{"id":7565,"date":"2022-08-19T11:38:14","date_gmt":"2022-08-19T15:38:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/?page_id=7565"},"modified":"2022-09-13T14:57:49","modified_gmt":"2022-09-13T18:57:49","slug":"grading-methods-and-strategies","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/grading-methods-and-strategies\/","title":{"rendered":"Grading Methods and Strategies"},"content":{"rendered":"
Planning a manageable approach to grading that enhances student learning makes teaching much more enjoyable.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Grading is every instructor’s most dreaded task. For some, it raises anxieties that lead to procrastination and more problems, including lateness in completing grading or making promises you can\u2019t keep. In comparison to their peers, Montclair State undergraduate students report dissatisfaction with faculty\u2019s \u201ctimely feedback\u201d about their academic progress (Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory<\/a>). This is a disappointing finding, but one that we can change by developing realistic plans for evaluation and communicating clearly to students about our feedback timeline and methods.<\/p>\n Provide timely feedback<\/strong> of students\u2019 performance to assess and facilitate learning, and to allow students to identify gaps in their understanding before it is too late, i.e. they cannot revise and deepen learning before receiving a grade.<\/p>\n Manage student expectations<\/strong> around receiving grades by explicitly telling them when you intend to return assignments with feedback. For example, an auto-scored Canvas quiz will be returned very quickly but you may need a week to return comments on drafts. Let students know this and their perceptions and misperceptions about the speed of feedback can be addressed. Fixing isn\u2019t Learning<\/strong> \u2013 Avoiding the fix-it trap. Be efficient and focus on the link between comments and student learning: \u201cWe waste our students\u2019 time and our own if students can\u2019t learn from our comments\u201d \u2013 \u201cfixing isn\u2019t learning\u201d \u2013 \u201cdon\u2019t comment on everything [you] notice\u201d (Sommers, 2013). As readers, what is easiest to notice and address is error. Errors glare at us and ask for fixing. Instructors need to resist that urge both because it\u2019s very time-consuming and because it\u2019s not helpful. Sit on your hands and focus on one or two global comments you can make about errors. For example: \u201cSpellcheck would have identified many of your errors and improved your communication and grade.\u201d Or \u201c I highlighted confusing sentences in paragraphs 2 and 3 to illustrate how not taking time to re-read and edit your prose negatively affected the expression of your ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n Rubrics help instructors grade consistently and quickly, and they provide students with specific feedback on strengths and weaknesses. They can be tricky, however, because it\u2019s easy to make an overly complicated rubric that neither saves you time nor provides scores that make sense to instructors or students.<\/p>\n Evaluating student writing is not just a way to assess a student\u2019s knowledge and abilities but also a form of teaching.<\/p>\n <\/a> Contract grading is an assessment approach that asks students to identify and commit to a set of instructor-defined tasks and achievements to earn a specific grade. Contract grading relies on an understanding of achievement as primarily defined by time spent on tasks and task completion. Contract grading underscores a popular idea: you get out of a course what you put into it.<\/p>\n Asao Inoue<\/a>\u00a0(2019) defines this as \u201cessentially a set of social agreements with the entire class about how final course grades will be determined for everyone. These agreements \u2026 [are] negotiated at the beginning of the term or semester, then reexamined at midpoint. \u2026 If a student meets the basic guidelines of the contract, which means they do the labor asked of everyone in the spirit it is asked, and submit all work in the manner asked, then they will get a B final grade no matter what I or anyone else thinks of any of their work\u201d (p. 130). Inoue (2019) and others in the field have come to labor-based contract grading because \u201c[t]he scholarship on grading writing . . . . is unanimous about the unreliability or inconsistency and the idiosyncratic nature of grades. Just as much research shows how grades and other kinds of rewards and punishments actually de-motivate and harm students and their abilities to learn anything\u201d (p. 209).<\/p>\n The contract-grading approach can also be applied to specific assignments rather than the whole course. Instructors and students can negotiate the labor that goes into a paper assignment (considering word count, source requirements, use of style and formatting guides, etc.). This can especially work well for a longer project, like a research paper, and thus the labor can include all the assignments leading up to the final project (proposals, annotated bibliographies, literature review, etc.). Another way to keep track of a student\u2019s labor could be assigning labor journals with assignments, in which a student writes out their process and the labor that went into each created text. Overall, labor-based grading assesses the work that students put into their writing for a more equitable assessment. To read more about application of this from an MSU Writing Studies professor, go here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor\u2019s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom<\/a>. Jossey-Bass. [link]<\/p>\n Broad, B. (2003). What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing<\/a>. Utah State University Press. [link]<\/p>\n Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting out Three Forms of Judgment<\/a>. College English, 55, 187-206. [link]<\/p>\n Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning<\/a>. Utah State University Press. [link]<\/p>\n Inoue, Asao B. (2019). Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.37514\/PER-B.2019.0216.0<\/a><\/p>\n Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148\u2013156. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/357622<\/a><\/p>\n Young, V. A. (2018). Should Writers Use They Own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12, 110\u2013117. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17077\/2168-569x.1095<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n For more information or help, please email<\/a> the Office for Faculty Excellence or make an appointment<\/a> with a consultant.<\/p>\n Third-party content is not covered under the Creative Commons license and may be subject to additional intellectual property notices, information, or restrictions. You are solely responsible for obtaining permission to use third party content or determining whether your use is fair use and for responding to any claims that may arise.<\/span><\/p>\nSummary of best practices for grading<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Useful, timely feedback<\/h2>\n
\nFocus on feedback for improvement on similar tasks \u2013 Effective feedback should be goal and task-oriented. Always think of the learner\u2019s capacity to make improvements: what is the next step in this learner\u2019s growth? Thus, \u201cProvide more details and a direct quote\u201d is actionable feedback whereas \u201cThis summary is unacceptable\u201d is not. Avoid feedback that is really about grade justification. Not necessary or helpful.<\/p>\nRubrics<\/a><\/h2>\n
Evaluating Student Writing<\/a><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Finishing the job: tips for the end of the semester final grades<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
<\/a>
\nTeaching Resources by ÌÇÐÄvlog Office for Faculty Excellence<\/a> is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License<\/a><\/p>\n