Mildly Interesting

17453 readers

688 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

marcar@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Terevos@lemm.ee

215

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order (phys.org)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As graders go on grading, their comments become more frustrated and their good-will becomes much sloppier. At least that's the hypothesis to explain this. Researchers found the reverse effect on graders who sorted in reverse-alphabetical order.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think just randomized order would be enough. It is plausible for teachers to keep track of students' individual progress.

[–] liv 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think blind marking is important. I have literally heard people objecting to proposed grades with phrases like "but he's a bad student" or "but she's really bright."

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Unless the assignment is a multiple choice quiz, you can’t really blind it because the thing being evaluated is output from that person.

A million tiny clues will indicate to your subconscious which student’s work you’re grading.

[–] liv 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I can't imagine how, unless you only had 20 of them or something?

Back when I was a TA, I had an average of 120 students per semester and we didn't necessarily grade our own students' work (it was usually divided by topic).

So if I'm grading 120 assignments - or worse, 480 pieces of exam assessment- and only 25% of them are from students I regularly interact with, I don't think my subconscious has any idea 99% of the time.

Even with smaller classes... you're just seeing too many people with similar thoughts and styles over the course of a year for any of it to imprint on your mind that deeply. Occasionally it's going to be obvious, but I still think removing a level of bias through anonymizing is best practice.

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So, just the people who get marked last are randomly affected?

[–] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Well, yeah. I'd argue that's better than people with certain names being consistently affected.

[–] liv 0 points 7 months ago

They both seem equally bad to me.

You don't have to have either problem though; both can be avoided easily.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not sure what you mean. Do you think that blind marking would somehow eradicate the bias onto these who get graded later?

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No. Exactly the opposite. The problem continues to exist, but now it's hidden.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's improved at least, randomized would be different each time and would influence everyone's grades evenly in a spread out period (in theory.)

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, you're arguing that randomness is an accurate and acceptable way to score a test?

I wonder how the students feel about that..

This isn't a flippant remark either. There's a much larger issue hiding in plain sight. If there's no relationship between the test and the marking then there's no point in using this process. In other words, this research appears to be saying something more profound than just commenting on the order of the tests.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

It's less about the individual test, and more so spreading the human error across many tests rather than "the last few tests"