From: TheSnarr (thesnarr@maaonline.net)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 22:45:52 PST
From: "TheSnarr" <thesnarr@maaonline.net> Subject: RE: alternative grading systems and learning outcomes Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:45:52 -0800 Message-ID: <000401c3e958$33e14120$a70200c0@internal>
Debbie,
It seems to me to be a noble goal. I would love to have every lab and
assignment broken into skill levels as you described. It provides a very
object rubric, if you will, to measure each student. The objective
nature seems to me that it would make the grading actually not much
harder. The extra work would come in the creation of the assessment
tools.
At a glance, I would like to respond to your example below. The
progression of skills from 1-5 on Newton's laws is stated very well. I
am not sure that it is any different than the current goals of any
physics teacher during that unit. One would start with the basics and
definitions and add additional forces, then vectors, then friction, etc.
as you move through the unit. There will be some students that will lose
it and not do so well when reaching the last step. Their grade would be
reduced for not doing the more complex problems at the end of the unit.
I would venture to guess that your grading scheme would produce the same
results in a more direct way.
However, a couple of more things come to mind. One, your example below
would require a few weeks of class time to get to the measuring point
mentioned. This would correlate with the traditional method. Two, I
think there could be some real benefits. Like you say, the students will
have a much clearer picture of how they are to be graded. This will
possibly encourage some of them to try to reach the highest level. I
think every student appreciates the clarity of the grading scheme and it
cuts out any possibility of them arguing over a grade!
In thinking a little about this approach, I would be inclined to phase
it in over several years by starting with some of the more complex
assignments and labs and working this system slowly into the entire
course. This will give you some basis for evaluation and not require
what I would imagine to be an incredible amount of extra work to
implement for every assignment mid-year!
I hope my rambling thoughts help!
-Brian Snarr
-----Original Message-----
From: pinhole@exploratorium.edu [mailto:pinhole@exploratorium.edu] On
Behalf Of Debbie Berlin
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:13 PM
To: Pinhole Listserv
Subject: pinhole a question for physics teachers, re: alternative
grading systems and learning outcomes
I'm thinking about trying some very reform-minded grading practices
based on the work of Robert Marzano and others. Right now, I have a
very traditional points-based system. I'm planning to move to a system
that will undoubtedly generate a lot more work for me but will hopefully
be a better system. I'm going to test it second semester. I want to
avoid re-inventing the wheel. It's always easier to modify someone
else's work than start from scratch. So, here's a description of my
plan. If you have anything that would help, I'm very interested.
Please send it along!
For each unit, I'm going to have 2 main outcomes: mathematical and
conceptual. I'll also have laboratory skills outcomes and student
behavior outcomes. For each outcome, I'd like 5 levels of
skills/understanding. I've given an example below. The plan is to use
these to assess every assignment. Rather than giving one single grade
on a test or other assessment, you'd rank the student on various skills.
I.e., each assignment may have multiple ratings ("grades") associated
with it depending on how many skills it tests. Then, at the end of the
grading period, you could graph the student's progress, add a trend
line, and then grade them based on where they end up rather than where
they start. As a science teacher, I like it because it avoids
unnecessary averaging that destroys data. It's also the way I would
want to be assessed as a student.
For example, under Newton's laws and problem solving, the outcomes might
look something like this:
Level: Skills:
1) Student can calculate net force, mass or
acceleration when given the other two variables.
2) Student can calculate net force when given
two parallel forces and use that in the Fnet = m*a equation. Student
has some ability to do the same calculation with more than two parallel
forces.
3) Student can combine multiple parallel or
perpendicular forces to determine the net force. Student can work
backward from the net force to determine individual parallel or
perpendicular forces. Student can use this information in Newton's
second law. Student has some ability to integrate prior learning to
Newton's 2nd law, such as by calculating acceleration from initial and
final velocities and time prior to solving a Newton's second law
problem. Student can calculate frictional force using the mu equation.
4) Student can combine multiple forces at
various angles to determine the net force. Student can use Newton's 2nd
law and the friction equation. Student can work backward from the net
force to determine individual forces. Student has some ability to solve
problems that integrate Newton's laws with the equations of motion.
Student has some ability to solve problems involving coupled motion and
inclined planes.
5) Student can extend the above skills to new
problems. Student can which require seamless integration of Newton's
laws to the equations of motion.
Anyway, I'll take anything that might help! I'm really excited about
trying this out but not looking forward to the additional work. It will
be an interesting experiment. Since there will undoubtedly be some
kinks to work out, I plan to run my traditional grading system at the
same time and then give kids a choice of which grade to use at the end
of the year.
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/>
Try it!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Aug 02 2004 - 12:05:35 PDT