Dr. Pion’s blurb about exam design and grading reminded me of a few things. I taught for the Navy in the nuclear power program, long ago, when the school was in Orlando, Fl; physics, which included applications to plant operations whenever possible, and a class on principles of reactor operation. There are some distinct differences between exams in this context, vs how they were graded when I was a TA. Being in the military means never having to say you’re sorry to students or even explain yourself to them, if you don’t want to. That translates into not having to post or explain the grading policy on exams; the students’ job is to ‘learn the material, dammit,’ not to haggle for points on exams. Students could still put in for regrades, but it had to be for an obvious grading error, rather than for a dispute about how many points should have been deducted for their mistakes. That didn’t stop all whining, but it’s certainly a bonus when you can tell the offender to shut up — in navy parlance, “Secure that!” (or, “Secure that shit!” Optional for officers, pretty much mandatory for senior enlisted)
Since the material had a definite application, answers to questions had to display an appropriate level of understanding, which was a factor that could supercede any other policy that had been set up. There was a shorthand for the various types of errors — the usual suspects, like math errors (ME) or sign errors (SE), and the big red X for anything wrong, but there were others, too, in part because there were always several “discussion” problems, even on physics exams:
Continue reading
