Interesting insights and I admire your commitment. Would you mind sharing what the final grade distribution was? I'm not only interested in the teaching aspects of it but also your assessment of the learning aspect. Also, what sort of feedback about their grades did the students give you?
With only nine regular students I don't feel totally comfortable sharing the grade distribution itself -- too easy for a student to pick themselves out of a crowd if it's that small. I would say though that the overall shape of the distribution wasn't totally different than the larger, slower in-person version of the class -- some high course grades, some low, some in the middle. It wasn't the case that all the students in this version got A's, or failed. Although again it's hard to compare a 9-student distribution to a 35-student one.
I don't think any of the students gave me feedback about their grades. They often expressed that the grading system helped them learn.
You mentioned that this was the first in a 2 course sequence. What concerns for success in the subsequent course do you have for those whose grades were in the middle and low realms?
If you have any interest in exploring getting rid of “grades” entirely in exchange for moving to a proficiency orientation, I’d be happy to brainstorm with you. No magic formula but you might discover some real magic. Yes, you’d still have “grades” for the registrar at the end of the term, but they would be either A’s or I’s. Proficiency-based credits do amazing things for student motivation. And best of all, you and they would know with absolute certainty that they were ready to be successful in the subsequent course.
The main concern I would have, is that the grade is symptomatic of a larger issue with engagement, organization, and follow through. In all my classes, I notice that often a student with a low grade doesn't get that grade by taking advantage of all the opportunities but just doesn't grasp the material -- it's because they don't take advantage of the opportunities. Absenteeism (in F2F classes), not using revision/reattempts, procrastination, that kind of thing. What a bad course grade tends to surface is not issues with understanding but issues with self-regulation and engagement. And that is a recipe for a bad time not just in later classes but also life.
I certainly understand that. In K-12 there is always ongoing discussion about separating "academic grades" from behavior. Probably obvious where I come down in that discussion. One of the things that Proficiency-based credits offers is the ability to do that. It also can reinforce that students won't be successful without developing the habits necessary for ongoing success. It's a wake-up as they figure out how to be successful.
Interesting insights and I admire your commitment. Would you mind sharing what the final grade distribution was? I'm not only interested in the teaching aspects of it but also your assessment of the learning aspect. Also, what sort of feedback about their grades did the students give you?
With only nine regular students I don't feel totally comfortable sharing the grade distribution itself -- too easy for a student to pick themselves out of a crowd if it's that small. I would say though that the overall shape of the distribution wasn't totally different than the larger, slower in-person version of the class -- some high course grades, some low, some in the middle. It wasn't the case that all the students in this version got A's, or failed. Although again it's hard to compare a 9-student distribution to a 35-student one.
I don't think any of the students gave me feedback about their grades. They often expressed that the grading system helped them learn.
You mentioned that this was the first in a 2 course sequence. What concerns for success in the subsequent course do you have for those whose grades were in the middle and low realms?
If you have any interest in exploring getting rid of “grades” entirely in exchange for moving to a proficiency orientation, I’d be happy to brainstorm with you. No magic formula but you might discover some real magic. Yes, you’d still have “grades” for the registrar at the end of the term, but they would be either A’s or I’s. Proficiency-based credits do amazing things for student motivation. And best of all, you and they would know with absolute certainty that they were ready to be successful in the subsequent course.
The main concern I would have, is that the grade is symptomatic of a larger issue with engagement, organization, and follow through. In all my classes, I notice that often a student with a low grade doesn't get that grade by taking advantage of all the opportunities but just doesn't grasp the material -- it's because they don't take advantage of the opportunities. Absenteeism (in F2F classes), not using revision/reattempts, procrastination, that kind of thing. What a bad course grade tends to surface is not issues with understanding but issues with self-regulation and engagement. And that is a recipe for a bad time not just in later classes but also life.
I certainly understand that. In K-12 there is always ongoing discussion about separating "academic grades" from behavior. Probably obvious where I come down in that discussion. One of the things that Proficiency-based credits offers is the ability to do that. It also can reinforce that students won't be successful without developing the habits necessary for ongoing success. It's a wake-up as they figure out how to be successful.