running section as closed notes and closed book whenever possible. They are in section to learn from one another. If one person has their book/notes open, they become the expert at the table and the conversation is one-way only. If the answer is something that can be easily found in the notes/book, are you asking the right questions?

• Act out some of these?

• Continue writing in your teaching logs. I will be checking them next week.
• Go over peer visitation assignment.
• Read the handout on Encouraging Participation. Write a paragraph or two commenting on (a) which techniques (if any) you have tried and how they've gone, and (b) which technique or techniques you might try in your next section and how you will implement them, specifically.

As always, spend a few minutes exchanging ideas for what to do for your next section.