Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
A Statement About Grades
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
8 thoughts on “A Statement About Grades”
I can’t grow a beard, but I can trip over leg hairs if necessary! 😉
We are being introduced to a new grading system here in Indana that changes from a 100% scale to a 12 point scale, 12 being the highest. This is no problem, I can make up grades, the problem is that we are now going to have to change our curriculum to reflect 80% summative assessment and 20% formative assessment. My assessment in the classroom works just opposite to that. How can I show numerical evidence of students meeting the standard when we all know that learning a language is unconscious? I have to prepare this for next year. I am open to suggestions that will keep me true to TPRS, make students and parents “see” progress in their student AND show the output that the state wants. 80%! Are you kidding me? Really? Languages should be exempt. Feedback is appreciated. I need help on this.
Oh this really fries me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 80 % summative?!!! And what definition are they “using” for summative?? In my district only midterms and finals are considered summative exams. That would be 80% of their grade based on two tests. ¡Tontería!
Weekly quizzes, which primarily focus on one skill: reading, writing, or listening, would fall into the 20 % along with hw, projects or whatever else the district requires . Egads!!
Talk about teaching to the test. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
If I had to adapt to this system, and if someone were asking to look at my system and how I implemented it, here’s what I would do: I would label 3 out of 4 quizzes as summative and make sure that there were structures that were culled from earlier in the year on those quizzes and that two of the three skills were addressed. Any district-required project that could be graded with a rubric would also be considered summative. I would only count homework or quizzes on a small target group of structures as formative.
The challenge will be if you must align your assessment with others in the department. Let us know how it goes!!
with love,
Laurie
80% is high.
Here’s what I do (50%+ summative mandatory):
M-F as per Blaine’s schedule/Ben’s schedule
Monday – active participation grade for the day (summative)
Tuesday – story and story quiz T/F (summative)
Wednesday – Reading day (formative)
Thursday – FVR (Reading Log – summative) and then continue Reading day, with questions/drawing/synopsis (summative)
Friday – Free Write (formative)
I tried to set up the formative and summative categories as they happen in class. If there is no further action/learning in that modality with that story, the activity became summative for me. Since the big push early in the week is the story and auditory prep. for reading, it seemed alright to have the story quizzes become very important in nature (summative). The participation and Reading Logs (I read and watch them during FVR so that I know who is reading) become summative for each week/that story as well.
That was ok with me, as the overall ability to learn the language are in those activities. The students who don’t read, learn less over the year. It feels reasonable to me in the scheme of things. Better than the 60-70 point tests alternating with vocabulary quizzes every Friday that used to be used.
Footnote: I have very few failures. I am an additive grader rather than subtractive. There is no perfect grading system, but this felt reasonable to me. at least for now.
If there is an excused absence for that day, I mark ‘Exempt’ for the grade. I have increased the FVR frequency third trimester.
$.02
Shannon
Thank you for the breakdown! It’s really helpful. On Monday, how does that count as summative if there isn’t “hard evidence” of the assessment? Also, we will not be able to use participation as part of the grade. It has to remain separate as does behavior. The part that makes sense in this system is the idea that we are taking into consideration “growth” of ability in the student. Thank you Shannon for your input!
Libby, this is precisely why Standards-Based Grading using the Three Modes of Communication is important.
Here is what the New Jersey State Department of Education says about Interpersonal Communication:
The Interpersonal Mode is characterized by active negotiation of meaning among individuals. Participants observe and monitor one another to see how their meanings and intentions are being communicated. Adjustments and clarifications can be made accordingly. As a result, there is a higher probability of ultimately achieving the goal of successful communication in this mode than in the other two modes.
The California Standards put it this way:
Real-world communication occurs in a variety of ways. It may be interpersonal in which culturally appropriate listening, reading, viewing, speaking, signing, and writing occur as a shared activity among language users.
As you interact with students, check to see if they are fulfilling the requirements of Interpersonal Communication. It isn’t “participation grade”, it’s an academic grade based on demonstrated performance in the areas of culturally appropriate listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing and signing. Are they actively negotiating meaning in the target language, or are they passive or even working against the negotiation of meaning? Are they observing and monitoring the teacher (not just each other) for understanding in the target language? Are they indicating the need for clarification and adjustments? Do they attempt to participate in a genuine conversation and interaction in the target language – or do they speak in their native language?
I cannot emphasize it enough: this is not the traditional “participation grade”; it is an academically rigorous assessment based on the emphasis in the Standards on the Three Modes of Communication.
…I cannot emphasize it enough: this is not the traditional “participation grade”; it is an academically rigorous assessment based on the emphasis in the Standards on the Three Modes of Communication….
This needs to be kept in mind and restated here as much as possible. I can’t believe we’ve made it one full year on this discussion and Robert still has to remind us to avoid equating the participation grade tar baby with the fact that we, much more than two dimensional grammar teachers, teach academic language that aligns with standards in a way that summative grammar tests, etc. cannot, and never will be able to. Thank you, Robert, for looking at the wording in those two states, as well. They reveal the facts on this point.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Robert! This wording is exactly what I will use next year. Fabulous!
Add a bunch of quizzes up. Turn your formative quizzes into a big ass summative number. Who will know? Who will care?