I love how your post captures the essence of alternative grading practices while illustrating how difficult they are to define (or how difficult it is to agree on the definitions), and at the same time, how important it is to try.
I am currently working on a research/action project in which we implement and assess some « pratiques de notation alternatives », in higher education in French Canada. I would like to translate and cite your post here. Would you allow it ?
I'm working on an essay about ungrading right now, so I searched the term on Twitter, as I periodically do, just to see what the current discourse is. Which led me to this blog post and to spitting out my grits when I saw my name. 😂 One additional point I'd like to make is that I *personally* don't think that collaborative grading is a synonym for ungrading. For me, collaborative grading is one of multiple pedagogical *practices* that emulate the ungrading *philosophy.* If we are talking Venn diagrams, collaborative grading (at least as I use it), is fully within the larger circle of ungrading. That being said, I know that many people use them as synonyms. I just don't happen to, which is funny since my name is the one that has been attached to the collaborative grading concept. 🙃
Thanks, Lindsay, it's really helpful to hear how you actually think about these! It sounds to me that you subscribe to the "philosophy" sense of the term ungrading, with shades of "umbrella term". In any case, I find the whole "ungrading" terminology really confusing and would just as soon avoid it!
Terminology needs to be precise and yours isn't. On most of the rest of what you just wrote we are going to have to agree to disagree but I would love to be able to discuss this and other grading issues in person one day. I think what you are doing at the college level is great, but you appear to not understand what is happening at the K-12 level and how well it supports what you are doing at the college level. We should exchange books. Is yours published yet? We are both singing from the same song book but we are just singing different songs.
Hi Ken, I think what we're running up against is what I wrote about SBG being significantly different in K-12 and higher-ed (although what we're talking about is broader than SBG). This glossary aims to describe words as they are actually used, and the community has found terms like "mark" to be very useful indeed. My general experience is that the literature on K-12 alternative grading is much more prescriptive and focused on definitions, leading to definitional arguments like this one. As a mathematician, I know that those are rarely productive arguments. But from my experience with alternative grading in higher ed, I know that these terms, as used, are useful and practical.
Our book will be out in late spring / early summer. Perhaps we'll cross paths some time!
We need to be clear that marks and grades are different and not use one term with a double meaning. Not defining terms clearly and using terms with double meanings makes it difficult to have useful professional dialogue> Unfortunately, common usage in the US uses grade with a double meaning and in Canada mark is commonly used with double meaning.
Her in ( ) are the reasons why I think your definition of mark is poor.
A letter, symbol, Yes or short phrase (No, a phrase is feedback) used to indicate a student’s progress on a standard or specifications or on a test, project, or assignment. Similar to a grade (No, they are different processes and have different purposes,) but primarily used as a short summary of feedback rather than a summative judgment. (They should be summative because formative assessments should be “no mark, comment only.”) Marks typically reflect a binary choice between meeting the requirements or not. (No, they indicate how well a student achieved on a standard or an assessment, e.g., 7/10 or a rubric score) Examples include “Satisfactory”, “Meets (or exceeds) expectations”, “Progressing”, “Needs new attempt” (Those are labels for levels of performance, not marks.)
>Similar to a grade (No, they are different processes and have different purposes,)
Things can be similar and yet different, can't they?
>(They should be summative because formative assessments should be “no mark, comment only.”)
Says who?
>(No, they indicate how well a student achieved on a standard or an assessment, e.g., 7/10 or a rubric score)
If you read the post, David is clearly making his remark in the context of alternative grading where "7/10" or 5+ level rubrics are not typically encountered.
>(Those are labels for levels of performance, not marks.)
Why do say "be aware that SBG can look quite different in K-12 education?" The principles and essentials of Standards-Based Grading are the same whether it is Kindergarten or 4th year college.
It was good to see you define "mark" but if you are going to define mark (poorly) you also need to. define "Grade." How about these definitions?
Mark/Score: the number or letter placed on any single student assessment (test or performance) to indicate the quality of achievement demonstrated.
Grade: the symbol (number or letter) reported at the end of a period of time as a summary statement of student performance.
Robert basically covers it. The link on the "SBG" entry expands on what I mean -- it's a blog post I wrote a couple of years ago about the differences between K-12 and higher-ed SBG implementations. They really can look quite different, and the literature on SBG in K-12 seems to be much more rigid in its definitions.
I'm not sure why you dislike my definition of "mark", and I wish you'd say more rather than just calling it poorly done. But again, the link on that entry leads to our previous blog post about it.
You do have a good point that I should have defined "grade", but that would have been another 3-pronger (like ungrading): 1. A mark (on an individual assignment). 2. (Basically what you wrote for end-of-terms). 3. A division of students, ideally at similar places in their educational progression, within a school ("3rd grade"). As a result, not actually a useful term, and I don't find it helpful to try to insist that people only use one of those definitions.
"Why do say "be aware that SBG can look quite different in K-12 education?" The principles and essentials of Standards-Based Grading are the same whether it is Kindergarten or 4th year college."
Because, well, SBG can look quite different in K12 education than it does in college, agreement on underlying principles notwithstanding. The systems into which these grading schemes feed are completely different, for example, and the needs of the school system can drive differences in SBG implementations (for example I do not have to report statistics on my students' attainment of standards to a governing body). I can attest to this first hand as my kids had SBG used in their K-4 classes.
"It was good to see you define "mark" but if you are going to define mark (poorly) you also need to. define "Grade." How about these definitions?"
David's definition here is a little more expanded, and I believe it is perfectly fine for discourse about grading. Yours can also be perfectly fine. I don't see the need to disparage it.
Hi,
I love how your post captures the essence of alternative grading practices while illustrating how difficult they are to define (or how difficult it is to agree on the definitions), and at the same time, how important it is to try.
I am currently working on a research/action project in which we implement and assess some « pratiques de notation alternatives », in higher education in French Canada. I would like to translate and cite your post here. Would you allow it ?
Thanks, François! Yes, please feel free to translate and cite the post (including a link to the blog post itself).
Thank you. I will definitely include a link. More instructors need to see this (even if they dont read English much ;).
I'm working on an essay about ungrading right now, so I searched the term on Twitter, as I periodically do, just to see what the current discourse is. Which led me to this blog post and to spitting out my grits when I saw my name. 😂 One additional point I'd like to make is that I *personally* don't think that collaborative grading is a synonym for ungrading. For me, collaborative grading is one of multiple pedagogical *practices* that emulate the ungrading *philosophy.* If we are talking Venn diagrams, collaborative grading (at least as I use it), is fully within the larger circle of ungrading. That being said, I know that many people use them as synonyms. I just don't happen to, which is funny since my name is the one that has been attached to the collaborative grading concept. 🙃
Thanks, Lindsay, it's really helpful to hear how you actually think about these! It sounds to me that you subscribe to the "philosophy" sense of the term ungrading, with shades of "umbrella term". In any case, I find the whole "ungrading" terminology really confusing and would just as soon avoid it!
This made me laugh at my desk: "Specifications-Based Grading: Not actually a thing." Thanks for the Monday giggle. 😂
Even worse, when somebody then decides to abbreviate it "SBG". WHAT DO YOU EVEN MEAN?!
you give them a "revision needed due to lack of clarity" and ask them to schedule a reassessment, of course
Terminology needs to be precise and yours isn't. On most of the rest of what you just wrote we are going to have to agree to disagree but I would love to be able to discuss this and other grading issues in person one day. I think what you are doing at the college level is great, but you appear to not understand what is happening at the K-12 level and how well it supports what you are doing at the college level. We should exchange books. Is yours published yet? We are both singing from the same song book but we are just singing different songs.
Hi Ken, I think what we're running up against is what I wrote about SBG being significantly different in K-12 and higher-ed (although what we're talking about is broader than SBG). This glossary aims to describe words as they are actually used, and the community has found terms like "mark" to be very useful indeed. My general experience is that the literature on K-12 alternative grading is much more prescriptive and focused on definitions, leading to definitional arguments like this one. As a mathematician, I know that those are rarely productive arguments. But from my experience with alternative grading in higher ed, I know that these terms, as used, are useful and practical.
Our book will be out in late spring / early summer. Perhaps we'll cross paths some time!
We need to be clear that marks and grades are different and not use one term with a double meaning. Not defining terms clearly and using terms with double meanings makes it difficult to have useful professional dialogue> Unfortunately, common usage in the US uses grade with a double meaning and in Canada mark is commonly used with double meaning.
Her in ( ) are the reasons why I think your definition of mark is poor.
A letter, symbol, Yes or short phrase (No, a phrase is feedback) used to indicate a student’s progress on a standard or specifications or on a test, project, or assignment. Similar to a grade (No, they are different processes and have different purposes,) but primarily used as a short summary of feedback rather than a summative judgment. (They should be summative because formative assessments should be “no mark, comment only.”) Marks typically reflect a binary choice between meeting the requirements or not. (No, they indicate how well a student achieved on a standard or an assessment, e.g., 7/10 or a rubric score) Examples include “Satisfactory”, “Meets (or exceeds) expectations”, “Progressing”, “Needs new attempt” (Those are labels for levels of performance, not marks.)
>Similar to a grade (No, they are different processes and have different purposes,)
Things can be similar and yet different, can't they?
>(They should be summative because formative assessments should be “no mark, comment only.”)
Says who?
>(No, they indicate how well a student achieved on a standard or an assessment, e.g., 7/10 or a rubric score)
If you read the post, David is clearly making his remark in the context of alternative grading where "7/10" or 5+ level rubrics are not typically encountered.
>(Those are labels for levels of performance, not marks.)
Distinction without a difference.
Very pleased to see this glossary.
Why do say "be aware that SBG can look quite different in K-12 education?" The principles and essentials of Standards-Based Grading are the same whether it is Kindergarten or 4th year college.
It was good to see you define "mark" but if you are going to define mark (poorly) you also need to. define "Grade." How about these definitions?
Mark/Score: the number or letter placed on any single student assessment (test or performance) to indicate the quality of achievement demonstrated.
Grade: the symbol (number or letter) reported at the end of a period of time as a summary statement of student performance.
Robert basically covers it. The link on the "SBG" entry expands on what I mean -- it's a blog post I wrote a couple of years ago about the differences between K-12 and higher-ed SBG implementations. They really can look quite different, and the literature on SBG in K-12 seems to be much more rigid in its definitions.
I'm not sure why you dislike my definition of "mark", and I wish you'd say more rather than just calling it poorly done. But again, the link on that entry leads to our previous blog post about it.
You do have a good point that I should have defined "grade", but that would have been another 3-pronger (like ungrading): 1. A mark (on an individual assignment). 2. (Basically what you wrote for end-of-terms). 3. A division of students, ideally at similar places in their educational progression, within a school ("3rd grade"). As a result, not actually a useful term, and I don't find it helpful to try to insist that people only use one of those definitions.
Not to speak for David, but:
"Why do say "be aware that SBG can look quite different in K-12 education?" The principles and essentials of Standards-Based Grading are the same whether it is Kindergarten or 4th year college."
Because, well, SBG can look quite different in K12 education than it does in college, agreement on underlying principles notwithstanding. The systems into which these grading schemes feed are completely different, for example, and the needs of the school system can drive differences in SBG implementations (for example I do not have to report statistics on my students' attainment of standards to a governing body). I can attest to this first hand as my kids had SBG used in their K-4 classes.
"It was good to see you define "mark" but if you are going to define mark (poorly) you also need to. define "Grade." How about these definitions?"
We (actually I) have already defined what a mark is: https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/planning-for-grading-for-growth-hitting
David's definition here is a little more expanded, and I believe it is perfectly fine for discourse about grading. Yours can also be perfectly fine. I don't see the need to disparage it.