tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post3722672075237159316..comments2024-03-14T04:16:20.472-07:00Comments on In Socrates' Wake: The flip side of grade inflation?Michael Cholbihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-24367620939221249782008-02-20T08:52:00.000-08:002008-02-20T08:52:00.000-08:00I remember reading an article about evaluations of...I remember reading an article about evaluations of employees. Unfortunately, I can't remember the source. <BR/><BR/>Basically, it said that to maintain high morale, organizations should not officially admit that the average employee is average. If someone thinks they are average, that hurts their morale - better that they are told that they are good, or very good. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you want your evaluations to indicate which employees are not meeting the required standards, so that they can be warned to either improve or lose their jobs. Also, there are usually a few who really stand out from the pack, and that should be noted as well so they can be tipped for promotion. <BR/><BR/>So, ideally, a few employees will get the top evaluation, most will be bunched together, and a few will have evaluations that are clearly not good enough. You do want to let people know if they are on the borderline as well. Those who are bunched together should be told that they are doing very well, and that most of their peers are also doing very well. Otherwise you create resentment. <BR/><BR/>I've noticed, not just in academia, that people who have to fill in evaluations on employees understand this pretty well. You don't rate someone as less than average unless you want to give them the kiss of death, and even 'average' should be used as a warning shot. The top category should also be used sparingly, as a reward. It looks as though students have cottoned on to this as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-66578382258498586432008-02-19T19:38:00.000-08:002008-02-19T19:38:00.000-08:00I think Jonathan's right about this. The forms tha...I think Jonathan's right about this. The forms that my students fill out (and the ones I filled out as a student) have a series of bubbles numbered 1–7. It may say somewhere at the top that 7 means "outstanding," but I'll bet that relatively few students notice or think about that. I think that 'outstanding', in this case, just means 'really good'.david morrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17628941227584383772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-81128204511770810862008-02-19T15:34:00.000-08:002008-02-19T15:34:00.000-08:00One thing to note (although it's not clear what, i...One thing to note (although it's not clear what, if anything, this says about evaluation inflation) is that the options given to Schwyzer's students might be sending out mixed messages. Describing someone's teaching as 'outstanding' or 'average' does seem to require comparing them to others. But this isn't the case with 'good,' 'poor' or 'failing.'<BR/><BR/>Perhaps when faced with options like these students tend to take the evaluation to be concerned with one of either a relative or an absolute assessment of teaching quality. (Presumably this is the case, it's just not clear which is intended.) If they plump for an absolute assessment (taking 'outstanding' to mean 'very good,' and 'average' to mean 'not very good' (I've certainly heard students use the term this way in ordinary conversation)) then 65% of teaching being outstanding isn't problematic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com