Using Standards Based Descriptors on Student Assessments

1. Using Standards Based Descriptors on Student Assessments Kimberly D. Lackey Spanish III-IV Eureka High School

2. Do students react to the results of an assessment differently if they are given a descriptor (below basic, basic, proficient, advanced) instead of a letter grade? • Letter grades are starting to seem outdated • 90% • Need for students in advanced classes to have something to strive towards

3. Context • Classes / Students • PLC / Teachers • WL Department / Administrators • District Grading Scale / Infinite Campus

4. Research • A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades by Ken O’Connor • http://www.oconnorgrading.com/index.php - Ask the Grade Doctor • How to Grade for Learning K-12 by Ken O’Connor • Rockwood Spanish Curriculum • Performance Assessment for Language Students rubrics (PALs) from Fairfax County, VA

5. Possible Titles for Performance Standard Levels How to Grade for Learning, Ken O’Connor, 2002, page 72

6. EHS WL Department Titles for Performance Standard Levels • Same as MAP test • Each gives a description of the student’s performance / ability related to the standard

7. Link to Percentages

8. A year-long process • Quizzes (September) • Performance Assessments (late September) • Listening and Reading Assessments scoring guide (November) • Grammar Assessment scoring guide (January) • Vocabulary Assessment scoring guide (March)

9. 1) Using the terms (in addition to percentages, instead of letter grades) on quizzes. Buy in from PLCs, discussed with department.

10. 2) Reformatting Scoring Guides for performance assessments

12. 3) Expanding the scoring guide format for use with listening and reading assessments

13. 4) Expanding the scoring guide format to grammar assessments

14. 5) Expanding scoring guide format to vocabulary quizzes

15. 6) Sharing our work • Spanish I, II, and AP PLCs • French, German, Latin, ASL PLCs • EHS SBGR Book Study Group • WL Departments at Lafayette, Rockwood Summit, and Marquette • Foreign Language Association of Missouri Fall Conference, 2011 • Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, March 2012

16. Data Collection Sources • Student surveys (through Survey Monkey) • Teacher surveys • Comparison of student grades from Chapter 3-3 reading GCA from 2010 and 2011 (points vs scoring guide)

17. Student surveys (through Survey Monkey) • 178 Students • Spanish III and Spanish IV • Students from 3 different teachers, 2 different PLCs • All have had level II or III with traditional grading and level III or IV with Standards Based Grading

27. Student Comments • Pro-Standards Based • Pro-Traditional Grading / Percentages • Pro-Hybrid of SBG and Letter Grades • Indifference • Huh? • Changes that should be made

28. Teacher surveys • 3 Teachers • 2 PLCs • Each teacher has had extensive experience in using traditional letter grades and percentages and has followed the same pattern of using SBG descriptors and scoring guides during this school year

29. 1. What do you perceive as the impact of using the terms Advanced / Proficient / Basic / Below Basic on student assessments? • Students are more motivated to get above just 90%, students understand at what level (basic, below basic) they should be retaking - as opposed to just retaking to get a higher percentage. • Students are given a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses - what they know well and what they still need to learn. • Students have clearer understanding of their grades and learning.

30. Comparison of student grades from Chapter 3-3 reading GCA from 2010 and 2011 (points vs scoring guide) • Same task • 2010 – 2 points main idea, 1 point each supporting detail, 1 point each vocab in context (16 points) • 2011 – Based on scoring guide, standards based (10 points raw score)

32. Traditional vs Standards Based Grading 2010 Reading GCA 2011 Reading GCA 94.3%Average 30/42 (90.5%) Advanced 12/42 (29%) Proficient 0Basic 0 Below Basic 30/42 (90.5%) A 12/42 (29%) B 0 C 0 D 0 F • 86.9% Average • 24/48 (50%) Advanced • 17/48 (35%) Proficient • 5/48 (10%) Basic • 2/48 (4%) Below Basic • 24/48 (50%) A • 12/48 (25%) B • 5/48 (10%) C • 5/48 (10%) D • 2/48 (4%) F

33. Possible Conclusions • The Standards Based scale is more generous; students can make one mistake and still get a 100%, 3 mistakes is -12% instead of -18%. • The feedback on previous reading assessments from the SB scoring guide helped students to improve on their areas of weakness over the year. • This year’s students are more academically gifted.

34. Amount of points deducted 2010 Traditional Grading 2011 Standards Based Rubric -1 = 94-100% -2 = 88-94% -3 = 91-94% -4 = 75-88% -5 = 75%-81.3% -6 = 75% -7 = 69% -8 = 63% -9 = 56% • -1 = 94% • -2 = 88% • -3 = 81% • -4 = 75% • -5 = 69% • -6 = 63% • -7 = 56% • -8 = 50% • -9 = 44%

35. Conclusions • I learned that… • You can make Standards Based Grading Work, even if it’s not totally compatible with Infinite Campus • Students have strong ties to traditional grading practices • I can be much more precise in my feedback about student performance by using standards rather than numbers / letters

36. What’s next? • Consider adding a “Far Below Basic” level • Continue to monitor and adjust scoring guides • Educate parents at Open House and Parent/Teacher Conferences, consider how to get grade communications into parents’ hands

37. New Questions • Are other departments attempting something similar? What descriptors are they using? • Do other teachers / administrators agree with the mathematics used? 50% lowest grade? 83.3% = Proficient? • How will our role at the high school change as students graded by standards in elementary school get older? • What issues do teachers outside of my PLC have with the descriptors / the new scoring guides? • In the end, are students achieving at a higher level than before? Have they broken out of the 90%?