Standards-Based Grading (Part 1)

Consultants' Corner Formative Assessment Oakland Writing Project

shutterstock_297479735For the next two years, I will be part of the Galileo Leadership Consortium, which works to advance teacher leadership. In this role, I am asked to learn that I can do better for the profession.

Sometimes all we have to realize is that we only have to know that we can do better. And one of the things that the consortium believes we can do better is grading. We believe that grading doesn’t have to be punitive, and that it can actually relay information about what a child has learned. To help you understand and implement these beliefs, I will share the information I have learned from experts, and how I have used that learning in my 8th grade Language Arts classroom.

Wormeli’s Views of Grading

The first expert I encountered was Rick Wormeli. He is best known for his research on 21st-century teaching practices. Five minutes into a day with him, though, and you realize that he has used all of the research that he presents.

From Wormeli, I learned three things:

  • Teachers are ethically responsible for the grades which they report.

This means that grades that are padded—with scores for neatness, following directions, turning work in on time—are grades that do not represent the amount of learning the student has achieved.

  • Grades should accurately report the amount of mastery that a student has on the standards of that subject.

This means that an A in Language Arts represents that the student has achieved an A level of mastery in the reading and writing of narrative, argument, and information. An A level of mastery is typically coined by the terms “Exceeding Mastery.”

  • Assessments should be connected to standards.

This means that all activities that we ask of students should be related to the learning they should be achieving. So, every assessment should be connected to a standard, so the student’s grade can reflect the achievement of that standard.

What This Looks Like in My Classroom

So, what does standards-based grading mean in literacy instruction, and what does this look like in my classroom?

I don’t have a definitive answer, but I have some experiences that I will share.

Shift 1: I connect daily lessons to standards, and present these connections to students.amy 1

At the beginning of each lesson, I name my teaching point. Students and I refer to our Self-Evaluation Standards page (you can click on the thumbnail image to the right). On this page, we underline key words and compare how our work achieved that standard. As you can see, the columns represent achievement levels. Students can mark a date and a level they think they achieved. From here, students can see their growth towards achieving each standard.

Shift 2: For every standard that I teach to kids, I create a rubric of achievement.amy 2

I share the rubrics with kids along with exemplars (thumbnail on the right) of each achievement level. Students can see where their work aligns with that of their peers and the way work should look. The rubric and examples help kids to work to meet the standards.

Shift 3: I insist that students walk away each day having learned something.

In order to quantify this, I have started giving quick and varied formative assessments. For one amy 3concept, it may be a post-it of key terms, with verbal descriptive feedback. For another concept, it may be written descriptive feedback about how to move forward in achieving a standard (an example is on the right). For any assessment, students may re-try the work, in order to show more learning. This helps kids learn and apply the material, but it also shows them that they are active learners, and learners who are successful.

Every day in my classroom looks a little different. And I am using different strategies to reach all of my learners. But in doing so, I know what standard that students have achieved and what standard they are working on. We also have a great community that wants to work and grow and show their best work. And all this came from three small shifts.

pic 2Amy Gurney is an 8th grade Language Arts teacher for Bloomfield Hills School District. She was a facilitator for the release of the MAISA units of study. She has studied, researched, and practiced reading and writing workshop through Oakland Schools, The Teacher’s College, and action research projects. She earned a Bachelor of Science in Education at Central Michigan University and a Master’s in Educational Administration at Michigan State University.

#14: A Look at Student Data Mining from Two Perspectives

Podcasts

Jeff  Grabill is a Professor of Rhetoric and Professional Writing and Chair of the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures here at Michigan State University. He is  a senior researcher with WIDE Research (Writing in Digital Environments) and also a co-founder of Drawbridge Incorporated, an educational technology company. He studies how digital writing is associated with citizenship and learning. He has published two books on community literacy and articles in journals like College Composition and Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, Computers and Composition, and English Education.

Email

Twitter

MSU

 

Bill Hart-Davidson earned his Ph.D. in 1999 in Rhetoric & Composition from Purdue University. He is a Senior Researcher at Writing in Digital Environments Research at Matrix. In 2014, he will begin a three year appointment as Associate Dean of Graduate Studies in the College of Arts & Letters. He is a co-inventor of Eli Review, a software service that supports writing instruction. Eli is a system based on research and pedagogy developed with his colleagues at WIDE.

Email

Twitter

MSU

This podcast is also available on iTunes

 

 

Podcast #13 Data Mining & Students: A Conversation with Chris Gilliard & Hugh Culik

Formative Assessment Podcasts

Hugh Culik has been a high school English teacher, a novelist, a grant writer, an English Professor and Chair of the University of Detroit Mercy, English Department, Executive Director of the Upper Peninsula’s Bonifas Art Center, and has been an instructor at Macomb Community College for the past seven years. Throughout these lives, he has frequently published about the relationship of mathematics and literature.

He credits Chris Gilliard for a large part of his skepticism about “digital culture.”

Chris Gilliard has been a professor for 20 years, teaching writing, literature, and digital studies at a variety of institutions, including Purdue University, Michigan State University, the University of Detroit, and currently Macomb Community College. His students have gone on to graduate programs at a variety of schools: University of Colorado, University of Michigan, University of Illinois, Columbia, University of Chicago, and elsewhere. Chris is interested in questions of privacy, surveillance, data mining, and the rise in our algorithmically determined future.

Chris and Hugh are part of a group of scholars and activists who are concerned with the ways ed tech companies have made their way into the classroom in ways that not only erode student privacy and make student data available to advertisers and other “third parties”, but also have the potential to create permanent profiles of students in the name of personalized learning.

This podcast is also available on iTunes

 

Contact Info:

Chris Gilliard’s email

Hugh Culik email

LINKS:

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Fordham University: Center for Law and Information Policy

Dana Boyd

The Black Box Society

Audrey Watters