Grade Calculator

Philosophy

As you probably know, assigning grades is a difficult process that no teacher looks forward to. And although grading is certainly not an exact science, we can still strive to be as fair and as consistent as possible. To help with the process and to make sure that you receive every possible consideration, you will need to submit (in Canvas) an analysis of the grade you think you deserve based on the criteria discussed in the syllabus. Please use this calculator to estimate your grade or range of possible grades. You may play around with the weights (i.e., percentages of total grade) to nudge your grade a bit, but your estimate should always be based on rational arguments rather than on wishful thinking. Keep in mind that to have some standard and help you with objectivity, you will need to compare yourself to the strongest students in the class. Your estimate can only help you, never hurt you, especially if it demonstrates an ability to be self-reflective and objective. A sample analysis is provided below.

Grade scale

The grade calculator above should give you a grade which corresponds roughly to the following GPA scale:

• 4.0:  Exceptional student

  • strong in every aspect of the class

  • strong contributor to learning community

  • passionate about learning

  • rarely/never complains about things being too hard

• 3.0:  Pretty good student

  • strong in most aspects of the class, with some weaknesses

  • average contributor to learning community

  • credit for the class is probably more important than the learning process

• 2.0:  Average student

  • weak in many areas but has a reasonable grasp of the important ideas

  • poor contributor to learning community

• 1.0:  Barely-passing student

  • Serious issues with effort and motivation (or evidence thereof)

• 0.0:  Little or no effort, virtually no motivation (or evidence thereof)

Excellent-good-poor

A reasonable estimate of your grade can be obtained using the excellent-good-poor scale for each component, with appropriate weighting factors. Excellent earns 3, good 2, poor 1. Since there is a subjective component in this approach, you'll need to use your judgment. The guidelines below should help you come up with reasonable numbers. In general, the subjective components that score higher are those that demonstrate a strong effort, positive attitude, and self-reflection.

Different scenarios with calculator

• The lazy ace

Meg O'Hurts is a student who gets 100% on the exams and homework but usually doesn't participate in discussions, writes shallow journals, and contributes little to the learning community. This student will end up with a grade in the neighborhood of 2.6 or less. So exams are not the whole story.

• The hardworking plodder

Nysa Neezie is a student who gets about average on the exams, struggles on the homework, but writes in-dept and self-reflective journals, consistently asks questions in class and engages in discussions, exhibits an enthusiasm for learning. This student will earn a grade in the neighborhood of 3.0 or better, which is not too shabby for an average test taker.

How to score the components (Rubric)

Leadership/Attitude/Academic Maturity

• 3 -- excellent; top 10% of the class

  • clearly one of the leaders in the class

  • one of the first to post introduction (in the Introductions forum)

  • consistently does more than the required minimum (in the to-do list)

  • consistently positive attitude and lots of enthusiasm; does not whine

  • completely self-motivated and consistently fuels discussions, whether controversial or not

  • strong drive to learn and to motivate and educate others

  • consistently helpful to peers (answering questions, making suggestions, etc.); excellent contributor to the learning community

  • highly introspective and honest grade eval submitted at the end of the course (similar to the examples below)

  • generally applies to only a handful of students in any given class

• 2 -- good

  • does all that is required, but not much more

  • often participates in but usually does not initiate discussions

  • usually does not tackle challenging discussion questions

  • usually stays away from controversial or provocative topics

  • stays "invisible" for a big portion of the class; typically, the reserved observer

  • most hard-working but quiet people will fall into this category

• 1 -- poor

  • rarely goes beyond the bare minimum and often does not even do that

  • occasionally whines about points or difficulty of material without actually asking specific questions

  • stays "invisible" for most of the class, particularly in general discussion

  • typically indifferent, with no real passion to get involved or to contribute to the learning community

  • shallow and/or excessively inflated grade eval submitted at the end of the course

  • slackers and procrastinators generally fall into this category

• 0 -- grade eval NOT submitted at the end of the course

HW

• Note that the score you receive on your hw in Canvas is for feedback only. It is not used to calculate your hw grade in the end.

• 3 -- excellent effort

  • consistently scores 50% or better

  • hw-related journals and consistent contribution (e.g., questions, answers, etc.) to class discussions

  • does not whine about difficulty

• 2 -- average effort

  • some procrastination

  • inconsistent contribution of hw-related insight in class

  • some hw-related observations in the journals

• 1 -- poor effort

  • consistently less than 50% and/or 3 or more missed assignments

  • often procrastinates and/or whines about difficulty

  • rarely contributes hw-related insights to class discussions

  • journals usually not related to class content

  • virtually no effort on DQ's throughout the course

• subtract 0.5 for consistently poor effort on instructor's DQ's (discussion questions/prompts)

Exams

• 3 -- upper third of the class

  • scores significantly above average

  • clear mastery of most of the material

  • consistently solid effort on DQ's (discussion questions posted by instructor)

• 2 -- middle third of the class

  • scores around average

  • decent though incomplete mastery of the material

• 1 -- bottom third of the class

  • scores significantly below average

  • serious gaps in understanding

•  *Note: A substantive grade eval (similar to the examples below) submitted at the end of the course can effectively raise the rubric score for the exams by as much as 1 unit. A bad one (or no eval) can have the opposite effect.

Science showcase:

• 3 -- consistently insightful and educational

  • showcase often include background information, historical perspective, practical application, relevant links, etc.

  • clearly relates to the current topic; not simply a random article

  • demonstrates passion and clearly captures the audience

  • consistently responsive to peers

  • demonstrates excellent research

• 2 -- average consistency and/or insight

  • somewhat educational, but clearly not at the top of the class

  • some interesting observations, but usually with no passion

  • typically does what's required, but no more

• 1 -- consistently shallow

  • very few substantive offerings

  • very little effort to educate others

  • examples of shallow snacks include:

    • "Those hybrid cars are pretty cool." with no effort to explain why or offer insight

    • "Isaac Newton rocks!" with no effort to explain why

    • "Check out this beautiful picture!" with no explanation as to why the picture should be considered remarkable

Journals:

• 3 -- consistency and substance

  •  regular analysis of progress/struggles in class

  • consistently discusses specific things learned

  • not timid about offering suggestions

  • frequently references activity in the forums

• 2 -- average depth and content analysis

  • typically no more than a sentence or two

  • sometimes discusses progress in class or specific issues with content

• 1 -- consistently shallow and/or inconsistent

  • almost never discusses class content

  • Examples of shallow entries include:

    • "Everything is cool. Nothing new to report."

    • "The book sucks. I don't understand anything."

    • "Had some pizza. It was great."

General participation:

• 3 -- excellent participation

  • consistently contributes intelligence to the learning community

  • more proactive than reactive

  • consistently helpful/responsive to peers

  • always follows up in discussions (not simply one post at a time)

  • does not disappear for extended periods of time

  • frequently initiates discussions and generally follows up

  • frequently responds to discussion topics, including DQ's by instructor

  • frequently poses questions to clarify or extend material

  • frequently takes stands and expresses opinions

  • communicates without excessive cut-and-paste

• 2 -- decent participation

  • sometimes contributes intelligence to the learning community

  • more reactive than proactive

  • often, but not always, follows up in discussions

  • sometimes responds to discussion questions; sometimes initiates

  • sometimes poses questions to clarify or extend material

  • sometimes takes stands and expresses opinions

  • some gaps in participation

• 1 -- poor participation

  • rarely contributes intelligence to the learning community

  • posts are consistently shallow or filled with excessive cut-and-paste

  • does not seem to pay attention and often asks questions that have already been answered

  • to what others have posted and usually does not follow up

  • rarely poses questions to clarify or extend material

  • consistently poor effort answering questions in class/Forum ("Hmmm, I dunno...")

  • rarely takes stands and expresses opinions on any issue brought up in class

  • seems indifferent much of the time

Presentation (does not apply to online classes)

• 3 -- excellent

  • clear evidence of effort and time invested

  • went beyond class material

  • focused on important ideas, with little drag factor

  • insightful evaluations

  • consistently meaningful feedback to peers in Canvas

• 2 -- decent job, characterized by some or all of the following:

  • mostly review of class material

  • some drag factor

  • some mumbling, some reliance on notes

  • decent evaluations, but could sometimes use more depth

  • some feedback to peers in Canvas

• 1 -- poor, characterized by some or all of the following:

  • poor organization with no obvious big picture

  • excessive mumbling and poor eye contact, some reliance on notes

  • no presentation evaluations submitted

  • little or no timely feedback to peers in Canvas

*Grading is more lenient for the early presentations. Those who present near the very end are expected to deliver perfection and will be graded from that perspective.

Science articles

• 3 -- excellent articles and feedback

  • consistent submission of well-formatted articles (see syllabus)

  • interesting topics, sometime provocative and controversial

  • insightful questions and answers

  • consistently meaningful feedback to peers

  • clear effort to educate and learn from others

• 2 -- pretty good articles and responses

  • missed a week here and there

  • some feedback to peers

  • delivery steady but not exciting

• 1 -- poor articles

  • inconsistent delivery and/or poor formatting

  • examples of poor formatting include:

    • meaningless subject line

    • excessive cut and paste

    • no link/reference

  • uninteresting articles

  • little or no meaningful feedback to peers

  • obvious absence of enthusiasm

Sample grade evals

The key to a good self-evaluation is to be more critical of oneself than of others. Making excuses, rather than taking responsibility, tends to slow down the learning process. The following examples demonstrate excellent self-reflection and suggest that these students are ready to take the next step up.

Very poor eval

"I deserve an A because my attendance was good and I tried really hard."

This evaluation does not specifically address grading criteria. It is simply an emotional response, with little depth or evidence of self-reflection, by a student who probably did very little in class and was not aware of the problem. His/her grade was significantly lower than his/her estimate.

Poor eval

"I believe I should earn at least a 3.0 because I did all my assignments on time and took the time to read the chapter and learn the subject on hand.  I probably could have done better on the Discussion Board because some weeks I did not reply a lot and some I did.  Being that this was my first online class, I feel confident that I did well even though Science was a really tough subject for me. Also, I just finished the final and I feel really good about it.  Overall, I enjoyed this course even though I struggled through some of it but I did manage to make it to the end and that's very important.  Thanks and take care teach..."

This student, though good-natured, did not specifically address the grading criteria. He received significantly less than his estimate.
 

Another poor eval

"I believe that I deserve a grade of the range of around 2.7. After completing all of my assignments, my percentage was about 80%. This shows that I understood most of what we learned. Also, for almost every assignment, my score was above the class average which shows that my scores were above a lot of the people in the class. Even though I didn't join in the discussions as much as I wanted to, I feel that my assignment scores should prove that I actually learned. This class taught me a lot of new interesting things about the universe that I had never known before."

Again, this student used his gut feeling and did not specifically follow the rubric. He appears to focus mostly on homework points, which (according to the rubric) are not a significant component of the grade.

Good eval