Piecewise Grading Reform Year 1: Lab Specifications

• Joshua P. Veazey ^[1]
  1. [1] Grand Valley State University

     Grand Valley State University

     Charter Township of Allendale, Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: The Physics Teacher, ISSN 0031-921X, Vol. 62, Nº. 9, 2024, págs. 721-724
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Traditional, points-based grading systems make it challenging to communicate that learning is a complex process, and that mistakes are opportunities for growth. In fact, evidence suggests that students knowingly prioritize maximizing points over maximizing learning.1 Over the past several years, different forms of alternative grading have grown in popularity in higher education. Alternative grading can take the form of standards-based mastery grading,2,3 specifications grading,4,5 ungrading,6 or hybrids of these.7 While specifics within alternative grading systems vary among instructors, successful grading systems share certain features. Clark and Talbert describe the “four pillars” of alternative grading7: (1) clearly defined standards, (2) helpful feedback, (3) marks indicate progress, and (4) reassessment without penalty. Believing in the advantages of alternative grading systems is easier than implementing them. Much of the advice in published accounts of alternative grading systems suggests a significant investment of time. The wide scope of issues to consider in course design,8 not to mention the need to anticipate and address student resistance to unfamiliar expectations,9 could require preparation months before the class begins.