Feb 27, 2023·edited Feb 27, 2023Liked by Robert Talbert, David Clark
Thank you for sharing this balanced critique of Adriana Streifer's and my work. Like you, we wish we would have broadened it beyond spec grading since the ideas do apply regardless of the alternative grading scheme one adopts. Providing entry points for those not quite ready for full-blown spec grading would have also been helpful. As you know, one doesn't need to go all in to make their grading practices more equitable and learning-focused. Too bad you weren't one of the original reviewers of our manuscript. :-)
Thanks for reading Michael! If you were doing this article over again and broadened to incorporate more than just specs grading, what are some of the changes you and Prof. Streifer would have made?
I'm not sure our overall advice would change much. In fact, most if not all of the ideas are applicable to any pedagogical innovation, not just alternative grading. Removing spec grading as a contextual factor, however, would allow us to generalize, which might make it more accessible to a broader audience. It would also allow us to help instructors recognize that their situational factors make their courses more or less conducive to different alternative grading approaches. For example, standards-based grading tends to work better in courses that are procedural- or skill-based; whereas labor-based grading tends to work better in writing courses. As David pointed out, it would also allow us to mention low risk/low barrier entry points toward a philosophy of ungrading. We've developed an Anatomy of Grading Schemes that would pair nicely.
Hi Michael, I'm glad you read my post! I would love to read an article called "So you want to blow up your grading" or something like that, focused on a general readiness assessment for alternative grading (or even farther!).
I'd also be interested in seeing your anatomy of grading schemes if you're willing to share it.
Thank you for sharing this balanced critique of Adriana Streifer's and my work. Like you, we wish we would have broadened it beyond spec grading since the ideas do apply regardless of the alternative grading scheme one adopts. Providing entry points for those not quite ready for full-blown spec grading would have also been helpful. As you know, one doesn't need to go all in to make their grading practices more equitable and learning-focused. Too bad you weren't one of the original reviewers of our manuscript. :-)
Thanks for reading Michael! If you were doing this article over again and broadened to incorporate more than just specs grading, what are some of the changes you and Prof. Streifer would have made?
I'm not sure our overall advice would change much. In fact, most if not all of the ideas are applicable to any pedagogical innovation, not just alternative grading. Removing spec grading as a contextual factor, however, would allow us to generalize, which might make it more accessible to a broader audience. It would also allow us to help instructors recognize that their situational factors make their courses more or less conducive to different alternative grading approaches. For example, standards-based grading tends to work better in courses that are procedural- or skill-based; whereas labor-based grading tends to work better in writing courses. As David pointed out, it would also allow us to mention low risk/low barrier entry points toward a philosophy of ungrading. We've developed an Anatomy of Grading Schemes that would pair nicely.
Hi Michael, I'm glad you read my post! I would love to read an article called "So you want to blow up your grading" or something like that, focused on a general readiness assessment for alternative grading (or even farther!).
I'd also be interested in seeing your anatomy of grading schemes if you're willing to share it.
We presented it at last November's POD Network conference. You can peruse the session materials here: https://pod2022seattle.sched.com/event/386b964179f1c9c0cbf8b429b2538f7e
Happy to walk you through and discuss the details off-line.