Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success

1. Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success Julie Hall & Stephen Westmoreland

2. Grading and Marking • When it comes to determining grades, how many of you allow your teachers to decide the way their students are to be graded? • Can you tell me the purpose or meaning of the grades given in every classroom of your school?

3. Purpose of Grading (Salend & Duhaney, 2002) Accountability Achievement Comparison Effort Eligibility Instructional Planning Motivation Program Effectiveness Progress Provide Feedback

4. Grading Challenges Purpose of Grades Student Learning Equitable Grades Communication Time

5. What if we said we could help? • Self-Grading • Team Grading • Personalized Grading Plans

6. On-Site Staff Development • One-day, six-hour workshop • Three 2 ½ hour sessions held after school

7. Who can benefit from this workshop? Classroom Teachers (3rd – 12th grades) Special Education Teachers School Administrators

8. 1. Self-Grading – What is it? • It is a simple concept in which students use different colored pens to correct and/or score their own work under the teacher’s guidance.

9. Self-Grading – Why try it? • How often do teachers spend hours upon hours grading and writing comments on student’s papers, just to have them wadded up and put in to a book bag never to be looked at again? • Self-Grading will – • increase student motivation • decrease teacher grading time • force students to think critically • give students immediate feedback • reduce student-teacher conflicts over grades • allow students to comprehend their mistakes

10. Self-Grading – What does research say? • Self-graded students reported increases in not only motivation and responsibility for learning, but also in better understanding the material (Strong, Davis, & Hawks, 2004). • Davis & Rand (2001) said after a post-course evaluation that ninety-four percent of the self-graded class members rated their satisfaction level as “very” or “quite satisfied,” as opposed to seventy-one percent of the instructor-graded class. • The positive responses reported by students to self-grading noted the immediacy of feedback and the ability to comprehend mistakes made while comparing work to answer keys, while the instructor noted reductions in student anxiety and student-teacher conflicts over grades (Edwards, 2007).

11. Self-Grading – What exactly will I learn? • How to – • engage students in group discussions • create a color correcting system • conduct grading conferences • create detailed answer keys • implement self-evaluation

12. 2. Team Grading – What is it? • The process of students and teachers assigning a customized final product grade to each member of a cooperative learning group.

13. Team Grading – Why try it? • In the past teachers have assigned one grade to the entire group…they are essentially using a mean to describe a population. • Team Grading will – • Decrease grading time • create equality in group grades • hold group members accountable • decrease grading conflict and confusion • allow teachers to use cooperative learning confidently

14. Team Grading – What does research say? • Cheng & Warren (2000) conducted a study that revealed peer assessment of group member’s contributions proved to be a realistic and reliable component when assigning group grades. It enhanced relationships between the students and promoted future professional skills needed. • Kinser (2007) states by using weighting schemes and contracts, students will benefit from group work by building confidence in teamwork, being empowered, becoming better negotiators, and learning how to effectively handle and balance weak team members.

15. Team Grading – What exactly will I learn? • How to use – • Individual Weighting Formula • Team-Forming Contracts & Team-Weighting Contract • Team Process Assessment Tool

16. 3. Personalized Grading Plans – What is it? • A grading plan that is developed by a team comprised of the general educator, special educator, EC student and his parents. The plan is created specifically for assigning grades to an exceptional student who is in a regular education classroom.

17. Personalized Grading Plan – Why try it? • Many students with disabilities receive inaccurate and unfair grades that provide little meaningful information about their achievement. • PGPs will – • force collaboration • clarify the purpose of grades • monitor student achievement • implement grading adaptations that work • pinpoint specific expectations in all subject matter • allow students to be exposed to the rigor of the regular classroom curriculum

18. Personalized Grading Plan – What does research say? • Research shows that 60-70% of students with a learning disability pass their mainstream classes but received below a C- grade average (Donahoe & Zigmond, 1990). • Assigning grades to exceptional students ought and should be a collaborative process (Salend & Dunhaney, 2002). • The purpose of creating PGPs is not to make it easier for students to get higher grades, but to produce accurate, meaningful, and fair grades (Munk & Bursuck, 2003). • Approximately 70% of students in research projects have receive higher report card grades when their schools used PGP (Munk & Bursuck, 2003).

19. Personalized Grading Plan – What exactly will I learn? • How to – • collaborate with teachers, students, and parents when developing a Personalized Grading Plan (PGP) • implement grading adaptations that work • base part of grades on product, process, and progress • incorporate Individual Education Plan (IEP) objectives into students’ grades

20. Workshop Benefits • Teachers will • Reduce grading time • Improve student learning • Assign more equitable grades • Communicate achievement more clearly • Decrease parental and student confusion

21. References • Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2000). Making a difference: Using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 243-255. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Education Research Complete database. • Davis, J., & Rand, D. (2001). Self-grading versus instructor grading. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 207-217. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. • Donahoe, K., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality, 1, 17-27. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Education Research Complete database. • Edwards, N. (2007). Student self-grading in social statistics. College Teaching, 55(2), 72-76. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

22. References • Kinser, A. (2007). Using contracts to determine individual grades in team projects. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 207-221. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from Education Research Complete database. • Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2003). Grading students with disabilities. Educational Leadership, 61(2) 38-43. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Education Research Complete database. • Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Council for Exceptional Children, 34(3), 8-15. Retrieved November 14, 2009 from Education Research Complete database. • Strong, B., Davis, M., & Hawks, V. (2004). Self-grading in large general education classes. College Teaching, 52(2), 52-57. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.