Joint Session on Holistic Grading
description
Transcript of Joint Session on Holistic Grading
FDW
Joint Session onHolistic Grading
LTC Brian J. Lunday05JUL12
FDW
Joint Session onHolistic Grading
LTC Brian J. Lunday05JUL12
FDW
Joint Session onHolistic Grading
COL Alex Heidenberg05JUL12
FDW Common Assessment Mechanisms
• Course-wide– WPRs (Exams)– TEEs (Finals)– Projects– Course-specific topical
exams (FCE, FDE, FIE…)
• Instructor-specific– Quizzes– Homework– Presentations– Class preparation– Subjective grade*
• 10% of instructor points• Think twice before doing this at all.
Are you assessing understanding or rewarding extroversion (or mimicry)?
Slide 4
Graded Event PointsInstructor Points 150FDE 60WPRs (3) 390Project 100CCE 50TEE 250Total 1000
Sample pointallocation (MA104)
FDW
What are the purposes for grading student work?
FDW
What is holistic grading?
Determination of the overall quality of a piece of work or an endeavor by considering various aspects or components of the work without marking or tallying them.
Education.com
What are the advantages and disadvantages of holistic grading
FDW
7
Discussion• What are some advantages to holistic grading?
– Analytic rubrics can be too prescriptive (in either direction)
– Allows time to focus on feedback/comments (quick)
• What are some disadvantages to holistic grading?– Accepts a certain level of imprecision
• What are some caveats…?– Must communicate standards– Calibration still necessary
FDW
8
Accuracy vs. Precision• What is the difference between accuracy and
precision?
• What does this mean with respect to grading?
FDW
FDW
10
Math Department Grading Guidelines
SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION LETTER GRADE NUMERICAL GRADE QUALITY POINT
Beyond expectations of the course A+ 4.33
Dominates the material A 4
Mastery A- 3.67
Excellent performance B+ 3.33
Good understanding B 3
Proficient; Aptitude for the subject B- 2.67
Can build upon this foundation C+ 2.33
Passing; Proficient now (short range) C 2
Short-range understanding C- 1.67Marginal performance with some
elementary understanding D 1
Failing; Definitely failed to demonstrate understanding F 0
FDW
11
You still need a rubric…
FDW
12
A rubric
• A scoring guide to evaluate a student’s performance based on established criteria.
• Chocolate Chip Cookie Rubric– Chips– Texture– Color– Taste– Flavor
FDW
13
A rubric
4- DeliciousChip in every bite, chewy, golden brown, rich, creamy, high-fat flavor
3 – Good75% bites have chips, chewy in the middle, but crisp on edges, a little too brown or undercooked
Store bought quality, medium fat content2 – Needs Improvement
50% bites have chips, too crispy or too under cooked, tasteless, low-fat content
1- PoorToo few chips, texture resembles dog biscuit, burned, chalky non-fat contents
FDW
14
A rubric in the making
• Focused holistic grading– Work exceeds standard, meets the required standard, – falls just short of the standard, does not meet the standard
• Analytic holistic grading– Divided by performance area– Correctness, organization, style, substance
• Major , Minor Errors
FDW
15
Problem-specific Holistic RubricMA104 WPR#3, 2012
Description For this problem Grade PointsExceeds course expectations (no mistakes)
Correct answer w/supporting work & correct units of measurement. A+ 30
Dominates the material Minor calculation/unit error. A 28
Good understanding Finds critical point but doesn’t classify it; answers final question correctly. B 25
Passing; proficient now Finds critical point. C 22
Marginal performance Takes first-partial derivatives correctly. D 20
Failing; definitely failed to demonstrate understanding
Struggles with the right concept. High F 18
No concepts correct, despite related work Low F 8
No work of value No value 0
Sample procedure within MA104• For A, B, or C-level work, instructor identifies the mistake(s) for the student• For D or F-level work, instructor also refers the student to the text for a similar problem, such as
“See Example #4, pg. 948.” in order to help the cadet remediate conceptual or procedural gaps.
Caveat• Cadets often solve (or approximate solutions to) problems in unexpected and completely valid ways!
Keep your eyes (and your mind) open!!
FDW
16
Questions?
* Caution: don’t confuse humor with beliefs.
FDWGeneric Holistic Rubric
USAFA Math Department, 2009
5 4 3 2 1
Outstanding (“A”) Good (“B”) Average (“C”) Deficient (“D”) Failing (“F”)
Well-executed, well-communicated, essentially correct
Generally well-executed but may have minor communication flaws or some math errors
Adequately executed but with some non-trivial errors or inconsistent communication
Flawed execution possibly with non-trivial errors or poor communication
Unsatisfactory execution and/or communication with fundamental errors
Well-executed• Applies a strategy that makes
sense for the given question• Applies appropriate
mathematical concepts and processes
• Does not introduce superfluous material
• Technology is used appropriately
• Work is logical and includes a sanity check of the final answer
Well-communicated• Readable: Work stands alone (retains
context) and is neat and professional in appearance
• Organized: Provides a clear logical flow form beginning to end
• Provides sufficient supporting detail and explanation throughout
• Work is free from grammatical errors• Mathematical composition, terminology,
and notation is correct• Results and/or conclusions are clearly
annotated
Essentially Correct• Precision: Performs
mathematical operations correctly and derives the correct results
• Uses an appropriate degree of accuracy
• Draws correct inferences from graphical or numerical data
• Any computational or algebraic errors are trivial and isolated
• Correct units are used
Slide 17