Wow, this is super insightful! I totally get what they mean about standards being tricky. My friend, who teaches, was telling me how she used to get bogged down with too many detailed objectives. This "assessment-level" idea sounds like a lifesaver for profs and students alike. It's all about making learning clearer, right? Like, if you're ever stuck with a service https://hotmart.pissedconsumer.com/customer-service.html , good standards from places like Hotmart customer service can make a huge diff.
I will be borrowing your use of the term "learning targets." Other terms (like standards, objectives, competencies) are used so broadly that people might assume I mean one thing when I actually mean another. With the term "learning target," I can define exactly what I mean in the syllabus and (hopefully) avoid confusion
Thanks Cody. Full disclosure, I didn't come up with that term -- it's definitely been appropriated (= stolen) from one of my colleagues, possibly David but I can't remember who exactly.
I’m still not sure I understand the difference between level-lesson objectives and learning targets, with respect to grading. For example, consider a unit on polynomials with a standard as the following: “I can add, subtract, multiply, and divide polynomials.” This standard would consist of several lesson-level objectives e.g. let’s say six. If I’m assessing a student on this standard aren’t I essentially assessing them on the objectives that make it up?
Sure, but you can assess those together in one question, or several questions grouped together under that single objective. You don't need to assign a mark or grade to the student's understanding of each item separately -- you can look at the totality of their work and assign a *single* mark to their overall understanding of "adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing".
Thank you for the response. If there are 4 learning targets being assessed on an exam and each of them consist of a few learning objectives, would it be appropriate to just have 4 questions on such an exam? I prefer quality over quantity so I don’t mind reducing the number of questions on an exam, although my colleagues might disagree. I’m trying to figure this out because, unfortunately, at my school using a point-based grading system is mandatory.
You could have a single question, or multiple questions each clearly marked with the same standard (and assessed all together).
I usually organize quizzes/exams into pages, with one learning target per page. That page might have multiple questions (which could address multiple aspects of the target, e.g. add/subtract, multiply, divide...). But in the end, students earn a single mark for their overall work across all of those questions.
I will be teaching a class for new college students, like the First-Year Seminar, next (W24) semester. I have experience with alt grading, but not with the class. I was wondering why you wrote that " Courses like this, incidentally, are excellent places to use an alternative grading system." I have an idea that it is because alt grading better aligns with the actual foundations for learning that are taught in the class, but I'd like to read your thoughts on the matter, if you have time for it, of course.
I taught a class like this many years ago, with traditional grading, which is why I mentioned it. I feel it's well suited because these courses are typically not content-heavy and tend to focus more on task completion -- attending a guest lecture, finishing a training module, etc. -- which works well with specs grading particularly. And students don't come into them with preconceived notions, like they would with say math classes where every past math class has always been done with points and partial credit, and so you get pushback because it's not what they're used to.
The method outlined for writing course standards, emphasizing concrete action verbs and clear conditions, resonates strongly with the principles of effective time management, especially the 'time blocking method' discussed in an article about time blocking method (https://productive.fish/blog/time-blocking/). Brainstorming, refining, and creating specific, assessable standards mirrors the approach of meticulously planning one's day with time blocks. Both methods stress the importance of clarity and specificity for optimal results, whether in learning or managing time efficiently. This alignment between educational strategies and personal productivity techniques is fascinating and highlights the universality of well-structured planning methods.
Great content to get thinking on this. I'm in a graduate setting trying to figure out how to present a Grading for Growth approach to faculty.
Questions:
1. Objectives vs. Outcomes = We, like many Universities, use an outcome based model, so in your “levels of objectives” graphic would that mean they are naturally at the Assessment level anyway since there are only 3-5 for an entire 16 week graduate level course?
2. In determining Outcomes or, Assessment level objectives, wouldn’t using the BbD model be most effective for setting up the learning targets and aligning the assessments and activities? In Stage One you use a nested egg approach to brainstorm all the outcomes first, then categorize them essentially as NEED to know no matter what (i.e. absolute essentials), Necessary to know in order to meet the lesson/course outcomes, and Nice to know (i.e. worth being familiar with if there is time). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/ Do Grading for Growth advocates integrate Backward Design into their repertoire? Looks like you are doing something similar.
3. “Standards” looks exactly the same as “Outcomes” to me. Is there a difference I am missing or are they synonymous?
One request: slap a Creative Commons license on your figures (like in the Bloom's Taxonomy figure). Of course, I understand if you want to maintain a copyright on the figures. But it would help me (and probably others) to be able to share your ideas so nicely summarized in those figures.
This article is a very comprehensive and mostly very helpful explanation of how to develop and write standards. I think it is not helpful to use "I can" statements as many students can't (especially initially). A better way to frame these statements is "I am learning to . . ." I would also like to know where I can find an explanation of the very dubious third pillar - "marks for progress."
Hi Kenoc - thanks for your comments! However, I disagree about "I can" statements: We want to describe what it means for a student to successfully meet the standard. Progress or "I am learning to" is what students do along the way, which is good. But the standard describes what happens after students have learned at the appropriate level.
The point of the 3rd pillar is to avoid points and partial credit, and instead, if using any marks at all, to use ones that are clear statements about progress and feedback.
Kenoc, please note it doesn't say "marks *for* progress" but "marks *indicate* progress". That is, if you are giving grades at all, they can't just be disembodied numbers but the marks should communicate to the learner what kind of progress they are making on the concept being assessed. Again not "marks *for* progress" which sounds like we give credit merely for progress.
If you still find that "dubious", can you elaborate?
I agree about "I can" statements or "I learned" at the end but not at the beginning when "I can't; that is why I suggested the initial statement should be "I am learning to."
My problem with "marks for progress" is that it is very difficult to have useful symbols/marks for progress; for progress we need words, not symbols (except maybe on a true "Progress Report," i.e., no grades.
Again, it doesn't say "marks for progress" but "marks *indicate* progress" -- IMO a subtle but important distinction. And to echo below, marks can be words or abbreviations of words.
I agree it is important distinction but I stand by the idea that "marks" are symbols and words are feedback (about achievement growth, and/or progress that are all related but different.)
Generally marks for progress are exactly you want, e.g. "Needs revision" or "New attempt required". But the detailed feedback is the point of "feedback" as a key pillar -- in addition to marks that act as a form of feedback.
Yes, marks are words that indicate progress towards a goal. That's how we defined them in the "four pillars", and there are quite a few examples in the blog, especially in these case studies. Many instructors use words ("Meets expectations"), while others use abbreviations that are explicitly short hand for the same words (e.g. "M" for "Meets Expectations").
These are my definitions of marks and grades from the new edition of "A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades" that will be published this spring - Mark/Score/Grade
Mark/Score: the number or letter placed on any single student as- sessment (test or performance) to indicate the quality of achieve- ment demonstrated.
Grade: the symbol (number or letter) reported at the end of a period of time as a summary statement of student performance.
(N.B., this is different from the definition provided by Brookhart (2016) in which she states, “Grading refers to the symbols assigned to individual pieces of student “work” OR to composite measures of student performance on student report cards” [Emphasis added]). As these are completely different processes, I think we communi- cate more clearly if we distinguish between them with my defini- tions above.)
Wow, this is super insightful! I totally get what they mean about standards being tricky. My friend, who teaches, was telling me how she used to get bogged down with too many detailed objectives. This "assessment-level" idea sounds like a lifesaver for profs and students alike. It's all about making learning clearer, right? Like, if you're ever stuck with a service https://hotmart.pissedconsumer.com/customer-service.html , good standards from places like Hotmart customer service can make a huge diff.
I will be borrowing your use of the term "learning targets." Other terms (like standards, objectives, competencies) are used so broadly that people might assume I mean one thing when I actually mean another. With the term "learning target," I can define exactly what I mean in the syllabus and (hopefully) avoid confusion
Thanks Cody. Full disclosure, I didn't come up with that term -- it's definitely been appropriated (= stolen) from one of my colleagues, possibly David but I can't remember who exactly.
I, too, borrowed it from another colleague (but I don't know who). It's in the air!
It makes me feel better about "borrowing" the term for my own use.
I’m still not sure I understand the difference between level-lesson objectives and learning targets, with respect to grading. For example, consider a unit on polynomials with a standard as the following: “I can add, subtract, multiply, and divide polynomials.” This standard would consist of several lesson-level objectives e.g. let’s say six. If I’m assessing a student on this standard aren’t I essentially assessing them on the objectives that make it up?
Sure, but you can assess those together in one question, or several questions grouped together under that single objective. You don't need to assign a mark or grade to the student's understanding of each item separately -- you can look at the totality of their work and assign a *single* mark to their overall understanding of "adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing".
Thank you for the response. If there are 4 learning targets being assessed on an exam and each of them consist of a few learning objectives, would it be appropriate to just have 4 questions on such an exam? I prefer quality over quantity so I don’t mind reducing the number of questions on an exam, although my colleagues might disagree. I’m trying to figure this out because, unfortunately, at my school using a point-based grading system is mandatory.
You could have a single question, or multiple questions each clearly marked with the same standard (and assessed all together).
I usually organize quizzes/exams into pages, with one learning target per page. That page might have multiple questions (which could address multiple aspects of the target, e.g. add/subtract, multiply, divide...). But in the end, students earn a single mark for their overall work across all of those questions.
I will be teaching a class for new college students, like the First-Year Seminar, next (W24) semester. I have experience with alt grading, but not with the class. I was wondering why you wrote that " Courses like this, incidentally, are excellent places to use an alternative grading system." I have an idea that it is because alt grading better aligns with the actual foundations for learning that are taught in the class, but I'd like to read your thoughts on the matter, if you have time for it, of course.
I taught a class like this many years ago, with traditional grading, which is why I mentioned it. I feel it's well suited because these courses are typically not content-heavy and tend to focus more on task completion -- attending a guest lecture, finishing a training module, etc. -- which works well with specs grading particularly. And students don't come into them with preconceived notions, like they would with say math classes where every past math class has always been done with points and partial credit, and so you get pushback because it's not what they're used to.
Thank you for this insight! It confirmed my choice of specs grading for the class.
The method outlined for writing course standards, emphasizing concrete action verbs and clear conditions, resonates strongly with the principles of effective time management, especially the 'time blocking method' discussed in an article about time blocking method (https://productive.fish/blog/time-blocking/). Brainstorming, refining, and creating specific, assessable standards mirrors the approach of meticulously planning one's day with time blocks. Both methods stress the importance of clarity and specificity for optimal results, whether in learning or managing time efficiently. This alignment between educational strategies and personal productivity techniques is fascinating and highlights the universality of well-structured planning methods.
Great content to get thinking on this. I'm in a graduate setting trying to figure out how to present a Grading for Growth approach to faculty.
Questions:
1. Objectives vs. Outcomes = We, like many Universities, use an outcome based model, so in your “levels of objectives” graphic would that mean they are naturally at the Assessment level anyway since there are only 3-5 for an entire 16 week graduate level course?
2. In determining Outcomes or, Assessment level objectives, wouldn’t using the BbD model be most effective for setting up the learning targets and aligning the assessments and activities? In Stage One you use a nested egg approach to brainstorm all the outcomes first, then categorize them essentially as NEED to know no matter what (i.e. absolute essentials), Necessary to know in order to meet the lesson/course outcomes, and Nice to know (i.e. worth being familiar with if there is time). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/ Do Grading for Growth advocates integrate Backward Design into their repertoire? Looks like you are doing something similar.
3. “Standards” looks exactly the same as “Outcomes” to me. Is there a difference I am missing or are they synonymous?
Thank you!
Your link to standard for Fall 2021 Math 225 is broken since you add -225 to the directory name.
One request: slap a Creative Commons license on your figures (like in the Bloom's Taxonomy figure). Of course, I understand if you want to maintain a copyright on the figures. But it would help me (and probably others) to be able to share your ideas so nicely summarized in those figures.
There's already a tiny CC license on that Bloom's diagram. Bigger one at the link.
This article is a very comprehensive and mostly very helpful explanation of how to develop and write standards. I think it is not helpful to use "I can" statements as many students can't (especially initially). A better way to frame these statements is "I am learning to . . ." I would also like to know where I can find an explanation of the very dubious third pillar - "marks for progress."
Hi Kenoc - thanks for your comments! However, I disagree about "I can" statements: We want to describe what it means for a student to successfully meet the standard. Progress or "I am learning to" is what students do along the way, which is good. But the standard describes what happens after students have learned at the appropriate level.
You can find more about the pillars right here on the blog, for example: https://gradingforgrowth.substack.com/p/finding-common-ground-with-grading
The point of the 3rd pillar is to avoid points and partial credit, and instead, if using any marks at all, to use ones that are clear statements about progress and feedback.
Kenoc, please note it doesn't say "marks *for* progress" but "marks *indicate* progress". That is, if you are giving grades at all, they can't just be disembodied numbers but the marks should communicate to the learner what kind of progress they are making on the concept being assessed. Again not "marks *for* progress" which sounds like we give credit merely for progress.
If you still find that "dubious", can you elaborate?
I agree about "I can" statements or "I learned" at the end but not at the beginning when "I can't; that is why I suggested the initial statement should be "I am learning to."
My problem with "marks for progress" is that it is very difficult to have useful symbols/marks for progress; for progress we need words, not symbols (except maybe on a true "Progress Report," i.e., no grades.
Again, it doesn't say "marks for progress" but "marks *indicate* progress" -- IMO a subtle but important distinction. And to echo below, marks can be words or abbreviations of words.
I agree it is important distinction but I stand by the idea that "marks" are symbols and words are feedback (about achievement growth, and/or progress that are all related but different.)
Generally marks for progress are exactly you want, e.g. "Needs revision" or "New attempt required". But the detailed feedback is the point of "feedback" as a key pillar -- in addition to marks that act as a form of feedback.
Are you interpreting "marks" as words, not symbols?
Yes, marks are words that indicate progress towards a goal. That's how we defined them in the "four pillars", and there are quite a few examples in the blog, especially in these case studies. Many instructors use words ("Meets expectations"), while others use abbreviations that are explicitly short hand for the same words (e.g. "M" for "Meets Expectations").
These are my definitions of marks and grades from the new edition of "A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades" that will be published this spring - Mark/Score/Grade
Mark/Score: the number or letter placed on any single student as- sessment (test or performance) to indicate the quality of achieve- ment demonstrated.
Grade: the symbol (number or letter) reported at the end of a period of time as a summary statement of student performance.
(N.B., this is different from the definition provided by Brookhart (2016) in which she states, “Grading refers to the symbols assigned to individual pieces of student “work” OR to composite measures of student performance on student report cards” [Emphasis added]). As these are completely different processes, I think we communi- cate more clearly if we distinguish between them with my defini- tions above.)