Go up to the main UVa page (md)
This course is somewhat of a challenge to grade, as there is very little graded work. Nonetheless, here is how everything is graded. The details herein follow the grading guidelines described in both course introductions (fall and spring). This metric was used in both fall and spring grades (with a slight difference, described below).
First, there were two promises that were made to the class:
Both of these were strictly adhered to.
A number of the scores were project-based: the iteration evaluations and the final group project rating. The reason is that a student who does little work in an otherwise great group should not get as much credit for the quality of the system as somebody who does great work. Likewise, a great student in a weaker group should get more credit than students who do less work.
To determine this, all students are assigned a "work-done" rating, which is based on how much work we feel the student has done during the semester. This was originally based on a Likert scale (integer values from 1 to 5), but we realized that values between these were necessary as well. Thus, the scale is as follows.
| rating as text | rating as a number | factor |
|---|---|---|
| well below average | 1 | 0.5 |
| a bit worse than below average | 1.5 | 0.625 |
| below average | 2 | 0.75 |
| slightly below average | 2.5 | 0.875 |
| ever so slightly below average | 2.75 | 0.9375 |
| average | 3 | 1 |
| ever so slightly above average | 3.25 | 1.0375 |
| slightly above average | 3.5 | 1.075 |
| above average | 4 | 1.15 |
| a bit more than above average | 4.5 | 1.225 |
| well above average | 5 | 1.3 |
Yes, the names need a bit of work. And keep in mind that an 'average' rating is on track to get an 'A'.
The last column is the factor, which is used to scale the group scores. Thus, if a group receives a 80% on something, a student with an 'average' rating would receive the full 80%. A student with a 'below average' rating would receive 0.75*80% = 60% for that part. Likewise, a student with a 'well above average' would receive 1.3*80 = 104% for that part.
Note that a 'well below average' grade is an automatic failure for the course, regardless of any other grades. One can still fail with a score other than 'well below average'. It has always been the case, however, that students with a 'well below average' were clearly in the failure category anyway. Historically, it has been very rare for that to be issued a 'well below average' rating in the spring, as those students typically do not pass the fall semester.
The progress done on the iteration evaluations were graded out of 4 points: 0 was no progress, 1 was poor, 2 was fair, 3 was good, 4 was excellent. Note that a 0 (none) has never (yet) been issued. Also note that the last iteration in a semester typically does not have an iteration evaluation rating, as that is encapsulated into the overall project evaluation.
The iteration evaluations were averaged to yield the evaluation score, and that average is shown in the grading metrics. The evaluation score was divided by 3.0 (the score for all 'good' evaluations) to get a percentage, and then multiplied by 0.93 (since 93% is the minimum grade for an 'A'). Thus, all 'good' evaluations would yield 3.0/3.0*0.93 = 93%, which is an 'A'. An average evaluation score of 2.5 (half 'good' and half 'fair' evaluations) would result in 2.5/3.0*0.93 = 77.5%. As this is a group score, it is multiplied by the factor from above.
The leadership score is graded out of 10 points, and was based on the results of one's leadership iterations; these are shown in the evaluations tab of the course grading tool. One could be the secretary, lead, both, or neither in a given semester. Note that the 'neither' situation could only occur in the fall, and only for groups where there were more than six members.
Note that taking really poor notes would count as no notes taken for that occurrence.
The spring grades were computed as follows:
The last two components of the grade was individual work, and thus are not multiplied by the factor.
The result of the above is called the 'base score'.
Fall semester only: Note that the fall grades also have the initial homeworks (whcih is individual work), that is 10% of the final grade. To compensate, the iteration evaluations count for 45%, and the project evaluation for 25%. Some people do not have leadership scores for the fall, due to not being scheduled as a lead or secretary during that semester (this was never the case in the spring). In that situation, one's score is scaled out of 90% (i.e., divided by 0.9) to yield the 'base score'.
There were a few things that would deduct from one's grade. These were all clearly stated throughout the semester, as well as the course syllabus and the grades section of the course introductions (both fall and spring).
Unexcused absences (recall that attendance is required) or not reporting hours was a 3 percentage point penalty for each occurrence. This applies to absences with no excuse; excused absences do not incur a penalty. Is this too harsh? Not really -- when one is in a job outside the university, one cannot just simply miss work without explaining why, or not perform a required job function, without a consequence.
Missing a survey incurred a 10 percentage point penalty. However, this basically never occurred, as everybody is reminded repeatedly (and I typically wait until all the surveys before closing them). Nobody got this penalty this academic year.
The 'base score' (from above), minus the penalties, is the 'final course average'.
This course used the standard decade scale. The final course average was rounded up (if necessary), and the following table was used to compute the final course grade.
| minimum score | letter grade |
|---|---|
| -infinity | F |
| 50 | D- |
| 63 | D |
| 67 | D+ |
| 70 | C- |
| 73 | C |
| 77 | C+ |
| 80 | B- |
| 83 | B |
| 87 | B+ |
| 90 | A- |
| 93 | A |
| ??? | A+ |
Some notes on this:
One may claim that this metric is too harsh. Perhaps, but it does take into account, in a formulaic way, all the factors that contribute to the grade. And students have a chance to challenge every component that is used in the grade determination.
A typical semester will yield grades such as:
Those percetanges are higher than a tyipcal 4th year course, so the distribution of grades is reasonable in comparison to other 4th year courses.
Whew! And you should see the Excel (actually LibreOffice) formulas used in the gradebook worksheet...