Activity 4.1
Weighty Questions

---

Purposes:

1. To develop sound grading practices that reflect valued student learning targets
2. To explore practical examples of how to incorporate alternative assessment information into report card grades
3. To examine current testing and grading practices in relation to desired outcomes for students

Uses:

This activity is at an advanced level. It should probably follow a series of activities that have familiarized participants with alternative assessment. It assumes that they will be familiar with a variety of alternative assessments (Chapter 3 text), the idea of matching assessments to valued student learning targets (Chapter 1 text and Activities 1.2—Clear Targets and 1.7—Target Method Match), and how assessment fits into standards-based education (Chapter 1 text or Activities 1.1—Changing Assessment Practices, 1.6—A Comparison of Multiple-Choice and Performance Assessment, or 1.12—Assessment Principles). The reading material in Chapter 4 could be distributed and read prior to this session. Activities 4.2—Putting Grading and Reporting Questions in Perspective or 4.3—Grading Jigsaw are also good stage setters.

Rationale:

Teachers may see the need for alternative assessments such as journals, portfolios, projects, etc., but have a difficult time envisioning how to make them fit with district demands that the assignment of grades be based on a percent system (e.g., 93 to 100%=A). This activity supports teachers in articulating the choices they have made in their current testing and grading processes and making decisions about what they would like to change.

Materials:

• Overhead projector, screen, blank transparencies, transparency pens

• Overhead A4.1,O1—Weighty Questions Purposes

• Handout A4.1,H1—What Student Learning Targets Do/Should Grades Assess?; Sample A.31—Hawaii Algebra Grading Process from Appendix A—Sampler; Chapter 4 text

  Time Required:

  90 minutes to 2 hours; extension requires an additional 60 minutes

  Facilitator's Notes:

  Basic Activity
  1. (2 minutes) Introduce the purposes of the activity, as needed, using Overhead A4.1,O1—Weighty Questions Purposes.

  2. (30 minutes) Review the kinds of decisions (outlined in Chapter 4) to be made in giving report card grades, perhaps using Sample A.31—Hawaii Algebra Grading Process (from Appendix A—Sampler) as an illustration.

  3. (10-20 minutes) Introduce the activity by telling participants that they will discuss the decisions about grading they have made. Pass out Handout A4.1,H1—What Student Learning Targets Do/Should Grades Assess? Ask participants to individually complete the first three columns for a course or subject area they teach, thinking about the current or last grading period. For example, a science teacher might list quizzes and tests under "assessment methods," indicate that the "knowledge/skills assessed" by the tests used were recall, conceptual understanding, and application, and record that this assessment method accounted for 60 percent of a student's report card grade. They might list projects as the next assessment method used, and under "knowledge/skills assessed" enter plan, research, synthesize, create a product, present information, develop conceptual understanding, and defend a point of view. They might say projects counted as 20 percent of the final grade. And so on.

  4. (15-30 minutes) After participants have had time to complete the information individually, ask them to share their responses in small groups. Each group should to try to come to some kind of consensus about the desired outcomes and weighting for the course/grade they teach. They should complete the last two columns to report out to the whole group. The reporting might prompt a discussion of whether or not teachers in a school should try to come to agreement about important student learning targets to be assessed in the grading process.

  5. (15-30 minutes) Finally, ask each group to refer to the pages in Chapter 4 describing how grades might be assigned (percent averaging, total point, standard-based, other options) and list the methods used by group members. The methods used could be other than those described in the chapter. Groups should report back to the whole group with discussions of any questions, helpful suggestions, etc.

  Extensions (60 minutes)

  1. As a follow-up activity, teachers could be asked to bring a test they have recently used and work in groups to list the kinds of student learning targets assessed by each item (e.g., recall, analysis, comparison, inference, evaluation). The point of this analysis would be to (a) find out if the tests actually do assess the student learning targets valued by faculty, and (b) to continue conversations among teachers in a school about what student learning targets are valued and how assessments might be brought more in line with these valued learning targets.

  2. Participants might also be asked to discuss:
     1. The extent to which they modify grades for student effort, generating a list of the pluses and minuses of doing so.

        It is desirable that the conclusion is that minuses outweigh the pluses because when the waters are muddied with "effort" (which tends to be assessed and defined in different ways by different teachers), we don't have a strong communication system about student achievement. Nor does promising "A's" and threatening "F's" motivate students. These notions are supported by current research and expert opinion (see the articles in Appendix C—Articles). At this point you could also ask teachers, "How else might we strengthen student motivation?"

     2. The extent to which they modify grades in consideration of student ability and the pluses and minuses of doing so.

        It is desirable that any modification of grades for "ability" be done in advance. Factoring in ability after the fact—after the work is done—has the great potential to backfire by doing harm to student self-concept and motivation. Other thoughts:

        • Base modifications on the learning targets to be achieved, not on lowering the "%'s" for students

        • Base modifications on past achievement, not ability, which we can only guess at.

        
        
        

        This document's URL is:

        Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: Assessment | People | Products & Publications | Topics

        © 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

        
        Email Webmaster
        Tel. 503.275.9500