S+Ivie

We talked about grading. maqny would like assessments only counting, but they also admitted they would not do all their homework. Many did say they would if it was smaller amounts and they had class time to do some. ||
 * S IvieLarge group || Small group || Individual ||
 * 2/26 7-9 pm || 3/3 4-6 pm || 2/26 20 minutes in 5 classes - 1 hour total.
 * 3/16 12-3 pm || 3/5 4-6 pm || 3/8 31-4 pm Regraded test (chem) using standards instead of point totals. With points, the class average was a 93%, which is pretty high, but good. When graded using the standards, i noticed most grades would be a little lower. It was not because the students did not know the material, but most students did all the required problems and didn't or couldn't do the advanced problems. The top students could, and would have an A either way. There wwere quite a few that went from A's to B's though, because they were only proficient when the rubric was used. This comes back tot he question, what is proficient, a C, B or an A. I think using rubric grading is good to help balance simple mistakes, but it also makes getting an A/ advanced harder. ||
 * || 3/7 2-4 pm || 3/14 I took many of my tests that are left for the year and tried to align the standards/benchmarks I was assessing on each test and aligning them to our essential maps. I really think this would be the most valuable tool to assess in the long run. Instead of a 80% grade for a student, I would have proficiency scores for the benchmarks. I could then enter a score on a spreadsheet that indicates the students proficiency for the essential standard. Some wouldbe repeated throughout the year. By the end of the year, I could then look at the deepth and breadth of the students knowledge and determine where the student fell according to our district map. Again, i would then have to determine if they were proficient, what grade does that mean, unless we got rid of grades as a school and just reported proficiency. ||
 * || 3/10 4-6 pm || 3/19 Mucho reflection and working on this wikispace. I am also doing some research of standards based grading on the internet. The PDP is technically ending, but between now and next year I will still be doing a lot of research and plan on going to rubric tests instead of point tests. I am also changing my weighting to favor summative assessment more, although i haven't determined the exact levels yet. ||
 * || 3/12 4-6 pm || various - I also spent other various times giving my input on the wikispace to questions asked for different chapters. i am usually the long one that is overkill and too long to read all the way through. ||

Final thoughts: I am not sure if I came away with answers from our PDP, or if I have more questions. I had planned on changing some things in my classes next year, and I think that this book has helped me with some ideas. I also believe that our discussions helped me to see all of the effects that might come from changes, and will help me balance different issues instead of going all out and possible overcorrecting problems to the point it creates just as harmful of effects by going to an opposite extreme.

One of the biggest questions that may still not have an answer, is what do grades mean. I do agree with the book that if it is standards only, then only assessments, summative, should matter for grades. Assessment here does not mean only written tests, but includes perfomance and alternative assessment methods for those who understand but might have difficulty with a pen and paper test. I also have switched from years ago when I believed that an assessment was a one time thing. if you weren't prepared and did poorly, that was your fault and it would affect your grade. I have now switched to where I believe that re-tests are ok because the student has to learnt he material, which is what we want. I do still have a concern that some will go into a test and not bother to study because they know they can fail it and re-take it later. I also think that the format and grading of tests changes when it is standards based. Instead of grading a test where every question is worth X points, I believe that tests have multiple questions checking for understanding of each standard. On recent physical science tests, I have broken the tests into the main benchmarks that the student should know from that unit, which can all be aligned to our science curriculum map. As an example, if one of the key concepts was identifying reaction type, I may have 10 reactions for them to identify. Under the old system, a student who misses 1 would have a 9 out of 10; or a 90% which would be a B. Of course, there were 9 other basic concepts on that assessment, but a simple mistake on each section could leave a student who really understood the material to a B easily. Instead, I graded by grouping all of the questions that fit into each concept. If a student knew 9 out of 10 reactions correctly, they are proficient in reaction type. A student who knew 2 of the four reactions is partially proficient. it is not that they don't know any of the types, maybe they are just confusing single and double displacement. Under this style of grading, a student can make a few simple mistakes, but still show they are proficient. This leads to the next question, if a student is proficient on all of the content, what grade should they get? is proficient a 3 out of 4, which basically means a C or average. I think that this is where having a good assessment that shows true understanding can really help teachers separate the C's from B's and A's. If a student shows some weakness, and only knows the "memorized" content, then yes, maybe they are only proficient and a C student. By having short answer, real world connections and higher level problems, you can judge if the student is merely proficient, or showing signs of truly understanding the material and being advanced. The other support for this idea, is that our curriculum maps are to be what EVERY student should know, not everything we teach in class. We should want all students to be proficient on these concepts, but we may teach much more beyond the essentials. Again, this is where we move from the essentials, and average student, to the advanced students. It does mean looking at each of my assessments and making sure all questions tie to the essential standards and that there are suffieicent questions(quality, not quantity) to judge if a sutdent is proficient or advanced. It is also a shift for the students, but most have said they like that they can make a simple mistake and not be penalized. Some are also honest and admit they are happy just learning the basics to be proficient. I will tell them before some material now, "this is harder and will be on the test as an advanced concept". This may be good and may be bad. Sometimes I think some will tune out because they know they don't HAVE to know it. At the same time, it may be beneficial because I can teach an advanced topic or differentiate for those who are ready, but those who do not understand the advanced topic know it is ok because it is not an essential concept that will hurt them if they don't know it. I think that would be bebneficial in the sense that they don't lose heart and feel like they are getting too far behind. they know it is an advanced concept that not everyone will understand.

Going back to my first point/ question, of what do grades mean, the previous thoughts are based on the assumption that standards are the only thing that matters. I was ready to goto assessments being 90% or 100% of grades when I first looked at this, but after our discussions, I believe I have backed off of this idea in some respects. One of the issues brought up was the idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. As I mentioned in one of the discussions, I believe chapter 6, I think that my chemistry students have the intrinsic motivation to do this. They will ask for extra problems to make sure they understand. They want to understand, not just know the answer. They are intrinsically motivated as a whole. My freshman are not at this level. Many of them will admit that if homework isn't graded, they won't do it. One of the ideas we came away with as a group is that I could start the freshman with a 50% test and 50% work grade weighting to teach them the importance of doing the work while still making it so you have to know enough to pass tests. Then as the juniors and seniors arrive in chemistry and physics, they are ready for a 90% assessment and 10% work weighting. Most of them are close to going to college, where it is usually 100% assessment, so they will actually be getting ready for college grading. I have also noticed a shift in how I view homework. I have always allowed some class time to start homework and get help, but I am noticing that I don't need as many problems as I may have used in the past. Since I am helping the chemistry students do a lot of the problems or checking their answers in class, it doesn't feel right using it in the grade. Of course they are all getting good grades on their work, but it is beneficial because they all know how to do it. I think this is good, but shows why assessment should be the basis for their grades. Plus, there are students who can do well on every test but don't do homework, so these students have grades that do not truly show their knowledge. Many students have stated that they would prefer an assessment only method for this reason. Hard work should be acknowledged too, because it can be just as, or more, valuable when one goes out into the work world. This could be shown by having separate grades on the report card, but what will count for scholarships and colleges? It would most likely be standards only. If we did average it in to their final grade, then it is no different than having separate categories and weights at the class level.