This Week on AGP
- Read 7 papers: [@carberry_etal_2016; @boesdorfer_etal_2018; @b.collins_etal_2019; @blackstone_oldmixon_2019; @tsoi_etal_2019 ; @carlisle_2020; @cilli-turner_etal_2020]
Selected Annotations
“A traditional exam structure is high-stakes: if a student does not demonstrate mastery of the content assessed on a given midterm, the student is usually stuck with that grade, regardless of whether or not the student eventually understands the relevant material.” (B. Collins et al., 2019, p. 3)
Link to original
“For example, if a student demonstrates most of the skills being tested, doing roughly B+ work overall, but is deficient in one type of question, I will often give a progressing and have them just rewrite that part of the quiz.” (Carlisle, 2020, p. 19)
Link to original
“However, if instructors and students view exams as only summative rather than potentially as both formative and summative, then the focus also shifts to completion of the work, doing the exam for the grade, rather than using it to identify strengths and weakness for continued learning.” (Boesdorfer et al., 2018, p. 1)
Link to original
“When large amounts of material are assessed at one time, it is difficult to ascertain whether students have mastered the learning outcomes for the course. The infamous cramming of material is a common result of these high-stakes tests, and studies have shown that retention and transfer of content knowledge can be adversely affected by these study strategies” (Tsoi et al., 2019, p. 5)
Link to original
“If a student determines inaccurately what is going to be assessed, then it is possible that the student will earn a bad grade—not because the student had a poor comprehension of the material, but because the assessment did not accurately measure the student’s mastery of the material that was actually learned.” (Tsoi et al., 2019, p. 5)
Link to original
“In general, Satisfactory should not be viewed as “minimally competent,” but rather as a mark of having achieved the assignment’s learning goals and specifications … . The final letter grade is not an assessment of your intelligence, your abilities, or your value as a person. Rather, the grade reflects what you demonstrated that you learned in the course: no more, no less.” (Blackstone and Oldmixon, 2019, p. 7)
Link to original
“To earn a C in one of our specifications-graded courses, a student is required to complete less work than those earning As and Bs, but the student must do that subset of work well and their work must demonstrate mastery of an important and clearly identifiable body of knowledge.” (Blackstone and Oldmixon, 2019, p. 3)
Link to original
“The intent was to eliminate the extraneous information and skills that were not fundamentally critical to a student’s success in the course. This task was difficult, as it forced instructors to let go of favorite topics and be honest about what were the fundamental milestones that are considered the hallmarks of success in chemistry.” (Tsoi et al., 2019, p. 9)
Link to original
Personal Reflections
Honestly, this reading session was a really insightful one. SO many good ideas, wonderful points, amazing conclusions, and beautiful reflections from instructors. I’ve only shared a glimpse of what 7 papers had to offer—there’s plenty more to come!
References
B. Collins, J., Harsy, A., Hart, J., Anne Haymaker, K., (Armstrong) Hoofnagle, A. M., Kuyper Janssen, M., Stewart Kelly, J., Tyler Mohr, Austin, & OShaughnessy, J. (2019). Mastery-Based Testing in Undergraduate Mathematics Courses. PRIMUS, 29(5), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2018.1488317
Blackstone, B., & Oldmixon, E. (2019). Specifications Grading in Political Science. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948
Boesdorfer, S. B., Baldwin, E., & Lieberum, K. A. (2018). Emphasizing Learning: Using Standards-Based Grading in a Large Nonmajors’ General Chemistry Survey Course. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), 1291–1300. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00251
Carberry, A., Siniawski, M., Atwood, S., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2016). Best Practices for Using Standards-based Grading in Engineering Courses. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 26379. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26379
Carlisle, S. (2020). Simple Specifications Grading. PRIMUS, 30(8–10), 926–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1695238
Cilli-Turner, E., Dunmyre, J., Mahoney, T., & Wiley, C. (2020). Mastery Grading: Build-A-Syllabus Workshop. PRIMUS, 30(8–10), 952–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1733152
Tsoi, M., Anzovino, M., Erickson, A., Forringer, E., Henary, E., Lively, A., Morton, M., Perell-Gerson, K. L., Perrine, S., Villanueva, O., Whitney, M., & Woodbridge, C. M. (2019). Variations in Implementation of Specifications Grading in STEM Courses. Georgia Journal of Science. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Variations-in-Implementation-of-Specifications-in-Tsoi-Anzovino/04575138d20e41f0b04a8e78dec70bcbae6dcd3d