Researcher profile

Cassandra A. Paul

Cassandra A. Paul contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Percent Grade Scale Amplifies Racial/Ethnic Inequities in Introductory Physics

In previous work we analyzed databases for 95 classes to show that the percent grade scale was correlated with a much higher student fail rate than the 4.0 grade scale. This paper builds on this work and investigates equity gaps occurring under both scales. By employing a "Course Deficit Model" we attribute the responsibility for closing the gaps to those who are responsible for the policies that guide the course. When comparing course grades in classes graded using the percent scale with those in courses graded using the 4.0 scale, we find that students identifying as belonging to racial or ethnic minorities underrepresented in physics suffer a grade penalty under both grade scales but suffer an extra penalty under percent scale graded courses. We then use the fraction of A grades each student earns on individual exam items as a proxy for the instructor's perception of each student's understanding of the course material to control for student understanding and find that the extra grade penalty students from groups underrepresented in physics students suffer under percent scale grading is independent of the student's understanding of physics. When we control for more student level variables to determine the source of the grade scale dependent penalty, we find that it is primarily the low F grades (partial credit scores) on exam problems that are the source of these inequities. We present an argument that switching from percent scale grading to a 4.0 grade scale (or similar grades scale) could reduce equity gaps by 20-25\% without making any other course changes or controlling for any incoming differences between students.

preprint2020arXiv

Relative impacts of different grade-scales on student success in introductory physics

In deciding on a student's grade in a class, an instructor generally needs to combine many individual grading judgments into one overall judgment. Two relatively common numerical scales used to specify individual grades are the 4-point scale (where each whole number 0-4 corresponds to a letter grade) and the percent scale (where letter grades A through D are uniformly distributed in the top 40% of the scale). This paper uses grading data from a single series of courses offered over a period of 10 years to show that the grade distributions emerging from these two grade scales differed in many ways from each other. Evidence suggests that the differences are due more to the grade scale than to either the students or the instructors. One major difference is that the fraction of students given grades less than C- was over 5 times larger when instructors used the percent scale. The fact that each instructor who used both grade scales gave more than 4 times as many of these low grades under percent scale grading suggests that the effect is due to the grade scale rather than the instructor. When the percent scale was first introduced in these courses in 2006, one of the authors of this paper, who is also one of the instructors in this data set, had confidently predicted that any changes in course grading would be negligible. They were not negligible, even for this instructor.