You All Have “0”s
Last time, on The Roots of the Equation: You All Have “A”s.
To follow-up on my last post about grading, I wanted to talk about what I do in my class. What I do is applicable to all classrooms, whether they use SBG or not.
As I said last time, the promise of SBG is to promote a growth mindset with regards to grading: instead of being penalized by mistakes, you earn for proving you understand the standards and your grade rises. However, the responses I received belied that idea. When I asked what you would tell a student who asked their grade mid-marking period, most referred to something like a “snapshot” of their grade, simply averaging whatever they’ve done so far (whether it is standards in SBG, or test and projects and HW in more traditional grading).
If a student gets that snapshot every day, then it is quite clearly going to fluctuate and lead to some distress. Since my school uses on online gradebook, students can, in fact, check it. But I wanted my promise of rising grades to go through. So, I had to make it actually happen.
On the first day of class, I tell all my students they currently have a 0. Instead of 100 and dropping, every single thing they do in my class that is assessed will improve their grade. Even if they do terribly on an assignment say, getting a 50, that still improves their grade, because 50 is higher than 0.
That actual implementation of this, however, is hard. It means that, at the start of every marking period, I need to think ahead about what things I’m going to be assessing for the whole 6 weeks, and then enter those into the gradebook with a grade of 0. That way, everything will start at 0 and go up when actually completed. (Students can still see how they’ve done on things completed so far, and can determine their own “snapshot average” if they like, but this gives the view of the whole marking period.)
But…thinking ahead 6 weeks about what I’m assessing…shouldn’t we be doing this anyway? Isn’t that just unit planning? My current Algebra course has 7 units, so it does work out to be almost one unit per marking period. And the process isn’t that inflexible: if I delete an assignment because I decided not to do it, or add something in, that’s a small fluctuation compared to the overall experience.
By the end of the marking period (as you see in my picture), everything will match up to the number it would have been had I gone top-down. But the way we get there is important. It is always better to grow.
After being questioned by Andrew Stadel and Chris Robinson on Twitter, I have some more explanations.
Andrew Stadel: I’d like to know more about this. Admin & parent understanding? Student response? Pros, cons, etc.
Me: Parents felt it was unclear at first, until I input marks that differentiated between “not done or graded yet” and “missing.” Then they were more on board. Students were confused by it at first, but liked it in the end. Admin supports it.
Pros include feeling like we are always improving and, a big one, it makes grading so much more enjoyable for me, because no one goes down.
Cons are that it’s hard to gauge sometimes (in terms of “snapshots”), especially when you get a big rush of grades at the end of the marking period.
Chris Robinson: James, can your “grades” go down per individual standard/learning target through the term?
Me: I’ve seen it go both ways in SBG. For me, they can’t go down in content standards, but can in practice ones. I do continuously assess but I feel like once someone has shown some understanding, they keep it, and they just need a refresher. (But I think I got that from Dan Meyer’s original “How Math Must Assess” post.)
Stadel: Thanks for explaining. What percent of students adjusted to & welcomed it? I like the premise of zero understanding and working towards mastery.
Me: Adjusted to, I would say over 95%. Welcomed, in the 80%. (Super rough estimates.)
Stadel: Do you have any materials/handouts explaining the philosophy to parents & students?
Me: I…really should.