**This post will apply most specifically to Language Arts, but it could apply in other content areas as well.**
Well, I'm alive. I can cross off "first year of teaching" on my lifelong to-do list. Of course, going with that is the ever-so-fun task of finalizing grades and printing them out. As I spent time going back through the late work to make sure it was entered in and putting in their finals while crossing my fingers that no one got that surprise F at the end of the semester, I realized something.
The grade book is absolutely useless to me now.
I can look at it and tell you who got the best grade or who decided it was a good life choice to just not turn in any assignments all semester despite the fact that they sat in the class every day and seemed to be immune to being chased down in the halls. I can tell you what all their assignments were, and I can show parents that their child did a lot of work in my class.
But what good is that to the student's future education? How does this form of assessment show me exactly what every student knows? Just as importantly, how does this help me become a better teacher? What it really shows me is who turned in their work, who didn't forget about the vocabulary quizzes, and who was awake when I explained how to do the assignments. It tells me next to nothing about whether or not the students learned.
This terrifying experience of reflecting on my grade book has shown me three major flaws in the way I, and the majority of the educational world, use grade books.
Flaw #1: It is not skill-focused.
Before you assume I'm going to break into some Common Core worship ceremony, let me be clear. While I think the Common Core is doing some good things, for Language Arts especially, it is not the answer to this problem. The Common Core gives a broad overview of what should be taught at each grade level, but assessment needs to be even more focused than that.
A score on an essay tells me a little bit about the students writing skill. I'll admit that, but what do I tell the student who wants to know how to write a better essay? "Well, judging by this overall score, you just need to be better. Overall. As a writer. And maybe as a person." I know there's the six traits grading rubric. I use it, but I still think there's a better way.
Let me explain my idea using Hypothetical Student X. We'll call them HSX for short because I don't feel like copying and pasting.
With the traditional grading system, HSX gets a B on their paper. They get the rubric, but let's be honest, they don't look at it at all. The only thing that matters is the grade at the top of the paper.
Now let's try it again with a skill-based assessment. HSX gets their paper back, and on their grading sheet it says (and keep in mind that I'm still at the brainstorming stage with this, so I don't know exactly what categories I'll be looking for in their writing):
Opening that interests the reader and introduces the purpose of the paper: 3
Main paragraphs that are focused on one idea relevant to the topic: 3
Paragraphs are tied together with smooth, natural sounding transitions: 2
Closing sounds natural and enhances the essay without being repetitive: 4
It is more informative, and it allows them to see where they need to grow, which ties in perfectly to my next point.
Flaw #2: It is not growth-focused.
Imagine taking your driver's test to get your license. You're all sweaty and nervous. The driving evaluator gets in the car and starts barking commands at you that don't make any sense (like backing around a corner...which is technically illegal to do on a street). Somehow, despite the intensity of the evaluator, you drive beautifully, not making a single mistake. When you get back, your driver gives you a list of all the things you did wrong since you began driving with your parents six months ago, and tells you, "You would have passed, but all those mistakes when you learned to drive show me that you aren't a good driver."
If you were a rational person, you would probably kick your evaluator in the shin and tell them they're an idiot. Yet that's how our grading system is currently, and that's how it's always been. "You failed your first essay because it's only three weeks into the school year and I haven't taught you most of the skills yet? That's rough. Good luck digging yourself out of that hole all semester." No wonder students are so disheartened when it comes to writing. We're setting them up to be failures from the beginning.
(NOTE: This is where it gets very Language Arts specific. I recognize that other content areas innately have a more logical sequence (you must know A to begin to learn B) to the curriculum. Language Arts focuses a lot on mastering the skills of writing, which requires repetition and attempting the same assessment over and over again.)
How do we do it differently? Can you grade based on growth? My answer right now is yes, I think. I have to say "I think" because I recognize that this is a tricky concept. However, here's my idea. Every time I grade a paper, I will use the same rubric as above (the four different categories - or whatever I settle on), and their score changes.
In the above example, HSX knows that transitions are their weak spot. For the next paper, their goal will be to improve that score. However, if their conclusion score suddenly slips back down to a three, we can examine why. Whether their score goes up or down, this makes bad grades a method for closer examination and further learning. If HSX gets a 4 on their opening for their next paper, they can examine why that score improved. Learning is growing. They should be synonymous, and sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.
Flaw #3: It is not useful to the next teacher.
One of the biggest problems I see in Language Arts especially, is the fact that we are required to cover the whole spectrum every year. Now, I know the Common Core has the standards broken down for different grade levels, but it stills span all types of reading and writing, not to mention speaking, listening, and language standards. This often creates the feeling that we need to cover everything all over again each year, and it ends up being surface-level instruction because we try to cover so much.
I would love to be able to pass on my grade book and say, "This is what these students know how to do, and here are the things they need to work on." If we truly believe that assessment should inform teaching, it can't just be contained in a single classroom. That information needs to help the student throughout their educational career; it needs to help create aligned curriculum and instruction from year to year.
I could pass along my grade book now, but all it would really do is inform the next teacher who the "good" students are, and who are the ones to "look out for." Imagine the benefit in having a list of skills and a record of which of those skills a students doesn't know, sort of knows, or knows really well. Suddenly, the teacher knows that they don't have to spend all their energy on one topic that the students know really well, and instead they can focus their energy on the spots where the class, the small group, the student needs help.
Conclusion:
These are not original thoughts. Numerous educators and authors have been writing about these ideas for a while. I just wanted to clarify it for myself. For more information, see the articles below.
Here are some of the articles that have informed my thinking:
"How Grading Reform Changed Our School" (Erickson)
"Reporting Student Learning" (O'Connor & Wormeli)
"Seven Reasons for Standards-based Grading" (Scriffiny)
"Five Obstacles to Grading Reform" (Guskey)
Well, I'm alive. I can cross off "first year of teaching" on my lifelong to-do list. Of course, going with that is the ever-so-fun task of finalizing grades and printing them out. As I spent time going back through the late work to make sure it was entered in and putting in their finals while crossing my fingers that no one got that surprise F at the end of the semester, I realized something.
The grade book is absolutely useless to me now.
I can look at it and tell you who got the best grade or who decided it was a good life choice to just not turn in any assignments all semester despite the fact that they sat in the class every day and seemed to be immune to being chased down in the halls. I can tell you what all their assignments were, and I can show parents that their child did a lot of work in my class.
But what good is that to the student's future education? How does this form of assessment show me exactly what every student knows? Just as importantly, how does this help me become a better teacher? What it really shows me is who turned in their work, who didn't forget about the vocabulary quizzes, and who was awake when I explained how to do the assignments. It tells me next to nothing about whether or not the students learned.
This terrifying experience of reflecting on my grade book has shown me three major flaws in the way I, and the majority of the educational world, use grade books.
Flaw #1: It is not skill-focused.
Before you assume I'm going to break into some Common Core worship ceremony, let me be clear. While I think the Common Core is doing some good things, for Language Arts especially, it is not the answer to this problem. The Common Core gives a broad overview of what should be taught at each grade level, but assessment needs to be even more focused than that.
A score on an essay tells me a little bit about the students writing skill. I'll admit that, but what do I tell the student who wants to know how to write a better essay? "Well, judging by this overall score, you just need to be better. Overall. As a writer. And maybe as a person." I know there's the six traits grading rubric. I use it, but I still think there's a better way.
Let me explain my idea using Hypothetical Student X. We'll call them HSX for short because I don't feel like copying and pasting.
With the traditional grading system, HSX gets a B on their paper. They get the rubric, but let's be honest, they don't look at it at all. The only thing that matters is the grade at the top of the paper.
Now let's try it again with a skill-based assessment. HSX gets their paper back, and on their grading sheet it says (and keep in mind that I'm still at the brainstorming stage with this, so I don't know exactly what categories I'll be looking for in their writing):
Opening that interests the reader and introduces the purpose of the paper: 3
Main paragraphs that are focused on one idea relevant to the topic: 3
Paragraphs are tied together with smooth, natural sounding transitions: 2
Closing sounds natural and enhances the essay without being repetitive: 4
It is more informative, and it allows them to see where they need to grow, which ties in perfectly to my next point.
Flaw #2: It is not growth-focused.
Imagine taking your driver's test to get your license. You're all sweaty and nervous. The driving evaluator gets in the car and starts barking commands at you that don't make any sense (like backing around a corner...which is technically illegal to do on a street). Somehow, despite the intensity of the evaluator, you drive beautifully, not making a single mistake. When you get back, your driver gives you a list of all the things you did wrong since you began driving with your parents six months ago, and tells you, "You would have passed, but all those mistakes when you learned to drive show me that you aren't a good driver."
If you were a rational person, you would probably kick your evaluator in the shin and tell them they're an idiot. Yet that's how our grading system is currently, and that's how it's always been. "You failed your first essay because it's only three weeks into the school year and I haven't taught you most of the skills yet? That's rough. Good luck digging yourself out of that hole all semester." No wonder students are so disheartened when it comes to writing. We're setting them up to be failures from the beginning.
(NOTE: This is where it gets very Language Arts specific. I recognize that other content areas innately have a more logical sequence (you must know A to begin to learn B) to the curriculum. Language Arts focuses a lot on mastering the skills of writing, which requires repetition and attempting the same assessment over and over again.)
How do we do it differently? Can you grade based on growth? My answer right now is yes, I think. I have to say "I think" because I recognize that this is a tricky concept. However, here's my idea. Every time I grade a paper, I will use the same rubric as above (the four different categories - or whatever I settle on), and their score changes.
In the above example, HSX knows that transitions are their weak spot. For the next paper, their goal will be to improve that score. However, if their conclusion score suddenly slips back down to a three, we can examine why. Whether their score goes up or down, this makes bad grades a method for closer examination and further learning. If HSX gets a 4 on their opening for their next paper, they can examine why that score improved. Learning is growing. They should be synonymous, and sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.
Flaw #3: It is not useful to the next teacher.
One of the biggest problems I see in Language Arts especially, is the fact that we are required to cover the whole spectrum every year. Now, I know the Common Core has the standards broken down for different grade levels, but it stills span all types of reading and writing, not to mention speaking, listening, and language standards. This often creates the feeling that we need to cover everything all over again each year, and it ends up being surface-level instruction because we try to cover so much.
I would love to be able to pass on my grade book and say, "This is what these students know how to do, and here are the things they need to work on." If we truly believe that assessment should inform teaching, it can't just be contained in a single classroom. That information needs to help the student throughout their educational career; it needs to help create aligned curriculum and instruction from year to year.
I could pass along my grade book now, but all it would really do is inform the next teacher who the "good" students are, and who are the ones to "look out for." Imagine the benefit in having a list of skills and a record of which of those skills a students doesn't know, sort of knows, or knows really well. Suddenly, the teacher knows that they don't have to spend all their energy on one topic that the students know really well, and instead they can focus their energy on the spots where the class, the small group, the student needs help.
Conclusion:
These are not original thoughts. Numerous educators and authors have been writing about these ideas for a while. I just wanted to clarify it for myself. For more information, see the articles below.
Here are some of the articles that have informed my thinking:
"How Grading Reform Changed Our School" (Erickson)
"Reporting Student Learning" (O'Connor & Wormeli)
"Seven Reasons for Standards-based Grading" (Scriffiny)
"Five Obstacles to Grading Reform" (Guskey)
Comments
Post a Comment