Category Archives: Feedback

Do Animals & Aliens belong in a Human Physiology course?

As a human physiology instructor, one of the most frequent comments I get from students is about how hard the course is. In fact, I have started to bring this up right at the beginning of the semester and offer my students many ways to overcome the challenges, including keeping up with the reading and the homework, coming to office hours with questions, forming study groups, etc… There are several reasons why the students struggle with the physiology course. Physiology can be hard for students due to the amount of material and the nature of the subject which requires integrating knowledge from other fields such as anatomy, biochemistry, cell biology, physics, and chemistry. There is also a lot of heterogeneity among the students learning human physiology. They may be biology majors taking physiology as an elective, or those who are preparing for a career in a health profession, and they may be coming from different backgrounds with varying levels of preparation. Some students may start the course with basic biology knowledge and some pre-conceived notions that may even hinder their ability to learn the intricacies of human physiology.

There is a belief among many physiology students that since there is a lot of factual detail then memorization is the way to go. This inevitably leads to memorization fatigue, and confusion when seemingly contradictory material is encountered. Instead of focusing on the overwhelming number of details, a better strategy would be to focus on common themes or core concepts that once learned will allow the formation of a strong foundation. When the students learn core concepts, they do not need to learn all the details of all the systems, just the common themes and this reduces the cognitive load. By having to remember fewer items, the students can work on learning as opposed to memorizing. Focusing on core concepts allows the students to transfer their learning from one body system to another with an understanding of the basics. Core concepts provide a way to raise the level of knowledge of the students, so that long after they have completed the course, they can continue to learn physiology even if they do not remember all the details.

Michael & McFarland (2011) have compiled a list of 15 physiology core concepts based on physiology faculty surveys that describe the most important parts of teaching physiology. It is clear from Michael et al. (2017) that these core concepts are ‘general models’ as they are widely applicable in most areas of physiology. Some of these core concepts include homeostasis, cell membrane, cell-cell communication, flow-down gradients, and interdependence and provide an excellent framework for the teaching of physiology.

The wide applicability of core concepts allows the instructor to generate models involving animals as well as hypothetical aliens. It may be reasonable to assume that learning core concepts will then enable the students to answer questions and solve problems involving animals and aliens. There are some really good reasons for the use of animal and alien models for teaching core concepts as well as for assessment. The use of animals & aliens in teaching and assessment removes any preconceived notions about how the human body works and can hone in on the most important facets of the concepts that we want the students to learn. Animal & alien models in assessment can be an excellent way to test for comprehension of concepts and the ability to transfer the learning from the known system to a novel scenario.

Problem sets with animals & aliens can be used in teaching as well as assessment. Courses on animal physiology or comparative physiology can shine a spotlight on the common themes between animals and humans. Animal models are routinely used in research to study human diseases as well as to test interventions. Teaching modules that incorporate animal physiology like the one from HHMI Biointeractive on dinosaurs’ ability to maintain their body temperature can engage the students to apply principles of physiology to understanding how dinosaurs were able to regulate their body temperature. Tools like the Fictional Animal project (Batch et al. 2017) help students in their systems thinking to identify the most important physiological models to integrate the various body systems and in addition to understanding the interactions between an animal and its environment.

With the increased interest in space exploration and human travel to moon and Mars, physiology questions on aliens can help us learn more about human physiology and how we might adapt to space. Research on extraordinary life forms at the bottom of the oceans and hydrothermal vents that provide us with more ways to imagine life in space while emphasizing similarities with human physiology. Most importantly, bringing animals, fictional or real, and aliens into the classroom can increase student engagement and impact learning and transfer of knowledge.

One way to use non-human examples is by using the framework of Test Question Templates (TQTs; Crowther et al. 2020), in which clearly articulated Learning Objectives (LO) are used to generate questions. Every TQTs based on an LO can be used to create multiple questions, thus reducing the possibility of memorizing answers. The use of TQTs can result in questions that assess student understanding and application of core concepts, expecting students to use higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. (Casagrand & Semsar, 2017). The consistent use of TQTs can build an appreciation of physiology concepts leading to better preparation for patient care and real-life medical scenarios.

The appeal of TQTs for students, in addition to learning concepts as opposed to facts, is also that they can envision what questions can be asked based on an LO. TQTs can be used in class as models for generating questions in which the students can also participate. As instructors, we like it when our students answer questions, but it is even better when they ask the questions. So, does it matter to a pre-health student whether a dinosaur was endothermic or ectothermic? And the answer to that is if it helps the student understand how temperature regulation works, it certainly does.

References:

Batch, S.A., et al. 2017 Adv Physiol Educ. 41:2 https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00159.2016

Casagrand, K. and Semsar, J. (2017). Adv in Physiol Educ. 41: 170-177. 10.1152/advan.00102.2016

Crowther, G. J. et al. (2020). HAPS Educator 24(1):74-81. https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2020.006

Michael, J. and J. McFarland (2020). Advances in Physiology Education 44: 752-762. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00114.2020.

Michael, J. & McFarland, J. (2011) https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00004.2011

Usha Sankar Ph.D. is a Sr. Lecturer at Fordham University, Bronx, NY and has been teaching human physiology for over 10 years. Usha is very interested in bridging the gap between teaching and learning and is looking to improve her own physiology teaching as she believes learning about the inner workings of the human body is the most fun thing anyone can do. Usha is also involved in conducting air quality research and collaborating with young scholars from middle and high schools about air quality, health impacts, and climate change research. This research combines all her interests including human health, education, and climate change.

Usha Sankar Ph.D.

Senior Lecturer

Dept. of Biological Sciences

Fordham University

441 E Fordham Rd

Bronx, NY 10458

Developing a Community of Practice in an A&P Course

This blog is about striving to create a Community of Practice (CoP) to engage students in Situated/Social Learning by using Team-based activities and assessments along with the web-based social learning annotation platform, Perusall.

We have all experienced those “Aha” moments when something we were struggling with suddenly becomes clear.  Think back to a time when you experienced real/durable learning.  When I did that, three things popped into my mind:  a hallway discussion in graduate school with classmates in my neurophysiology class about the Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz equation; American Physiological Society – Institute of Teaching and Learning (APS-ITL) conferences/interaction with Physiology Educators Community of Practice (PECOP); and the Community of Practice at HCC via the Instructional Development Center (IDC) which organizes and facilitates Best Practices and Faculty Academy.  And what this made me realize was that I learned best in a social setting with peers rather than isolated in my room/office tackling a topic by myself.  Although this was new to me, Lave and Wenger realized this long ago.

Lave and Wenger put forth the social learning theory of situated learning and communities of practice (CoP) in the early 90s.  Core ideas of their theory are that learning is identity formation through social participation and that communities of practice are groups of people (communities), brought together by a need for shared learning (domain) for something they do together (practice) and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). And I believe, in a classroom setting, this should be framed within a significant learning environment. See Fink (2003) for explicit steps that can be taken to create an environment conducive to learning.

While a CoP is often discussed relative to professional societies, I believe that a CoP can develop within an A&P course and bring about durable learning through social interaction.  In this case, then, the domain includes the students who are in the course to learn A&P – shared learning needs; the community includes the class as well as the community within student groups/teams; and the practice includes interactions and participation in evidence-based teaching best practices from the resources those produce.

The following infographic is a summary of best practices in evidence-based teaching (Petty, 2006) which Michaelson and Sweet (2011) suggest can be met by and are a part of Team-based Learning (TBL). These include Visual presentation and graphic organizers which are met in my classes by team projects; feedback and assessment for learning; cooperative learning; reciprocal teaching e.g., peer instruction; whole-class interactive teaching; requiring concept-driven decisions e.g., concept questions and higher-order thinking levels for summative assessments.  This provides a very strong rationale for using TBL.  And TBL, by its very nature, promotes social learning.

Michaelsen and Richards (2005) identified the four key components of TBL: group formation; meaningful team assignments; routine feedback; and accountability.  The following infographic includes the components of TBL and summarizes some of the ways they are addressed in my courses.  I will go into more detail on some of these throughout the blog.

Formation of diverse teams is very important for the successful use of team-based learning.  In the physical classroom, I used a ‘show of hands’ to questions asked on the first day of class and had the students line up, then I counted them off into the appropriate number of groups. Questions used were: “How many have ……had me as an instructor before?; had medical terminology?; a college degree or certificate?; been born outside of IL?” etc.  This provides transparency in how the teams are formed and lets students know what things the instructor thinks are important to include in each team.

For the virtual, online-synchronous classroom, I use the web-based platform, CATME Smarter Teamwork, Team-maker tool.  Team-maker tool page can be found at this link.  The Team-maker tool simplifies the team-assignment process, for the virtual classroom, and creates diverse teams.  Instructors decide which criteria will be used to form teams/student groups.  For example, it is helpful for team members to have similar work schedules to facilitate group work.  It is also helpful for team members to have dissimilar GPAs.  Instructors can also write custom questions and criteria to add to the Team Maker Tool survey.  CATME Smarter Teamwork platform is a product of and administered by Purdue University.  General information about the CATME Smarter Teamwork platform can be found at this link.

In addition to properly forming teams, teams must be properly managed. Team members should receive feedback regarding their effectiveness in the team early and often.  I use Peer Evaluation (PE) Surveys administered by the CATME Smarter Teamwork platform to help teams and team members become more effective.  The TBL community uses the phrase “forming, storming, and norming,” to describe phases teams go through during the semester.  PE surveys helps teams to progress to the norming phase more quickly.  Team members are evaluated in 5 areas: contributing to the team’s work, interacting with teammates, keeping the team on track, expecting quality, and having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Three PE surveys are administered over the course of the semester.  The first two PE surveys (week 5 and week 10) were formative and the third one (week 15) was summative.  Students’ PE score is based on how well they evaluate their teammates and how well their teammates evaluate them.  I used the ‘additional questions’ option for each PE survey.  They provide information on team dynamics and effectiveness which is very helpful to identify teams that are struggling which might require instructor intervention. Survey results can be viewed and then released to the students.  Students receive anonymous information on how their teammates evaluated them compared with how students evaluated themselves and this provides encouragement when they have rated themselves lower than their peers and praises students whose teammates have rated them highly. It is important to emphasize that students are evaluating, not judging, their teammates.  The CATME Smarter Teamwork website has a plethora of resources for instructors and students to help improve team effectiveness.

In addition to the CATME Smarter Teamwork PE surveys the Peer Evaluation form obtained from the University of Buffalo Case Study Workshop I attended is used to evaluate teammate participation in the team projects.  This evaluation produces a score that is used as a multiplier to the grade on the team project which helps to improve student accountability.

To promote learning, team development, and provide timely and frequent feedback, I use Just-in-time-teaching, combined with Peer Instruction (PI) and Concept Questions that are assessed using a classroom response system (Learning Catalytics) in a manner described by Mazur (1991).  Students are to complete pre-class reading assignments followed by a pre-quiz in the Learning Management System (LMS).  The pre-quizzes check for knowledge comprehension as well as identify confusing topics which are the focus of the concept questions used in the ensuing class meeting.  Each concept question has an individual round followed by a team round.  Students answer the individual questions on their own from memory.  Once students have answered the individual questions, they are instructed to discuss it with their teammates, using all available resources before the question is asked again.  These activities provide formative feedback to students and the instructor alike and provides practice for team-based summative assessments which focus on the conceptual application of material and strive for more authentic assessments with questions situated in a clinical scenario.  Learning Catalytics, the classroom response system used in my classes, has a variety of question types that can be used to write questions that require lower-order or higher-order thinking skills.

Additionally, the PI and team interaction help students negotiate their identity in the group and facilitates new learning, which are earmarks of social learning in a community of practice.  Of course, all of this is dependent upon students coming to class prepared.

Much to my dismay, even though pre-quizzes are given to hold students accountable, rather than read the assignment, they tend to ‘hunt and peck’ in the textbook or search Google for answers which are out of context and don’t really answer the question.  Funnily enough, pre-class reading assignments and pre-quizzes didn’t even hold Harvard physics students accountable to complete the reading assignments.  So, Eric Mazur and his team developed the social annotation platform Perusall.  Information about the platform can be found at this link.

Perusall allows for/encourages social interaction ‘outside’ of class and uses programs like those used in social media. Students annotate pre-class reading assignments and can comment on classmates’ annotations, “like” comments, and ask and answer questions; they are not reading/processing material alone. Students can interact with classmates in the entire class, rather than only with their teammates, which expands the community for social learning.  By clicking on an annotation in a pre-reading assignment a current conversation window opens, and the thread of conversation shows who made comments and when they were made.  This shows the asynchronous social interaction taking place in Perusall, and documents social learning taking place outside of class.  It lets the students know they are not alone in their struggle to understand a topic and offers opportunities for students to offer explanations and suggestions to help classmates learn.

Using Perusall helps students to become better prepared for in-class activities.  Following the adoption of Perusall, 88% of students annotated 80-100% of the pre-class reading assignments throughout a semester. Whereas only 69% of students completed 80-100% of the pre-quizzes associated with the pre-class reading assignment before using Perusall.  Completing the pre-quiz, as mentioned above does not necessarily indicate that students read the assignment.  They may have just Googled the answers.

So far, I have talked about Perusall as a social annotation platform that encourages students to thoughtfully annotate reading assignments as a way to promote social learning and a sense of community which is one of the main reasons I use Perusall and why I believe Perusall helps to build a CoP in my courses.  However, I think it is important to point out that the adoption implementation of Perusall is very easy and offers valuable features without adding to the instructional load.  Once the course is set up, which does not take long, there is little to no extra work for the instructor.  The quality of the annotations is graded automatically using a machine algorithm to assess intellectual content.  Also, with a click of a tab, instructors receive a ‘confusion report’ listing the top three points of confusion with the top three annotations articulating the confusion and other analytic reports. Perusall also automatically sends emails to students who have missed reading assignments.  For anyone interested in viewing a course in Perusall a demo course has been set up – course code = CHAPMAN-GJZQV.  To access the course, follow this link and click the ‘register’ link provided on the page.  Once the registration is complete there will be an option to enroll in a course, click on that tab and enter the course code listed above.  Or just jump into the deep end of the pool and register as an instructor just to see how easy and intuitive the platform is to use.

By putting students into diverse, permanent/fixed student groups the sense of community can grow. During group work and the social annotation of reading assignments throughout the semester, students negotiate their identity in the group, negotiate new learning, and work together to learn anatomy and physiology. The following photo is of a team on the last day of the semester.  The “CEO” of the team made the t-shirts using team members’ identities negotiated throughout the semester and gave them to all teammates near the end of the semester.

When it works properly a Community of Practice can develop.  I have witnessed tremendous learning in my classroom which is the result of helping my students create a community of practice within the framework of efforts to create a significant learning environment and allowing students to socially interact via team-based activities/assessments and social interaction while annotating pre-class reading assignments.

References:

Fink, L.D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., and Fink, L. D. (2004) Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Sterling, Va.: Stylus.

Michaelsen, L. K., Parmelee, D. X., McMahon, K. K., and Levine, R. E. (eds.). (2008) Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education: A Guide to Using Small Groups for Improving Learning. Sterling, Va.: Stylus.

Michaelsen, L., & Richards, B. (2005). Commentary: drawing conclusions from the team-learning literature in health sciences education: a commentary. Teaching and learning in medicine, 17(1), 85-88.

Michaelson, L.K., and Sweet, M.  Team-based Learning.  (2011) New Directions for Teaching and Learning.  no. 128. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library. DOI:10.1002/tl.467.

Petty, G. (2006) Evidence-Based Teaching. Gloucestershire, U.K.: Nelson-Thornes, 2006.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Ca

After a post-doctoral fellowship at Washington University School of Medicine, Jane began her academic teaching career at Benedictine University in the graduate programs in exercise physiology.  After that Jane taught in the Physician Assistant Programs at Rosalind Franklin University and the University of Kentucky. For the past 18 years Jane taught Anatomy and Physiology at Heartland Community College in Normal, IL, where innovative, student-centered instruction is encouraged. For the last decade, Jane employed Just-in-Time Teaching with Peer Instruction and concept questions assessed with a classroom response system.  Recently, permanent, fixed teams were used in her classes, along with team-based summative assessments, as well as with in-class and post-class forced retrieval activities. Jane is a Professor Emerita of Biology and had served as the Anatomy and Physiology course coordinator.

Jane received her B.S. from Eastern Illinois University, her M.S. from Illinois State University, and her Ph.D. from Marquette University.

mbridge University Press.

An Alternative Assessment Approach to be More Inclusive and Inspiring

I want to propose a different grading system that I think is more encouraging to some students and will be particularly useful for supporting diversity in physiology classes and in science general education classes.  Two separate influences converged to give me insight in creating this grading system.

In many of my courses, I value 3 different aspects of student participation and work: their attendance, their homework and their project work. My dilemma was how to grade in such a way that a student had to do all 3 well in order to get an A. If each aspect was weighted equally, then a student could get 100% on two parts, would only need 70% on the third part, which did not suit my purpose (see Figure 1A).  If each part has different weights, then the student can get even less than 70% on the part that has the least weight, only making matters worse.  I then tried to use the geometric mean, taking the cube root of the product of the percentages on the different parts (see Figure 1B).  While that improved things somewhat, it still did not achieve quite what I wanted and it was a bit confusing to the students. Finally, I tried  multiplying the grades in each area; while this was an improvement, if I stayed with the 90%, 80%, 70% cutoffs, this was too harsh a system (see Figure 1C).

The other influence that occurred was that our university started an incentive program to get people to be more active. If a person walked a million steps in 1 year, they would get a pay bonus. In talking to a colleague about this, the colleague pointed out that behavioral economists would argue that the incentive program would be more effective if the university handed out the bonus in January and said, if you do NOT walk at least 1 million steps this year, we will take back the incentive in December; basically, people will work harder not to lose something than to get something they do not yet have (3, 5, 6, 7).

My grading system is to tell the students they have 1,000 points on the first day of class and that 900 points is required for an A.  They lose 25 points for every class absence, they lose 25 points for every homework assignment not done satisfactorily, and up to 300 points if the final project or assessment is not satisfactory, see Figure 1D.  Consider a course that meets 3 times per week for 15 weeks and has homework for each class. If a student misses 5 classes (11%) then they cannot get an A.

If a student has more than 5 unsatisfactory homework assignments, then they cannot get an A.

If they lose more than ⅓ of the points on the project, they cannot get an A.

If they miss 2 classes and have 3 unsatisfactory homework assignments, they cannot get an A.

The conventional system in which a student gets x points for this assignment and y points for that assignment makes some assumptions (1, 9).  One assumption is that the response is additive and independent; there are plenty of phenomena in physiology that we know are synergistic and not additive.  My system is more like requiring a properly functioning heart, lungs and brain in order to consider the organism to be properly functioning, whereas the conventional system would be analogous to weight a properly functioning heart as much more important that properly functioning lungs.

Many students taking science classes suffer from imposter syndrome (4, 8, 10).  By making it clear that the student is starting the class with an A, I hope to make them realize that they do belong.  I reinforce this by saying that I view myself as their coach and I want them to succeed. But as a coach, it doesn’t help them if I do all the practice, they have to put in some work-hence the reward for attendance and homework.  (In classes where I have TAs, I refer to them as assistant coaches-again, to stress that we are there to help them get better and to emphasize that they have to do some work and not just watch us.)   Of course, some students worry that the project is a “gotcha” assignment.  I get around this by using an idea from Mittell (as quoted in 2).  If the project gets a not satisfactory evaluation, the student can revise and resubmit.  I use Mittell’s analogy that in my class “not satisfactory” is like when their parents say, “your room is not satisfactorily cleaned for you to go out” (as quoted in 2).

A business school colleague objected to my grading system because he felt students should earn their grade.  I appreciate and respect that point of view and I think it depends on the student, the class, and the teacher.  My analogy is, for a sports team, before the season starts, is the team undefeated or winless?

There are several reasons why I give credit for attendance:

I encourage discussions and brainstorming in class.  Students not present cannot learn from these interactions.  Furthermore, the rest of the class loses the absent student’s insights and questions which would enrich and diversify the interactions.

I am a bit more interested in developing lifelong habits that will serve the students well than in having them memorize information and theories, in part because some of the accepted information and theories are likely to change over their lifetime. To me, learning to attend class is a bit like learning how to get, and stay, in shape. Part of that is the ability to set aside time to exercise and to do it even on days when one is not in the mood.  For me, process is at least as important as short-term results. So I wanted a grading system that rewarded the behaviors I wanted (9).

A colleague also pointed out that if a student can get an A in a class without being in attendance, then, apparently, class time was not necessary for learning for that student (or, perhaps more accurately, class time was not necessary for passing the exams for that student).

Finally, I have a selfish reason for giving credit for attendance. I think the class works better when most students are there; I certainly find it more rewarding and enjoyable to be in front of a full class than when half of the students do not attend.

As I developed this grading system, it made me reflect again on what were my goals for the course.

Was I more interested in results or process? Taking my coaching analogy, if I were coaching physical fitness or flexibility, was having the student be able to run one mile in under 5 minutes or being able to touch their toes the goal of the semester or was it to help them develop habits, get in better shape than they started, and learn to enjoy the satisfaction of being in shape? For me, the analogous traits are to develop solid learning habits, to learn to critically think, to improve their ability to discuss and brainstorm about concepts and mechanisms, and to learn to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with thinking deeply about a problem.

In reading about other approaches to evaluation, I also realized that my previous approach to grading rewarded those who came into the course with a better background (2).  This did not seem fair to me. I am still struggling with the best way to account for the different skills and levels of the students when they enter the course.  Going back to the physical fitness training analogy, if a student comes into the course being able to run a 5 minute mile and finishes the course running a mile in 4:50 should they get a better grade than a student who entered the course not being able to run a complete mile and finishes the course running a complete mile in 10 minutes? (2)

One small difficulty with the approach is the dissonance of reading a fine assignment and then entering 0 in that grade column. Similarly, some students initially get concerned seeing a 0 in the grade column, so now I remind them when I reveal the grades for the first few evaluations that a 0 means they have done a satisfactory (or better) job.

I have found that the students find this grading system reduces their anxiety and makes them more comfortable in taking creative risks when doing their assignments.  It also makes evaluation an easier process as I am focused on helping the students improve and not on ranking them.

In summary, I hope some readers find that the ideas and questions that prompted me to adopt this grading system may help them reflect on how well their goals for the course match up with how they evaluate and reward students, even if they are not interested in adopting this grading system.

REFERENCES

  1. Elbow P, Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting out Three Forms of Judgment. College English 55: 187-206, 1993
  2. Jones JB. Experimenting with Specifications Grading Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2016 https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/experimenting-with-specifications-grading/61912 accessed 8/17/2021
  3. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47:263–91, 1979
  4. McGill BM, Foster MJ, Pruitt AN, Thomas SG, Arsenault ER, Hanschu J, Wahwahsuck K, Cortez E, Zarek K, Loecke TD, Burgin AJ. You are welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for undergraduates embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecol Evol. 11(8):3636-3645, 2021.
  5. Morewedge CK, Giblin CE. Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review. Trends Cogn Sci. 19(6):339-48, 2015.
  6. Ogdie, A, Asch, DA. Changing health behaviours in rheumatology: an introduction to behavioural economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol 16, 53–60, 2020.
  7. Patel MS, Asch DA, Rosin R, Small DS, Bellamy SL, Heuer J, Sproat S, Hyson C, Haff N, Lee SM, Wesby L, Hoffer K, Shuttleworth D, Taylor DH, Hilbert V, Zhu J, Yang L, Wang X, Volpp KG. Framing. Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med.164(6):385-94. 2016 .
  8. Persky AM. Intellectual Self-doubt and How to Get Out of It. Am J Pharm Educ. 82(2):6990, 2018
  9. Potts, G. A Simple Alternative to Grading . The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges 15 (1):29-42, 2010.
  10. Winzeler EA. An improbable journey: Creativity helped me make the transition from art to curing malaria. J Biol Chem. 294(2):405-409, 2019.

Figure legend.

Outcomes from different grading systems. In all 4 cases, the course has 3 different areas (e.g., attendance, homework, and project). The percent of the total points possible for each area is determined. The right column (in red) are the percentages obtained in one area and the top row are the percentages obtained in the two other areas. Using the traditional cutoffs of 90%, 80%, for grades, the orange shaded areas would get A’s, the purple shaded areas B’s, and the blue shaded areas C’s.

A). Outcomes from an additive or average grading system.  In this system, one takes the average of the 3 areas. In this case, someone could get as low as 70% in one area and still get an A if they get 100% in the other two areas.

  1. B) Outcomes from a geometric mean grading system. In this system, one takes the cube root of the product of the grade in each of the 3 areas. In this system, getting 80% in one area and 100% in the other two still gets an A, but 70% in one area and 100% in the other two is now a B.
  2. C) Outcomes from a multiplicative system. Here one multiplies the percentages from each area. In this system, there are many fewer A’s.
  3. D) Outcomes from a loss aversion or endowment system. In this system, each student starts with 1,000 points and loses points when they do not satisfactorily complete an assignment in any area.  In this system, a student can only lose 10% of the points in one area and still get an A.  Even if the student gets 100% in two areas and 80% in the third area, they get a B.

    Mark Milanick

    Mark grew up in Novelty, OH and went to high school in Harmony, PA.  He attempted to double major in physics and English literature at Swarthmore, but ended up just majoring in English. He took a year abroad at the University of St. Andrews, taking pure Maths, Pharmacology and Modern Literature. After doing lab rotations with Ed Taylor and Richard Miller, he did his PhD with Bob Gunn in the Biophysics and Theoretical Biology at the University of Chicago.  His postdoctoral training was with Joe Hoffman in physiology at Yale.  He had over 20 years of NIH funding on red blood cell membrane transport and physiology. He particularly enjoys teaching physiology and general education classes, such as Toxins, the Good, the Bad and the Beautiful; Bodily Fluids and their Functions; Filtering Fact from Fiction in TV Crime and Medical Dramas; and the Science of Sex, Drugs, and Rock’n’Roll.