December 10, 2021

Exams Reimagined

I base this week’s tip on an article by Beckie Supiano and a blog by David Clark on rethinking final exams.  Beckie Supiano published an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on December 9, 2021 that includes anecdotes from several instructors.  I have begun to seriously consider how I will change my assessments in my large enrollment biochemistry course next spring semester.  A simple way to start might be with the final exam/assessment.

Some options suggested:

Manisha Kaur Chase, Chabot College, Hayward, CA substitutes a final reflection paper and a project in which they “pick a topic from the course or think about something through the lens of statistics and teach it to a friend or family member using a piece of educational content of their choosing” in place of a final exam.

Kelly Hogan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill uses testing online with open-notes.  Several of you are probably doing this now or did last year.

Hannah B. Higgins, University of Illinois at Chicago gives students short weekly assignments that help them synthesize course material and connect it to their lives.  I am doing this now, but still have exams.

David Clark, Grand Valley State University, views a “culminating experience” due during finals week as important.  He suggests a final portfolio of a selection of their work showing how and what they have learned, a purely reflective final exam (written reflections on their experiences and their key take away concepts from your course), an exam that is one last chance for students to meet their course objectives (replace previous grades/scores on course material) and a standard final exam that can only slightly improve (90% or higher adds a + to their grade) or lowers (60% or lower add a – to their grade).

The best idea I have heard is from Jeff Hansen, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, CSU.  He replaces standard exams with open materials, group problem exams.

Ms. Supiano finishes the article with musings on “rigor”, a concern many instructors have about moving away from traditional modes of assessing student learning.  She wrote a whole CHE article on rigor back on November 18, 2021.  Some instructors worry about slipping standards (grade inflation, etc.) while other connect the term with rigor mortis.  Making a course too easy or low level may send a message to students that we don’t think they can handle it.  However, Jamiella Brooks, University of Pennsylvania, and Julie McGurk, Yale University, argue that rigor should not be defined as being hard for the sake of being hard. Rather rigor should be purposeful and transparent.  Further, they submit that rigor is not defined by a “boatload of work” or an “nice, wide bell curve.”  Rather they believe rigorous courses address equity and rigor “is context-specific, related to both the material being taught and the students taking a particular course.”

Interestingly, Jerry Franz, GW Center of Excellence in Maternal and Child Health, suggests that students define rigor as the level of challenge and the number of hours per week they must spend on a course.

Well, this is my last tip for this semester.  I hope you all have a successful finals week and restorative winter break.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Laybourn (he/him/his)
Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Director, W2R S-STEM Program
Director, NoCo B2B Program
Director, REU Site in Molecular Biosciences
paul.laybourn@colostate.edu
970-491-5100