Dave, thanks for sharing your lessons learned! Looking forward to borrowing some ideas to reduce the "temperature and frequency of conversations" with my students, too.
Also, I wish to join the Alternative Grading Slack, thanks in advance :)
I went to invite you, but you're already there! The address is https://alternativegrading.slack.com/ -- try logging in there with your institutional email.
Thank you, Dave for this great reminder that HOW we communicate our systems can matter a whole lot. I was particularly interested to read how things went with your homework and your token system. I also use grading bundles, but for their final course grade--this has made me think about changing it so that the bundles are instead for each parameter. For the homework parameter of my course, it looks like "must receive Satisfactory on 90% or above homework assignments" and I don't love using the percentage because it essentially looks tike trad-grading. And, like you, I'm not always completely clear on how many homework assignments they will end up having, although it is never more than 1 or 2 off the "target."
I also use a token system, except that they only have 3 tokens for the semester, all three can be used for revision, up to two can be used for a 48-hour extension, and if they have any left at the end of the semester, they can wipe an unexcused absence from lab (which means a 0 on a lab quiz). I actually encourage them not to hoard, but also not to freak out if their first hw assignment comes back with a "not yet". I tell them to save their token for higher stakes assignments and just take that first not yet as instructive as to what's missing for their next hw (95% of the time it is about depth of engagement, as my hw assignments are essentially listening journals -- I teach music history). If they get a second NY on the second hw, then I tell them they should not only think about revising it with a token, but meeting with me to discuss how they might avoid needing further revisions on homework. I've found that this has worked well and has minimized the "I'll half-a$$ this because I know I can redo it" and has motivated some of the students to plan ahead since they know they can only use 2 tokens for late assignments.
I also used to struggle when students would submit a barely-started assignment so that they could effectively game the deadline (they could then redo it later). I've now got language in my syllabus that says:
"After your assignment has been graded, you are sometimes permitted to resubmit your assignment to improve your score. You can only do so if you are invited by a grader. These invitations will be granted to improve issues for which feedback from the grader was necessary to realize that there was a problem, such as issues with code style or complexity, or honest misunderstanding in an analysis problem. These invitations *are not offered* for problems that you would already have known that you had, such as code failing automating tests, missing work, and so on."
I then explain to my students that if they need to submit work late, that's what the late token policy is for... and if they think they need more time to work on their assignment, they should use a late token to do so rather than submitting something that they know isn't right.
Of course, there's some judgment involved in implementing this policy. I try to err on the side of giving students opportunities to resubmit. But it works well for stopping the cases where students submit a blank page or whatnot in order to resubmit later.
That seems like a really good practice! I think things are less straightforward with my assignments in terms of realizing or not realizing "problems," but you've given me a lot to think about! Thank you!
This shift in mindset – from cost to opportunity – is so powerful. It applies to everything, not just education. When you start asking 'what could this make possible' instead of 'what will this cost,' the whole decision-making process changes.
I've seen this in my own work. The projects that scared me most because of the upfront investment (time, money, energy) ended up being the ones that opened the most doors.
This philosophy reminds me of https://citadelfoundation.ca/ – different field, same principle. Investing in the right thing upfront creates opportunities you couldn't see at the start.
Thanks for sharing your insights, Dave! Perhaps because you're at Carleton (my alma mater!) and thus your student population tends to be high-achieving, this may not be a problem for you but I'm wondering - by introducing the potential to improve overall course grades by showing mastery on an end-of-term assessment, do you find that students are more likely to cheat on that potentially-high-stakes assessment? My grading system for the community college biology course I teach is also structured in way that gives students an opportunity to earn a high course grade if they perform well on a final cumulative exam, but I worry that it incentivizes students trying to cheat on that exam in particular. I just administered my final cumulative exam last week and despite what felt like extraordinary policing on my part, I still think I had two students (out of 36) cheating during the exam. Curious if you find the same thing.
Hi Jayme --- it's always great to hear from a Carleton alum!
That's an interesting question I hadn't really thought about. One thing that helps, I think, is that I'm not putting all of the emphasis on a single high-stakes assessment at the end. This particular policy aspect you're referring to is that overall course grades can be improved based on positive exam scores... period, regardless of when in the course they occurred. But you're right that if the end of the term is imminent, and a student wants to improve their grade from where they are, then doing well on the exam and retakes at the end is their next opportunity to do so.
For that last exam and set of retakes, about two-thirds of the students take it in a classroom with me, and the others use our college self-scheduled exam system. For those who take it self-scheduled, that's professionally proctored, so I hope that cheating opportunities are limited. They take it in a room with people taking exams for lots of subjects, so the opportunities to cheat based on someone near them is limited (at least, that's what I believe to be the case). For the students who take it in a classroom with me, I space them out and try to keep my eyes open. In-class cheating isn't something that I've had much of a problem with, but I don't know if I'm not looking carefully enough.
I suspect our different student populations and possibly also the courses we teach -- I teach an intro-level course that many students take simply to fulfill a curriculum requirement -- makes it more likely that my students would be incentivized to cheat. Most of my students don't! But a handful do, and I'm scratching my head about how to manage it. Thanks again for your thoughtful post!
I'd like to be added to the Alt Grading Slack please!
Invitation sent to the email you use here!
Dave, thanks for sharing your lessons learned! Looking forward to borrowing some ideas to reduce the "temperature and frequency of conversations" with my students, too.
Also, I wish to join the Alternative Grading Slack, thanks in advance :)
Invitation sent to the email you use here!
Hi - can you also add me to the alt Grading slack? Thanks
Invitation sent to the email you use here!
Another request to be added to the Alt Grading Slack!
Invitation sent to the email you subscribe with here!
Pease invite me to the Alternative Grading Slack. Thanks!
Invitation sent to the email you subscribe with here!
please invite me to the Alternative Grading Slack. Thanks!
Invitation sent (to the email you use here)!
I'd appreciate an email invite to the Alternative Grading Slack! Thank you -
I went to invite you, but you're already there! The address is https://alternativegrading.slack.com/ -- try logging in there with your institutional email.
super, thanks! *red face*
Thank you, Dave for this great reminder that HOW we communicate our systems can matter a whole lot. I was particularly interested to read how things went with your homework and your token system. I also use grading bundles, but for their final course grade--this has made me think about changing it so that the bundles are instead for each parameter. For the homework parameter of my course, it looks like "must receive Satisfactory on 90% or above homework assignments" and I don't love using the percentage because it essentially looks tike trad-grading. And, like you, I'm not always completely clear on how many homework assignments they will end up having, although it is never more than 1 or 2 off the "target."
I also use a token system, except that they only have 3 tokens for the semester, all three can be used for revision, up to two can be used for a 48-hour extension, and if they have any left at the end of the semester, they can wipe an unexcused absence from lab (which means a 0 on a lab quiz). I actually encourage them not to hoard, but also not to freak out if their first hw assignment comes back with a "not yet". I tell them to save their token for higher stakes assignments and just take that first not yet as instructive as to what's missing for their next hw (95% of the time it is about depth of engagement, as my hw assignments are essentially listening journals -- I teach music history). If they get a second NY on the second hw, then I tell them they should not only think about revising it with a token, but meeting with me to discuss how they might avoid needing further revisions on homework. I've found that this has worked well and has minimized the "I'll half-a$$ this because I know I can redo it" and has motivated some of the students to plan ahead since they know they can only use 2 tokens for late assignments.
Thanks, Rebecca!
I also used to struggle when students would submit a barely-started assignment so that they could effectively game the deadline (they could then redo it later). I've now got language in my syllabus that says:
"After your assignment has been graded, you are sometimes permitted to resubmit your assignment to improve your score. You can only do so if you are invited by a grader. These invitations will be granted to improve issues for which feedback from the grader was necessary to realize that there was a problem, such as issues with code style or complexity, or honest misunderstanding in an analysis problem. These invitations *are not offered* for problems that you would already have known that you had, such as code failing automating tests, missing work, and so on."
I then explain to my students that if they need to submit work late, that's what the late token policy is for... and if they think they need more time to work on their assignment, they should use a late token to do so rather than submitting something that they know isn't right.
Of course, there's some judgment involved in implementing this policy. I try to err on the side of giving students opportunities to resubmit. But it works well for stopping the cases where students submit a blank page or whatnot in order to resubmit later.
That seems like a really good practice! I think things are less straightforward with my assignments in terms of realizing or not realizing "problems," but you've given me a lot to think about! Thank you!
This shift in mindset – from cost to opportunity – is so powerful. It applies to everything, not just education. When you start asking 'what could this make possible' instead of 'what will this cost,' the whole decision-making process changes.
I've seen this in my own work. The projects that scared me most because of the upfront investment (time, money, energy) ended up being the ones that opened the most doors.
This philosophy reminds me of https://citadelfoundation.ca/ – different field, same principle. Investing in the right thing upfront creates opportunities you couldn't see at the start.
Thanks for this reframe. Needed to read it today
Thanks for sharing your insights, Dave! Perhaps because you're at Carleton (my alma mater!) and thus your student population tends to be high-achieving, this may not be a problem for you but I'm wondering - by introducing the potential to improve overall course grades by showing mastery on an end-of-term assessment, do you find that students are more likely to cheat on that potentially-high-stakes assessment? My grading system for the community college biology course I teach is also structured in way that gives students an opportunity to earn a high course grade if they perform well on a final cumulative exam, but I worry that it incentivizes students trying to cheat on that exam in particular. I just administered my final cumulative exam last week and despite what felt like extraordinary policing on my part, I still think I had two students (out of 36) cheating during the exam. Curious if you find the same thing.
Hi Jayme --- it's always great to hear from a Carleton alum!
That's an interesting question I hadn't really thought about. One thing that helps, I think, is that I'm not putting all of the emphasis on a single high-stakes assessment at the end. This particular policy aspect you're referring to is that overall course grades can be improved based on positive exam scores... period, regardless of when in the course they occurred. But you're right that if the end of the term is imminent, and a student wants to improve their grade from where they are, then doing well on the exam and retakes at the end is their next opportunity to do so.
For that last exam and set of retakes, about two-thirds of the students take it in a classroom with me, and the others use our college self-scheduled exam system. For those who take it self-scheduled, that's professionally proctored, so I hope that cheating opportunities are limited. They take it in a room with people taking exams for lots of subjects, so the opportunities to cheat based on someone near them is limited (at least, that's what I believe to be the case). For the students who take it in a classroom with me, I space them out and try to keep my eyes open. In-class cheating isn't something that I've had much of a problem with, but I don't know if I'm not looking carefully enough.
I suspect our different student populations and possibly also the courses we teach -- I teach an intro-level course that many students take simply to fulfill a curriculum requirement -- makes it more likely that my students would be incentivized to cheat. Most of my students don't! But a handful do, and I'm scratching my head about how to manage it. Thanks again for your thoughtful post!