The open-ended questions provide the most helpful infor- mation, which I compile and read to the class. I paraphrase andgo quickly over rhe positive comments, ...
T h e open-ended questions provide the most helpful information, which I compile and read to the class. I paraphrase andgo quickly over rhe positive comments, hut I read each of the negative comments in full. This is often very entertaining to the students as they nod with agreement on some issues and are amazed at their differences of opinion on other issues. Next I announce changes that I intend to make. By now I usually have a classroom of students very sympathetic to the plight of an instructor who attempts to please a diverse group of people. They especially appreciate my candor in reading the verbatim remarks about areas that need change. O n the end-of-course evaluation, students usually express appreciation that I was concerned about how I was teaching and that 1 made changes based on their feedhack. My students are not reluctant to make negative comments at midterm; instead, they are eager to make suggestions for change. Midterm evaluations might he contraindicated, however, in very small courses in which there is a reasonable chance that a n individual's handwriting might be recognized. Cohen (1980) suggested that instructors should request feedback o n only those aspects of teaching that they can modify; however, I find that publicly acknowledging shared irritants (e.g., noisy classroom, cramped spaces, latein-the-day classtime) is useful for lowering frustration levels and raising group morale. Another benefit of a midterm evaluation is that it alters the attitude of the students toward the instructor and the teaching process. Students see that their input is importanr in the collaborative venture of teaching and learning. They feel respected and recognize that they can participate in their own educational process. The primary purpose of evaluation is to improve performance. Just as students need feedback to improve their learning, reachers need feedback to improve their teaching. Immediate results are seen in the changes made to meet the needs of students and the instructor in a specific course. In addition, long-range improvements in overall teaching effectiveness are a1m11stcertain to occur. References Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectivenessof student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Hi~hrrEducatiun, 13. 321-341. Ciscell, R. E. (1987). Student ratings of insrmction: Change the timetahle to improve instruction. Community Cnlkge Reuiew, 15(1), 34-38. Gilmore. D.C., Swerdlik, M. E.. &@eehr, T.A. (1980). Effectsof class size and college major on student rating of psychc~lnpy courses. Temhinp of Prychology. 7. 2 10-214. Hofman, J. E., & Kremer, L. (1983). Course evaluation and attitudes toward college teaching. Highher Education. 12. 681-690. Korrh, B. (1977). Relation of extraneous var~ahlesto student ratines of instrucnrrs. J o u d of Educotid Memuremen[. 16. 2737: Levinson-Rose. 1.. & Menpes, R. J. (1981). improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Revzeal of Educational Research, 51, 403-434. Menaes. R. J., & Brinko, K. T. (1986, April). Effects ofrnuht evaluation fecdhnck: A mern-analysis of higher education research. Paper presentctl at rhe meeting uf the American Educational Research Asstxiation, San Francisco. and the evaluation of Phyc, G . D. (1984). Student
teaching effcctivenes. Tpachin~of Psycholo~y,11. 92-95. Schwier. R. A. (1982). Designanduseofstudentevaluationinstruments in instructional development. J o a d of lnrmcctionul Dcwl(~pment,5, 28-34. Seldin. P. (1984a). Chun,@ngp~ocricesin fiulry cualuation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seldin, P. (1984h). Faculty evaluation: Surveying policy and practices. C l w ~ e .16(3). 28-33. Whorton, J. E., Siders, J. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1981). R e peated srudent ratings: Course improvemenr now, not later. Colk p Srudent Jmrmal, 15. 343-346.
Notes 1. I thank Susan Lesyk and Lisa Duba.Biedermann, who developed the MAOT, and Georgeanne Baker, who provided helpful hackground information. 2. Requests for reprints should be sent to Carolin S. Keutzer, Department of Psychology. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1227.
Faculty Use and Justification of Extra Credit: No Middle Ground? J o h n C. Norcross H e a t h e r S. Dooley Llnir~ersihlof Scrnnton John F. Stevenson Uiziversity of Rhode Islnnd
Full-time faculty (N = 287) at two uniwrsities w e interviewed by relepfume regarding their use of and rationales for e x m credit. Extra credit wcu offered in 13% of undergraduate courses. Frequent justifications firextra credit were that it prouided dtematiue mean5 for evaluation, motivated students, and allowed a second chance for mastev. The most common argument against extra credit wns that an equal opporctcnity must be provided for all students, notfor a select few. The probabilities offaculty offming extra credit in six specific situations are also presented; howeter, an instructor's general attitude toward enra credit, rather than the circumstances of the individual care, largely det~lmined whether it was provided. Few topics among academics precipitate as much acrimonious debate as offering extra credit in college courses. Why such a seemingly minor matter triggers such vehement reactions is at the heart of our work. Although offering extra-credit assignments in college courses is apparently common, systematic examination of extra-credit practices on the college level has heen negligible. Extra credit is not addressed in many of the standard works on college teaching (e.g.. Ericksen, 1984; Guskey, 1988; Milton, 1978) or is mentioned as a subjective opinion rather than as a research topic (Ehle. 1988; McKeachie. 1986). Norcross, Horrocks, and Stevenson (1989) surveyed by mail 145 faculty and 525 students regarding their views and use of extra credit. They found that extra-credit assignments were available in 12% to 20% of undergraduate courses. Teaching of Psychology
Students were far more positive roward the practice of extra credit than were faculty. Our study was designed to extend those preliminary findings. Specifically, hy interviewing professors at the same universities, we hoped to clarify the faculty rationales for and against extra credit and to identify specific instances in which it might he seen as an appropriate pedagogical or evaluative device.
Method Participnnts Two northeastern universities sewed as the survey sites. One is a medium-size, private institution in the liheral arts tradition (University of Scranton WS]); the other is a large institution (University of R h d e Island IURU).We tried to contact all of the 213 full-time faculty at US. We reached 210 faculty members. but 29 were unusable for various reasons (6 teachers were on sabbatical, 6 taught only graduate courses. 7 had not heen teaching lately, and 10 declined the interview), leaving 181 completed interviews. Becauseof the large size of the URI faculty, we sampled every fourth member from an alphabetical list of 914 faculty. We reached 145 faculty memhers within three calls, hut 39 were unusahle for various reasons (14 teachers were on sahhatical, 10 raughr only graduate courses, 9 had been not teaching lately. 6 declined the interview). leaving 106 completed interviews. T h e US sample contained 24% women; the URI sample, 18'% women. Respondents primarily represented the humanities (32% at US and 18% at URI), natural sciences (17%)and 38%, respectively), businessimanagement (19% and 12%, respectively), and socialihehavioral sciences ( 12's and 15'%, respectively).
Procedure A 10-min structured telephone interview was developed for this study. instructors were asked to provide the average sire of their courses, number of undergraduate courses taught in the past two semesters, and the number of those courses in which they provided exrra credit. T h e n they were asked to descrihe an instance in which they thought extra credir was appropriate and the rationale they applied in that situation. Next, instructors were presented with six situations and asked tn assign their likelihood (0% to 100%) of offering extra credit in each circumstance, assuming that the student asked them p~rsonallyand in private for the opportunity to do extra-credit work. The six situations were to: stimulate exploration of a topic in greater depth, compensate for acute illness or prohlem, reward effort, account fiir cultural differences, respond to deficient preparation, and compensate fix possihly faulty evaluation procedures (see Tahle I). Results The percentage of faculty offering extra credit in their undergraduate courses was calculated as a ratio of the numher of classes with extra credit over the toral number of Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1993
Table 1. Llkellhood of Faculty O(terlng Extra Credlt in SIXSltuatlons % Who Would
Offer Ema Credit
Likelihood Situation A student desires to explore a topic more extensively. Personal problems are hurting academic achievement. Hardworking student does poorly despite help from teacher. English is second language. Initially, student does poorly but improves. Overall grade is still low. Student is admitted to an academic development program. He or she writes poorly but participates. Student consistently performs well but has one poor grade. Exam might have been unclear.
M
SD
Never or Almwt Never
Ahvays or Almost Always
27.7
36.6
59
14
21 O .
33.5
68
7
21.4
32.6
65
7
27.3
35.2
57
8
24.1
33.9
61
8
21.7
34.7
68
10
classes. During the past wo semesters, 78% of the respondents had not offered extra credit; 8% had offered it in all of their classes. Extra credit was offered in 13% of undergraduate courses. When asked to identify an instance in which extra credit was apprnpriate, only 41% (n = 119) of the respondents could descrihe even one such instance. Frequent nominations were as follows: only when it was offered to the entire class as part of the course structure (n = 24); when a student missed an exam for a legitimate reason, such as an illness or emergency (n = 18); when a student wanted to explore a class-related topic in greater detail (n = 14); when students andlor the instructor desired to boost exam grades (n = 10); and when the instructor provided bonus questions or problems on a required exam (n = 9). Then these 119 faculty provided a rationale for offering extra credit, and a few generated several rationales, leading to 136 codable responses. The most common reasons were that extra credit offers an alternative grading method to meet individual needs (n = 16); motivates and challenges students (n = 15); allows students a second opportunity tu master the material and improves abiliry (n = 11); compensates for unrepresentative student pedormance due to a "had day" or "slump" (n = 1I); improves grades (n = 9); rectifies an uncontrollable situation, such as a student illness or emergency (n = 8); encourages creativity and independence (n = 7); adds a learning dimension not available in the texthook or classroom (n = 5); and assists students, especially freshmen, in adjusting to new teachers (n = 4). The 168 faculty members who could nor identify an instance when exrra credit was appropriate were asked why
they opposed the practice. In descending order offrequency. the most common reasons were as follows: an equal opportunity must he provided for all students (n = 67); the course assignments on the syllahus are necessary and sufficient (n = 43); there isalready enough rodo in the class (n = 3 1); extra credit distorts the meaning of the assigned grade (n = 17); other available m e t h d s , such as exam curves, rewrite opportunities, and dropping the lowest grade, handle the situation (n = 16); and extra class work already contributes tostudent grades, as reflected in exam performance and class participation (n = 12). Table I presents rhe likelihood of faculty offering extra credit in six specific situations. Over half of the faculty gavea prohability of offering extra credit between 0% and 9% ("never or almost never") in all six instances. Conversely, less than 15% gave a prohahility hetween 91% and LO@'& ("always or almost always") in all cases. In other words, the chance of a student securing an extra-credit opportunity was not significantly related to the particular reasons for requesting it.
Discussion Tliere is litrle middle ground among faculty on the controversial topic of extra credit. Approximately 60% to 70% of responding college teachers were adamant ahour refusing to offer e x r n credit, and ahour look, always provided extracredit opportunities. Between these two poles were 20%) to 30?1, who occasionally offer it, depending on the specific situation. However, our results demonsmated that an instructor's attitude toward extra credit, rather than the circumsrances of the particular course o r the individual snldent, largely determined whether it was offered. Two major conclusions emerged from the practices of college instructors who routinely offer extra credit to their students. First, these teachers make it available to all students in the class, huild it into the course structure, and describe it in the syllabus. These practices mute the criticism that extra credit is selectively and covertly provided to) a few, possibly undeserving, students. Second, advocates of extra credit in thissample and elsewhere (e.g., Applehy. 1987; Bate. 1976; Gershaw, 1990; Oley, 1992) contend that it enhances stodent learning. Instead of heing viewed largely as a means of increasing grades, extra credit is seen as facilitating hard work, course relevance, outside reading, and student enthusiasm. This application of extra credit is cnnsistent with the growing body of work on intrinsic motivation in higher educarion (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lowman. 1990). We were surprised by the relatively undifferentiated reactions of faculty to our six situations. These descrihed diverse roles of student evaluation ( e . ~ . ,incentive for learning, reward for effort, and measure of individual differences in s t ~ dent achievement). We expected faculty to he more sympathetic to applications of extra credit in some circumsrances than in others, ccmsistenr with the more general view of the role of student evaluation and course prades. However, such variations of this sort were too minor to support this expectation. Instead, faculty were more likely to take a rrlohal stance on the utility of extra credit, generally a negative one.
References Applehy. D. C. (1987). Usin8 Psychnloa Today articles to incrcase the perceived relevance of rhe intrtducrory course. Teaching of I'sycholop, 14. 172-174. Bate. B. R. (1976). Extra credit: A token reinforcemenr system for ~ncrcasingintcresr, motivation, and outside rending. In J. B. Maas & D. A. Kleiher (Eds.). Directrrry of trachinn innowtions in psychology (pp. 64-65). Washington. DC: American PsychoIoeical Assuciarinn. k c i . E. L., & Ryan. R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motiwcirm und self. chtenninatim in human khauim. New Ynrk: Plenum. Ehle, K. E. (1988). The muft of~eachin~ (2nd ell.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ericksen, S. C. (1984). Theessence o f ~ o o dtrmhing. San Francisco: Jmsey-Bass. Gershaw, D. A. (1990). Use ondsuccess rfgmde i~aurmccin psycl~ol. ogy arurses. Unpublished manuscript. Arizona Western G>lleee. Yuma. Guskey. T. R. (1988). Improving ssr~ulcnrhnrnin~in colkF classroom. Sprin&ield. IL: Thomas. Lo~vman,J. (1990). Pnrrnotine morivatim and learning. College Tcuchin,q. 38. 136-140. McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Temhingtips (Srhed.). Lexington. MA: Heath. Milton, 0. (Ed.). (19781. On cnlle~rteachinx. San Fmncisco: Josey-Bas. Norcross. J. C.. Homcks, L. 1.. & Stevenson, 1. F. (1989). Of hariishts and gadflies: Attitudes and practices concerning extra credit in o>llepcourses. Teaching of psycho lo^. 16. 199-203. Olry. N. (1992). Extra credit and peer tutoring: Impact ivn the quality of writing in intnxiuctory psychology in an o p n admis19. 78-8 I. sions collece. Tewhinc of Ps,~chi~lop, Notes I. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological As.xuiarion. New York. April 1991. 2 . Requesrs for reprinrs should be sent to john C. Norcross. Department of Psychology. Universitv of Scranton. Scranton. PA 18510-4596.
Strategies and Resources for Teaching Statistics to Visually Impaired Students Anita M. M e e h a n Derrie Hoffert Laurence C. Hoffert Kvfzhnurr Uniucrsilv We give several tips fur tenchinc statistics to visuully iml~aired st~dcncsand w i d e infonnariim on special resources available f,n this pnpularion. With approipriate ussutanc-r, these srudenrs can be held respomil,le fur the same material a x ri~htedstlcdenrs. T h e college student population has changed dramatically in the last 2 decades. Not only are more older adults and minorities attending college, hut the numher of physically disahled students has also increased. T h ~ changing s student hody presents a challenge to instructors as they adapt their Teaching of Psychology
