Breaking the Grading Static
Shifting to Alternative Grading in Biomechanics I (Statics)
Today’s guest post is by Jennifer Currey, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Biomedical Engineering (BME) program at Union College in Schenectady, NY. She is the founding faculty member of the BME program, which became a major in 2009 and graduated its first class in 2011. She has taught almost all of the required biomechanics and capstone design courses in the curriculum. She loves curricular innovation and works with the other BME faculty to continuously improve the structure, content, and connections between the courses in the BME program. She has served as the interim Dean of Engineering and was the inaugural Director of the Templeton Institute of Engineering and Computer Science at Union College.
Union College
A bit of background about my institution before I dive into my alternative grading journey. I am a Biomedical Engineering (BME) professor at Union College, an undergraduate college, in Schenectady, NY. Union College was founded in 1795 and, in 1845, became the first liberal arts college to offer engineering. Union has about 2050 students with engineering making up about 25% of the student body. We are a trimester school with 3-10 week terms which can feel like a fast-paced learning environment. Union has 6 engineering majors, Biomedical, Civil, Computer, Electrical, Environmental, and Mechanical Engineering. Biomedical Engineering became a major in 2009 and graduated its first class in 2011. The program has grown to be the second largest engineering program at Union. We have about 115 majors across the 4 years with 60% of our students identifying as female. The BME program is interdisciplinary and includes courses in biomechanics, bioinstrumentation, and biomaterials. Pedagogical innovation is encouraged and supported in my department as well as across the College. We have fantastic support from our Learning Design and Digital Innovation (LDDI) office which holds faculty bootcamps and workshops around pedagogical innovation. I have participated in the LDDI workshops and bootcamps over the years and have been inspired to seek new and innovative ways to engage with my students.
Path to Alternative Grading
In the fall of 2023, I was slated to teach our sophomore level Biomechanics I (statics) course. This course is the first in a 3-course biomechanics sequence spanning sophomore and junior year. The class size ranges from 16 to 33 students depending on the number of sections we offer and is only taken by BME majors and minors. It had been 4 years since I last taught Biomechanics I. Since I had to re-familiarize myself with the course it seemed like the perfect opportunity to take a closer look at the course structure, particularly student assessment of learning. In the back of my mind I kept remembering an interaction I had with a student in this course some years before. They were struggling in the beginning and had been coming to office hours for help. As the term progressed, I could see they were understanding more and more and able to tackle more challenging problems. However, their performance on the exams did not reflect their progress. They came to speak to me about their grade on the final and I saw their shoulders slump in what looked like a gesture of defeat. I felt that I failed that student as an educator; my assessment was not considering their background preparedness.
At that time, my daughter was in a Montessori school (pre-K through 8th grade) and I found the method of learning and assessment fascinating. I also began to hear more and more about alternative grading from a colleague of mine in computer science and my interest piqued. I found the Grading for Growth blog and dove into the posts. I read Ungrading and Grading for Equity and there was no turning back for me! I knew that I had to implement alternative grading in some format. I did not want another student to feel defeated from an exam or course. Only naturally, I did exactly what some of the blog posts said not to do and that was to completely overhaul my course and dive head first into alternative grading, specifically proficiency-based grading.
In reading through many of the blog posts and the Ungrading and Grading for Equity books, I noticed that there weren’t many examples of engineering courses using alternative grading. However, math courses are quite close in structure to an engineering course so I could see the application of various techniques being easily modified to meet my course requirements.
Reimagining Grading in Biomechanics
The first step I took was to closely examine what I wanted my students to learn from this course. Biomechanics I is the first course in a three-course sequence so there are some concepts that students should be proficient in by the end of the course. That last phrase is what I focused on in redesigning the course. We often believe that students should be proficient at seemingly arbitrary points in the course such as exam weeks or midterms. However, student learning isn't always linear which is something I learned when exploring Montessori education for my daughter. It is also important to recognize that students come with a range of educational backgrounds where they may or may not have had opportunities to study and practice. I wanted to develop an assessment system that supported the diversity of my students in terms of their preparedness.
With all this in mind, I identified 14 learning goals for the course. The goals were “bite size” concepts that ultimately built up to the foundational skills for the course. The learning goals for later in the course built on the earlier goals so students could see the complexity unfold.
Once I developed the learning goals, I had to determine how I would assess these goals and ultimately determine the course grade. I wanted to signal to the students that we were using a new system to assess their learning. As a fan of Ted Lasso, I decided to use a soccer (football) analogy whereby homeworks became “trainings,” quizzes became “skills drills,” and exams became “match day” with the final being “Boxing Day match day.” Students were encouraged to work with classmates on their training assignments. I also had four problem seminars throughout the course. Problem seminars were an opportunity for students to work in small groups to solve complex problems while also developing a narrative alongside their solutions. This narrative focused on their problem solving process and highlighted places where they may have gotten stuck and unstuck while working through the problem. Students were provided guidelines for their narrative and assessed on whether they met those guidelines along with the correctness of their solutions. This change in terminology was also meant to signal to students that the trainings and problem seminars were a chance for them to train/practice with their peers and receive feedback. They would then demonstrate their skills through the skills drills and match days.
For grading of the individual assignments and learning goals, I used a 3-level scale to assess proficiency; In Progress (IP) meant there were conceptual errors and this skill was still developing, Proficiency (P) meant there was fundamental understanding of the goal with a very minor error, Above Proficient (AP) meant the work was free of all errors. The trainings and problem seminars provided opportunities for students to practice the learning goals by working with peers and receiving real-time substantive feedback on their work. If students earned an IP on these assignments, they could revise their work and resubmit to earn a P.
Students were assessed in their individual proficiency of the learning goals through skills drills and match days. Students could earn an IP, P, or AP on learning goals. In order to achieve overall proficiency in a learning goal, students needed to demonstrate proficiency (earning a P or AP) in that learning goal twice. If they earned an IP on a learning goal, they would have more opportunities to try again given that each learning goal appeared a minimum of 4 times throughout the course on skills drills or match days. This method enabled students to learn at their pace while still building complexity (problems later in the course often included multiple learning goals).
A student’s overall grade for the course was earned by scoring learning goals as well as earning a P/AP on trainings and problem seminars. I drew inspiration for my grading and the use of a grade tracker from the blog post How to make and use grade trackers. I kept a tracking sheet for the course that students had access to at all times. Students’ names were anonymized on the tracking sheet using colors where each student was assigned a color that only they knew. A sample of a grade tracker is below:
I introduced proficiency-based grading to the students by sharing the syllabus with them before the start of the term. I spent the first lecture discussing the course and how assessment would work. I created an anonymous survey where students could ask questions and express concerns or excitement about proficiency-based grading. I answered the questions in class and reminded students of how the assessment would work with each training and skills drill. It was fun to see students realize that if they already scored a learning goal before a match day, they could skip that problem. They would often remark “won’t I lose points?” I would always respond that there were no points in the course. They caught on pretty quickly. I did informal check-ins when students would come to office hours and continuously discussed the progress sheet in class.
In class and office hours, I noticed a shift in the types of questions the students were asking. They focused less on particular problem solutions and more on the concept. A phrase I would often say when I was discussing proficiency-based grading was “the point is to learn.” One day when asking if I would include earlier learning goals on a skills drill, I said “yes because after all what is the point of all this?” The students loudly replied “to learn!” It was amazing! They felt comfortable taking risks, their confidence grew, and they focused on truly learning the concepts rather than solutions. They were wholly engaged in the process of learning.
I did an anonymous survey at the end of the course. I asked students to rate on a scale of 1-5 if proficiency-based grading increased their confidence, lowered their stress, helped them focus on learning rather than a grade, and motivated them to learn. Each question had open-ended questions where they could explain their reasons for their ratings.
The responses were overwhelmingly positive! Some sample comments were:
It has motivated me to learn the material more than any other class has been because I wasn't worried about my grade as much. If I messed up on something, I felt okay because I wasn't worried about my grade dropping. If I messed up, I only focused on learning the material and understanding it for next time.
and:
Proficiency-based grading positively transformed my confidence, especially as someone who struggles with test-taking anxiety. My exam grades have often not reflected my understanding of the material, despite performing well on coursework. However, with proficiency-based grading, I felt a significant boost in my confidence to take quizzes, tests, and exams. Knowing that I had opportunities to demonstrate my understanding without the pressure of a one-and-done assessment allowed me to approach tests with a calmer mindset. This confidence even carried over to other courses I was taking during the term, where I felt more comfortable and prepared when taking tests.
I could share more comments, but you get the idea. Overall, students expressed that they felt less stress with proficiency-based grading which enabled them to focus on learning, they were more confident knowing that they could try a problem and if they didn’t get it right, their grade wouldn’t go down. Some students stated that they felt they learn “more slowly” and this system enabled them to learn at their pace and be successful.
Final thoughts
This was an overwhelmingly positive experience for me as well and I have modified all my courses to be proficiency-based. It looks different based on the course (problem based versus discussion/presentation based) and I am constantly iterating. I am adjusting learning goals, assignments, or modifying the levels to earn a grade.
For this course specifically, I have taught it twice using proficiency-based grading, fall 2023 and fall 2024. I modified a couple of the early learning goals to emphasize different skills that were important in later problem solving. I also modified the levels to earn the overall grade, meaning how many boxes checked to earn an A, A-, B+, etc. In the fall of 2023 I had 2 students earn an A in the course which I didn’t think reflected their true understanding of the learning goals. They were able to earn P’s on trainings and problems seminars, which were assignments where they could work with peers. When they had to demonstrate their individual knowledge on skills drills and match days, they struggled throughout the term. I allowed correction reflections on some skills drills and match day problems. These correction reflections were done at home and required students to correct their work and state where they made their mistakes and what they learned from the correction. I did not state whether they had to work on these individually. These particular students always opted to do correction reflections enabling them to earn Ps on learning goals. This led to an A in the course, however, I don’t believe it was a true reflection of their skills.
The second time I taught the course, I didn’t initially allow correction reflections. I repeatedly included learning goals throughout the skills drills and match days. After the second match day which was in week 8 of 10, I allowed correction reflections. I had several students say that they felt that they learned more from going back over their mistakes and reflecting on them. I am trying to find that balance between embracing peer learning and learning through corrections while also being able to assess individual student knowledge.
Walt Disney famously said, “Disneyworld will never be complete. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world.” I feel this is the case with proficiency-based grading in that my system will never be complete, it will continue to evolve as our students, course material and pedagogy evolves.
Reflecting on my student with the slumped shoulders sitting in my office, while it is not possible to go back and re-teach them, their experience has helped shape the professor I have become. I now see my students in class with their shoulders back and heads up as they tackle concepts with confidence and embrace the mistakes as moments to reflect and learn.
 | A guest post by
|