Grading System Discussion
I think we as a science department should be on the leading edge of this conversation about how we grade. We are in a unique position because by our training we have both the conceptual and mathematical skills to understand grading well. As I listened to conversations on Thursday I realized that many of the statements people were making were simply bad math. Truly just gut feelings draped over a poor understanding of math. And I don’t want to beat up on anyone here—I hope that we can lead on this issue by finding gentle ways to explain how the mathematics of grading work. In addition I think that we can influence the discussion, not to change all grading, but to reexamine why we grade.
Goals:
Review the research on grading (both assessment and evaluation).
Engage in professional conversation to understand the purpose of grading.
Make decisions on a grading system that is “tight” enough to make student and parent understanding easy and “loose” enough to allow flexibility for individual teachers.
Marzano’s Complete Scale Adapted from 0-4 to 1-5
Traditional Grade Conversion (Recommended by Marzano)
I have tried here to faithfully represent Bob Marzano’s recommendations from his books and from a recent conference. He very much approves of the complete scale (see his book Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work) but realizes that in the real world conversions need to be made. So when pushed he said you could convert to the A, B, C type grades. He was even more reluctant to convert further to percentages grades (because his whole approach circles around the idea that 101 categories is not the way to go) but when asked he advised a conversion that included standard intervals.
The second table is one possible way of grading in a competency system. (My idea.) INC until competency is met. The INCs however would only appear at the end of a marking period. Up until then students would see their point scores—so they could keep track of where they were. Point Conversion (reluctantly recommended by Marzano)
5.0
A+
100
4.5
A
95
4.0
B+
89
3.5
B
85
3.0
C+
79
2.5
C
75
2.0
D+
69
1.5
D
65
1.0
F
55
Marzano’s Complete Scale Adapted from 0-4 to 1-5
Traditional Grade Conversion (Recommended by Marzano)
Point Conversion (reluctantly recommended by Marzano)
5.0
A+
100
4.5
A
95
4.0
B+
89
3.5
B
85
3.0
C+
79
2.5
INC
INC
2.0
INC
INC
1.5
INC
INC
1.0
INC
INC
To be clear Marzano’s complete scale does include 9 categories. But just because you are seeing .5s it does not mean that there are other decimals available. In his system there are only 9 categories. His book enumerates each category and the simplicity is that all rubrics can be built from this system.
I think we as a science department should be on the leading edge of this conversation about how we grade. We are in a unique position because by our training we have both the conceptual and mathematical skills to understand grading well. As I listened to conversations on Thursday I realized that many of the statements people were making were simply bad math. Truly just gut feelings draped over a poor understanding of math. And I don’t want to beat up on anyone here—I hope that we can lead on this issue by finding gentle ways to explain how the mathematics of grading work. In addition I think that we can influence the discussion, not to change all grading, but to reexamine why we grade.
Goals:
Review the research on grading (both assessment and evaluation).
Engage in professional conversation to understand the purpose of grading.
Make decisions on a grading system that is “tight” enough to make student and parent understanding easy and “loose” enough to allow flexibility for individual teachers.
Marzano’s Complete Scale Adapted from 0-4 to 1-5
Traditional Grade Conversion (Recommended by Marzano)
I have tried here to faithfully represent Bob Marzano’s recommendations from his books and from a recent conference. He very much approves of the complete scale (see his book Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work) but realizes that in the real world conversions need to be made. So when pushed he said you could convert to the A, B, C type grades. He was even more reluctant to convert further to percentages grades (because his whole approach circles around the idea that 101 categories is not the way to go) but when asked he advised a conversion that included standard intervals.
The second table is one possible way of grading in a competency system. (My idea.) INC until competency is met. The INCs however would only appear at the end of a marking period. Up until then students would see their point scores—so they could keep track of where they were. Point Conversion (reluctantly recommended by Marzano)
5.0
A+
100
4.5
A
95
4.0
B+
89
3.5
B
85
3.0
C+
79
2.5
C
75
2.0
D+
69
1.5
D
65
1.0
F
55
Marzano’s Complete Scale Adapted from 0-4 to 1-5
Traditional Grade Conversion (Recommended by Marzano)
Point Conversion (reluctantly recommended by Marzano)
5.0
A+
100
4.5
A
95
4.0
B+
89
3.5
B
85
3.0
C+
79
2.5
INC
INC
2.0
INC
INC
1.5
INC
INC
1.0
INC
INC
To be clear Marzano’s complete scale does include 9 categories. But just because you are seeing .5s it does not mean that there are other decimals available. In his system there are only 9 categories. His book enumerates each category and the simplicity is that all rubrics can be built from this system.
No comments:
Post a Comment