Mildly Interesting

18311 readers

95 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

marcar@lemmy.world

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

Terevos@lemm.ee

215

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order (phys.org)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As graders go on grading, their comments become more frustrated and their good-will becomes much sloppier. At least that's the hypothesis to explain this. Researchers found the reverse effect on graders who sorted in reverse-alphabetical order.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So, just the people who get marked last are randomly affected?

[–] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Well, yeah. I'd argue that's better than people with certain names being consistently affected.

[–] liv@lemmy.nz 0 points 10 months ago

They both seem equally bad to me.

You don't have to have either problem though; both can be avoided easily.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not sure what you mean. Do you think that blind marking would somehow eradicate the bias onto these who get graded later?

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No. Exactly the opposite. The problem continues to exist, but now it's hidden.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's improved at least, randomized would be different each time and would influence everyone's grades evenly in a spread out period (in theory.)

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, you're arguing that randomness is an accurate and acceptable way to score a test?

I wonder how the students feel about that..

This isn't a flippant remark either. There's a much larger issue hiding in plain sight. If there's no relationship between the test and the marking then there's no point in using this process. In other words, this research appears to be saying something more profound than just commenting on the order of the tests.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It's less about the individual test, and more so spreading the human error across many tests rather than "the last few tests"