Optimal Assessment Weighting How much should I weight that final exam?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss a fundamental problem for most instructors: how should we weight the different assessments within our course in order to evaluate students effectively? Using a framework which connects curriculum and assessment design, I demonstrate that “fair” evaluation requires a close (and quantitatively measurable) connection between learning outcomes and assessment weighting. I use this framework to provide guidance for optimal assessment design practices, and evaluate a number of commonly-used teaching practices – concluding that many of them pose problems in terms of fairness, when not carefully implemented. I also discuss the implications of alternative grading schemes or other complications for this framework. I finally provide a detailed example of applying these principles to a real-world course, and a toolkit, for use by instructors in evaluating or designing their own courses.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Arter, Judith A., and Jennifer R. Salmon. 1987. “Assessing Higher Order Thinking Skills. A Consumer’s Guide.” https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED293877.
Bhaskar, Rahul, and Jesse F Dillard. 1983. “Using Cognitive Science to Assign Test Weights.” Instructional Science 12 (4): 375–82.
Bloom, Benjamin S and others. 1956. “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain.” New York: McKay 20 (24): 1.
Blum, Susan D, and Alfie Kohn. 2020. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). West Virginia University Press.
Cappelleri, Joseph C., J. Jason Lundy, and Ron D. Hays. 2014. “Overview of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory for Quantitative Assessment of Items in Developing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.” Clinical Therapeutics 36 (5): 648–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006.
DeVellis, Robert F. 2006. “Classical Test Theory.” Medical Care, S50–59.
Fink, L Dee. 2013. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. John Wiley & Sons.
Franke, Matthew. 2018. “Final Exam Weighting as Part of Course Design.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 6 (1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.9.
Guion, Robert M. 1980. “On Trinitarian Doctrines of Validity.” Professional Psychology 11: 385–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.385.
Händel, Marion, Cordula Artelt, and Sabine Weinert. 2013. “Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge: Development and Evaluation of a Test Instrument.” Journal for Educational Research Online 5 (2): 162–88.
Hiller, Tammy Bunn, and Amy B Hietapelto. 2001. “Contract Grading: Encouraging Commitment to the Learning Process through Voice in the Evaluation Process.” Journal of Management Education 25 (6): 660–84.
Hoskins, Bryony, and Ulf Fredriksson. 2008. Learning to Learn : What Is It and Can It Be Measured? European Commission JRC. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-7810.
Huff, Dana. 2021. “5 MYTHS ABOUT GRADING.” Blog. Huffenglish (blog). August 6, 2021. https://www.huffenglish.com/5-myths-about-grading/.
Koenka, Alison C, Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, Hannah Moshontz, Kayla M Atkinson, Carmen E Sanchez, and Harris Cooper. 2021. “A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Grades and Comments on Academic Motivation and Achievement: A Case for Written Feedback.” Educational Psychology 41 (7): 922–47.
McDonald, Roderick P. 2013. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. psychology press.
Nilson, Linda. 2015. Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Van der Linden, Wim J. 2006. Linear Models for Optimal Test Design. Springer Science & Business Media.
Walvoord, Barbara E, and Virginia Johnson Anderson. 2011. Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College. John Wiley & Sons.
Wiggins, Grant, Grant P Wiggins, and Jay McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design. Ascd