How might you improve?

How convincing is this? How might you do better?

These questions were bothering me. I had just completed a paper with colleagues Lenore Kinne and Dave Coffey on the effective use of rubrics for formative assessment (in press). In it, we wrote:

...a good rubric provides feedback on the progress that has been made toward the goal while simultaneously communicating ways the performance might be improved (emphasis added).

My rubric did the first part, but it bothered me that it didn't do the second part.

For that, I had to write comments on students' papers. I realized I was writing the same sort of comments over and over. I needed to do something about that.

Those Less Convincing Performances

I recently completed my second semester of standards-based grading. I have learned a lot, and will try to post more about that this semester.

After a conversation with a colleague, Pam Wells, about the SBG system I'd been using. The conversation got me thinking about how to handle the, shall we say, less convincing performances. 

Email to Pam on the matter:

Pam, I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you about SBG on Friday. Since then, my thought keep returning to the rubric and the question of what a “1” means. I think I will change how I use 1’s in the future.

When we talked, we agreed that 1 basically means “you don’t get this yet.” In that sense, a 1 should not count as evidence of proficiency at all. So a 1 and an 0 are similar: they mean “no evidence provided”, but for different reasons. Anything at a 0 or 1 simply does not count as a piece of evidence for that target. If we require two pieces of evidence for each target, this reinforces the mastery mode of grading implicit in SBG. If you don’t get to two pieces of evidence, the grade is reduced.

How to do SBG, better, next time!

Wordle of this semester's SBG Targets

Over the last few semesters, I have begun implementing a standards-based grading approach in my classes. My first real attempt was over the summer in a small intermediate algebra class. The results were very positive, but I had fewer than 12 students in the class for most of the semester. Plus it was summer. Could SBG stand up to the challenges of an academic year? Thinking the benefits were worth it, I decided to go for it.

It was worth it -- and I'll talk about why another time -- but I also learned a few things along the way. As the semester is drawing to a close, and I'm grading a lot of student work as they seek to fill in "holes" in the SBG gradebook, I thought it was prime time to reflect on what I would do differently next time: hence, this post.

I'm not grading this

I asked my students to turn in a draft of the Cheesecake Task last week. But when I sat down this weekend to prepare to write feedback on their tasks, I hit a snag. Simply put, the work was not good, but their self-evaluations were off the charts high. How could this be?

 Before I started inking comments, I decided to sort the stack into two piles:

Pile one: Almost got it, needs minimal feedback. 
Pile two: Needs a lot of work (and lots of feedback).

Pile one had 5 papers in it. Pile two had 19.

Ugh. 

...why rubrics? (part 1)

Why I use rubrics, #1: Rubrics help me to focus on proficiencies, not deficits, and they support my efforts to give feedback that can be used to improve future performances.

In earlier posts, I discussed the "In the cups" performance task and my use of a proficiency-based assessment system in my intermediate algebra course. In this post, I'll share an example to illustrate how the use of an evidence-based rubric has supported my implementation.

Show me what you can do

I have a new mantra this semester, reflecting a new (for me) way of thinking about my assessment and evaluation. The mantra is basically: "Show me what you can do." It's a big shift from my early assessment systems.

"Show off!"