The Vermont State Educator – March 2024

Greetings!

By Jen Garrett-Ostermiller

This month, we’re focusing on grading for growth, a phrase borrowed from Clark & Talbert, whose book we also share in this issue.

I’m going to share my own journey with alternative assessment as both an illustration and an invitation. As an illustration, you will see the ways that I’ve used changes in assessment practices to deepen connection with students and engage in more equitable grading. And my invitation is that, as my journey shows, while there is no single way to assess in less traditional ways, you may find this is a pathway to creatively solve teaching challenges. As always, we are here to support you!!

I began experimenting with alternative approaches to grading in my own teaching in 2010. I had been teaching for a few years, but this was my first time teaching a 1-time-per-week, 3-hour class. In anticipation of needing to incentivize attendance, I had built “participation” into the grading schema for the first time (10% of the overall grade). After the first class I realized I had no criteria for actually awarding these points. I knew I intended the points to be earned by more than attendance (hence my word “participation”), but I hadn’t thought more deeply about how I would assess students’ participation. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach; I had designed a structure that was inauthentic and with the potential to be unfair to my students. The first few weeks, I tried to capture who was contributing to class in productive ways, who seemed prepared, and who seemed disengaged. It was really difficult to track on these details (much less record them) while also teaching – my attention was divided between tasks and I was not confident that my records were accurate. A month or so into the semester, after a lot of reflection, I decided to talk with my students about my predicament. I explained my intentions of the participation grade and also my concerns with my ability to accurately assess their engagement. I proposed that, three times in the semester, I would have them write a participation reflection summarizing their contributions to class (including not only verbal contributions, but learning from peers, listening, wrestling with new ideas, etc.). I was encouraged by what I received – it was far more insightful than what I could observe. I also had greater insights into my students’ experiences, which helped me give them feedback on their assignments as well as know what was working (and not working) during our in-class time together to adapt my own teaching to their needs. It was challenging to receive these reflections one time per month, as I found that students were less able to reference specific moments in class and wrote more generally about their experience. The next semester, instead of a participation component of the grade, I included an “engagement” component and increased the weight to 20% of the overall grade, emphasizing the importance of the learning that should occur each class session. Students wrote a self-assessment at the end of each class (an assignment that was open on the LMS for 24 hours after class ended) where they completed a self-assessment rubric and also responded to open-ended questions. They awarded their own points, justified them through narrative, and I told them I would only adjust the points if I disagreed strongly. I continued to use this practice for several semesters. Students took it seriously and their behaviors in class were in line with what I hoped from students. I also appreciated the power-sharing (and responsibility-sharing) that came with the model.

While the self-assessment of engagement was working well, I was unsatisfied with some of the assignment submissions I was receiving. Consistently, each semester, I found that a fair number of students were missing the mark when I knew they could do better. I had learned about Specifications Grading listening to a podcast and thought this system might work well for me, but was a little daunted by the course redesign it would require. Finally, in 2019, with the support of a colleague, I invested the time to redesign the course, which required designing a contract and specifications for every assignment. By the end of the semester, all but one student responded really well to the model, appreciating the transparency of the specifications, the agency and choice they’d been entrusted with, and the opportunity to make (a limited number of) revisions to build on their first best attempt. The quality of student work was significantly higher, my primary goal for adopting specifications grading. At the same time, I missed the dynamic of student self-assessment that I had used for almost 10 years prior to switching to specifications grading.

As a result, my next step in alternative assessment was to design the course as entirely “ungraded.” There are some misconceptions about ungrading, particularly around rigor and expectations. A well-designed ungraded class has due dates, criteria for success, and high standards. The dynamic that shifts is around student agency. Students have greater responsibility for learning – assessing their starting point, setting goals related to the course outcomes, and making progress. Rather than receiving a grade from the instructor, students receive feedback. In 2021, I shifted to a fully ungraded class. I was surprised that I didn’t have to redesign very much. Rather, I had to invest early efforts in helping students, not just understand, but own the learning outcomes of the course. When writing this, I went back to my reflections from teaching that semester and was struck by my own comments after the first week of the course: “The feedback I’ve written this week is SO MUCH more like the feedback I’ve been trying to write for 10 years. It’s more holistic and global (although with specificity to be helpful, I hope).” I was no longer judging and evaluating students to justify a grade. I was a partner and coach in their learning process. Over the semester, the effort and quality of student work was similar to what I’d seen with specifications grading, but students were willing to take more intellectual risks and make the content more relevant to them. Students were also much more willing to ask for help because they trusted that I genuinely wanted to help them learn. Students reflected on feeling empowered and a bit in awe of their growth in skills and confidence over one semester. I became more confident that ungrading allows me to practice the equity and justice values that are important to me as a faculty member. I broke down some of the traditional power dynamics in a college classroom; students were able to bring their whole, authentic selves to assignments (culturally-sustaining); and there was more flexibility in the system, as I worked with students individually on their own learning goals that were relevant to the course outcomes.

I’ve worked with faculty across the disciplines on shifts away from traditional grading and assessment. Because there’s no single approach (several are explored further in this newsletter), there’s a lot of freedom to make changes that address needs particular to your course. If you are feeling curious or inspired, please book a consultation with us; we are eager to support you!