A car without a dashboard

Recently, I ran across a few analogies between grades and vehicle dashboards.  (See Here and Here).  These are interesting comparisons that I ended up thinking about even more.  I spend about one hour a day driving.  I adore this hour for the contemplation time, definitely worth the gas spent.  With my transition to a standards-based grading system, I have felt a mixture of emotions from parents.  The whole spectrum is observed.  Some parents think the change is good and helpful, others don't care one way or another, and some are frustrated.  This post is an attempt to collect my thoughts for the frustrated parent.

Imagine our cars did not have gauges within their dashboards.  Instead, displayed on the other side of the steer wheel, would be a letter: This letter ranged, just like grades, from an "A" to an "F."  We will even put pluses and minuses in for fun too.  What does the letter mean?  We think we know, but in the end "A" is good, and "F" is bad.  Anything in between is, well, in-between.  We don't know how the overall grade is figured.  Every model is different.  Some manufactures weigh speed 70%, while others have oil pressure as the most important.

When you drive your car, the letter changes.  There is no speedometer, odometer, tachometer, gauges for temperature, fuel level, oil pressure, or amperes.  No extra warning lights for low fuel or when sensors detect issues.  Only the final grade.

So, when you are driving along, all is well so long as the "A" stays on the dashboard.

Imagine lending your car out to your teenager.  When they leave, the car is "A+."  Upon returning, "C-."  Someone is in trouble!  But, for what?  Is the engine out of oil?  Low on gas?  At this point, we do not know anything.  Now, you have a well equipped car with all the bells and whistles.  You can actually go online to checkyourcarsgrade.net and see what actually happened mile by mile.  You find out that around 10pm last night, the cars grade was actually an "F" for awhile!

Also imagine that you just started your car, and it's cold outside.  The temperature of the engine is well below where it should be, so to start out, your car reads an "F."  You hope that upon warm up, the grade rises.  What if it doesn't?

Obviously, this scenario would drive most people nuts.  The crazy thing is that grades in our classrooms have been this way for years, decades, and generations.  Along the way, we give grades that are connected to assignments that are oddly added up to give an overall class grade.  We think we know what the grade means, but in the end, "A's" are good and "F's" are bad.  There isn't any consistency as to how the overall grade is figured.  Part of the game is for students to figure that out as we go along.  We can look at the grades in real time with different internet tools, but the assessments are disconnected from the learning.  A "B+" on Green Worksheet doesn't help any more than a "C-" on the car dashboard at 9pm.

A car's gauges could be looked at as learning targets.  We have a range that is optimal, a range that is concerning, and a range that is just flat dangerous.  Some of the gauges are easy for us as operators to understand and regulate.  If the tachometer reads to high, I simply can shift to a higher gear or let off the accelerator.  If the fuel is low, I fill up.  Others may need further investigation.  If my oil pressure is low, I may bring my car into a mechanic.  When the service engine light comes on, I know more diagnostics need to be done.

When we make a switch to standards-based grading, we are asking students and parents to make a tough switch as well.  They have learned to drive the car with only a letter grade appearing.  No, it is not ideal.  It is not efficient.  The feedback is poor.  Change is difficult.  As hard as it would be for us to begin driving a car without gauges, it is just as hard for students and parents to play school with the additional information.  We have to help out on that end.  We have to, for one, show that it is OK to have more information.  We have to help make the switch from the assumption that a low grade means missing work.  Perhaps the "C-" typically meant the car was low on gas, but we realize that there are lots of other cases as well.  We have given the tools to have a more engaged conversation about what is happening under the hood, but we also have to train students and parents to understand the information coming at them.

In addition to this, students and parents will need to understand sometimes you have to take the car into the mechanic.  Sometimes it is an easy fix.  Sometimes new habits will have to be formed for higher achievement. As teachers, we can explain what the oil pressure gauge is trying to communicate.  We can change the conversation.  It will take time, and understanding of where both sides are coming from.

How Specific?

I was just reading some new comments on the ActiveGrade blog from the post Should it “Count.”  This post, others like it, and just my random thoughts, has gotten me thinking.  How specific should a Standard’s Based gradebook be?

In the end, I still am on the idea that the most important purpose of grades is to communicate achievement.  The communication of that achievement is likely to go to the students, their parents, as well as other teachers (both current and future).  Where is the appropriate line of specificity?  I definitely want to be more detailed than just having one grade for the class.  Science: B+ doesn’t help anyone with anything.  I could list every standard and report on those.  Who would look at them?  Is it worthwhile to be that specific?  I have tried to lump many standards together under Essential Questions headings.  Is that specific enough?  

In the past, my gradebook (Making the Grade) allowed for 10 categories.  It also allowed for less than 20 characters of explanation of those categories.  Now, I am using ActiveGrade.  More than enough categories, plenty of room for explanation.  

Looking for thoughts.  How specific should a gradebook or grade report be?  Where is the happy medium?  How does a teacher decide this for their individual class?

We Don't Need no Stinking Numbers!

When we look at traditional grading, numbers are very important.  From the early 1900s, grading has focused on attaching a number to learning.  At first, teachers attached a percentage number to a given assessment.  This seemed logical.  I think that we have a sense of security in numbers.  I think it is a false sense of security though.  Actually, in 1912 and 1913 (yep, almost 100 years ago), a couple of papers were published that challenged the idea of using a percent scale for grades.  The biggest complaint was that percentages were not consistent.  If multiple teachers were to grade a given assessment and give it a percentage grade, the percentages varied widely from teacher to teacher.  This range was found to be that a given paper may receive a grade as low as 28% or as high as 95% when graded by multiple teachers.  Remember, this is the same paper!

We have stuck with numbers ever since, and I think it is an artifact that keeps grading from moving forward.  The 100 point percentage scale doesn't work.  Because it doesn't work, some schools have moved to a 3 or 4 or 5 point scale.  Some do a 10  point scale, but also use decimals.  That still doesn't work.  (Hint, that is still 100 points).  I have seen others were the teacher uses a 100 point scale to grade specific assessments, then they have to convert that to a 4 point scale for report cards. 

In my opinion, to change grading, we can’t evolve.  Evolution is decent with modification, or keeping the old with minor changes.  We need to have a creationist philosophy here…a RE-creation.  We have to get rid of the old way of thinking and have a paradigm shift.

I suppose many people will still need grades.   We will feel a need to track students progress (I do anyway), and it is overwhelming to track each student individually.  We need a way to make it systematic, and grades are likely to be that way.  When we recreate this grading idea, I think we first need to think of precision.  When we grade work, assessments, or whatever, we are basically putting that work into a category.  How many different categories can you have?  When I think of students, standards, and assessments, I am able to easily differentiate 4 main categories.  First, you have the binary.  Students either “get it” or they don’t.  They either are showing proficient understanding, or they are not.  I think this scale is too basic.  I think we can identify categories beyond this.

Many grading scales have multiple levels describing understanding that falls below proficiency.  These are terms such as basic, below basic, well below basic.  I don’t know how much that helps.  For me, I use one.  Basically, the student's understanding is not there yet.  We have work to do, let’s not try to report too much on the deficiencies.  On the other side, I have a couple of categories.  I think there are students who are “advanced.”  They are more than just proficient.  I do think there are multiple levels of advanced as well.  Let me explain.

What I do is relatively simple.  I have a 4 level scale.  The bottom is not-proficient.  I don’t think these students have shown adequate understanding.  The next level is proficient.  These students can basically show they have learned the targets of class.  They are able to repeat knowledge, complete procedures, and do whatever we are doing in a very simple way.  I think they will probably forget much of it, but they are able to function in class.  Then I have 2 levels of “advanced.”  The highest level are students who are able to show understanding in a complex way.  This may mean that they are able to take what we have learned and apply it in a novel setting.  They may be able to use the knowledge and create something from it.  They may be able to apply it to another situation.  There is obvious complexity in their understanding.  I then reserve a level in-between proficient and advanced.  These are inconsistent or “emerging” students.  They may be able to know that there are applications in complex settings, but they can’t apply them correctly yet.  They may need a lot of assistance from me to apply them.  They are more complex than the proficient level, but they are not as complex as the advanced level.

Now, I am going to be slightly hypocritical.  I did say we shouldn't evolve in grading…but I am.  I do organize these levels above with traditional letter grades.  Proficient is equal to a “C,” the somewhat-advanced is equal to a “B,” and the advanced is equal to an “A.”  I don’t do plus or minus grades though. 

To make this work, you have to give students chances to show advanced understanding.  I can’t simply give an assessment were students are repeating what we did in class and document deficiencies from there.  I have to have assessments where students are applying knowledge and skills in complex settings.  This is done through tiered assessments.  Students are given assessments, usually very similar to each other, with questions that range from simple to complex.  Students who are only able to complete simple questions are graded as a “C.”  Students who can do complex questions as well are graded as an “A.”  The “Bs” are for in-between.

Assessments and grades are always subjective.  It is important to just admit that.  To help with this problem, I allow for students to redo any assessments they want.  If they think they can show me more complex understanding, I let them.   Sometimes they realize that they need to learn more before they can do the more complex tasks.  So, I let them learn more, and then redo the assessment.

When I am grading things, I remove the numbers.  I take a step back, look at the learning target at hand, and rate the students understanding with reference to the A,B,C categories.  Then, that grade is entered into the gradebook into under the appropriate learning target.  From there, we learn more and try again!

Organizing the Gradebook: Categories and Learning Targets

Most gradebooks traditionally were set up in one of two ways.  One way is a "total points" option. In this scenario, each assessment/assignment/task is given a certain number of points.  Another commonly used method is to break the gradebook up into categories that represent different types of assessments.  This may create categories such as tests, quizzes, projects, homework, labs, etc.   With either of these options, the assessments are all mathematically averaged in some way to create a final grade.  There is a better way to organize a gradebook and today's post will focus on how to organize the gradebook in a standards-based grading classroom.

First, we have to remember that the purpose of grades is to communicate achievement.  How can we use the organization of the gradebook to help reach that end?  The simple answer is to organize the gradebook categories by learning targets rather than assessments types.  This is part of the definition of standards-based grades.

How do you do that?  I don't think standards-based grading is simply importing your standards into your gradebook.  Most of us simply have too many standards and benchmarks to do that in any way to be useful.  In addition, many standards are not written in the clearest language.  I think before you can create your learning targets, some work on curriculum may need to be done.  We need to identify what we want our students to know and be able to do by the end of our class.  We must be careful on this step.  Almost every curriculum I have seen written using learning targets sets the learning targets as low level recall type knowledge.  Try to write the learning targets, or at least some of them, in a way that will encourage higher level thinking skills.

If you don't have time to revamp your curriculum, there is another strategy.  This goes back to the communication aspect of grading.  Our grades need to communicate achievement.  By breaking the grade up into learning goals, we allow for more information to be presented.  Instead of a student getting a grade of B in science, we can look at what makes up that grade.  When you think about your gradebook, think about the information you would like to know about incoming students' achievement.  Seeing that they earned a B doesn't mean much.   Seeing that a student earned an A in learning categories that only require remembering facts but earned a C in categories of setting up, designing, and carrying out a scientific investigation will tell you more.  This also tells the student more.  They can see their own areas of strength and weakness so they can focus further their own practice.  To set up your categories, think about what information would be helpful to you, the students, and perhaps future teachers.

This also allows you to have categories for non-achievement factors.  We can also record information about effort, attitude, tardiness, attendance, etc.  Of course, these things are not included in anyway on the achievement portion of the grade.

Organizing the gradebook by learning targets also opens up the door to differentiated assessment.  Now we are as not concerned about how well a student did on Test #3, instead we can place our concern where it matters, on the learning and find ways for students to obtain that learning.  We are not nearly as concerned that every student shows understanding with the same type of assessment.  We can easily accept, and even encourage, multiple types of assessments, so long as they show understanding.  Also, it is important to note that an assessment may cover one learning target or more than one learning target.  This means that an assessment may not just have one grade written on the top.  There may be multiple grades, indicating which learning targets the assessment was aiming to assess.

For my 7^th grade Life Science class, we have a variety of learning targets.  You can see these below:

1. How do scientists get data?
2. What is the importance of isolating variables in an experiment?
3. How does a scientist decide when to do an experiment vs. another type of study?
4. How are graphs used to analyze data?
5. What measure of central tendency should be used?
6. What is the importance of clarity in science writing?
7. How can you make writing more accurate?
8. What graph or diagram shows this information the best?
9. What evidence needs to be included to back up writing?
10. How do Greek and Latin roots make scientific words more clear?
11. How does the Earth's position in the solar system determine the different environments we have on Earth?
12. How can the genetic and evolutionary relationship between organisms be determined?
13. How do humans compare to the way other organisms function?
14. How do organisms function at the tissue, organ, and organism level?
15. How do organisms function at the cellular and sub-cellular level?

At the beginning of each unit, I look at the list of learning targets.  I look at the content that I think is supposed to fit into the unit.  Then, I cross analyze to make sure that there is a reasonable coverage of the learning targets within the unit.  If I find that only one target is being, well, targeted, then I know there is something that needs to be changed.  Like assumedly most teachers, each year I go back to what I taught the previous year.  In recent units, I have found that I had activities that didn’t really hit on any of the learning targets!  Sure, they were really neat and they may have had some knowledge that is worthwhile, but when I look at the assessment end, they really were not necessary.  This is great because my curriculum is overloaded and this process is one way to begin pruning things away that are not absolutely necessary.

It is really easy to spend too much time talking about how organisms function in terms of factual recall knowledge.  Having learning targets that encourage inquiry makes me spend time on that as well.  The best activities are those where several of these learning targets can be brought together.

It is important to note that these learning targets are not perfect.  As a department, we have spent quite a bit of time reviewing them, and will continue to review them into the future.  They do help drive a curriculum in a more meaningful way though.  I am not a slave to my textbook.  I am required to pull in evolutionary relationships throughout the year, and assess them.  

You do need a gradebook program to help you with this.  I am currently playing around with ActiveGrade (https://activegrade.appspot.com).  This is the BEST gradebook program I have run across.  There are also people finding other ways to organize this information.  I will try to collect some of that information soon.

How are other gradebooks organized?  Please comment and share yours!