Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 46b6bb-ZjYzN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success

Description:

Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success Julie Hall & Stephen Westmoreland * * * Some experts say that teachers should never use team grades ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:46
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: Jul652
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Targeted Strategies in Grading: A Blueprint for Student Success


1
Targeted Strategies in Grading A Blueprint for
Student Success
  • Julie Hall
  • Stephen Westmoreland

2
Grading and Marking
  • When it comes to determining grades, how many of
    you allow your teachers to decide the way their
    students are to be graded?
  • Can you tell me the purpose or meaning of the
    grades given in every classroom of your school?

3
Purpose of Grading
  • Accountability
  • Achievement
  • Comparison
  • Effort
  • Eligibility
  • Instructional Planning
  • Motivation
  • Program Effectiveness
  • Progress
  • Provide Feedback

(Salend Duhaney, 2002)
4
Grading Challenges
  • Purpose of Grades
  • Student Learning
  • Equitable Grades
  • Communication
  • Time

5
What if we said we could help?
  1. Self-Grading
  2. Team Grading
  3. Personalized Grading Plans

6
On-Site Staff Development
  • One-day, six-hour workshop
  • Three 2 ½ hour sessions held after school

7
Who can benefit from this workshop?
  • Classroom Teachers (3rd 12th grades)
  • Special Education Teachers
  • School Administrators

8
1. Self-Grading What is it?
  • It is a simple concept in which students use
    different colored pens to correct and/or score
    their own work under the teachers guidance.

9
Self-Grading Why try it?
  • How often do teachers spend hours upon hours
    grading and writing comments on students papers,
    just to have them wadded up and put in to a book
    bag never to be looked at again?
  • Self-Grading will
  • increase student motivation
  • decrease teacher grading time
  • force students to think critically
  • give students immediate feedback
  • reduce student-teacher conflicts over grades
  • allow students to comprehend their mistakes

10
Self-Grading What does research say?
  • Self-graded students reported increases in not
    only motivation and responsibility for learning,
    but also in better understanding the material
    (Strong, Davis, Hawks, 2004).
  • Davis Rand (2001) said after a post-course
    evaluation that ninety-four percent of the
    self-graded class members rated their
    satisfaction level as very or quite
    satisfied, as opposed to seventy-one percent of
    the instructor-graded class.
  • The positive responses reported by students to
    self-grading noted the immediacy of feedback and
    the ability to comprehend mistakes made while
    comparing work to answer keys, while the
    instructor noted reductions in student anxiety
    and student-teacher conflicts over grades
    (Edwards, 2007).

11
Self-Grading What exactly will I learn?
  • How to
  • engage students in group discussions
  • create a color correcting system
  • conduct grading conferences
  • create detailed answer keys
  • implement self-evaluation

12
2. Team Grading What is it?
  • The process of students and teachers assigning a
    customized final product grade to each member of
    a cooperative learning group.

13
Team Grading Why try it?
  • In the past teachers have assigned one grade to
    the entire groupthey are essentially using a
    mean to describe a population.
  • Team Grading will
  • Decrease grading time
  • create equality in group grades
  • hold group members accountable
  • decrease grading conflict and confusion
  • allow teachers to use cooperative learning
    confidently

14
Team Grading What does research say?
  • Cheng Warren (2000) conducted a study that
    revealed peer assessment of group members
    contributions proved to be a realistic and
    reliable component when assigning group grades.
    It enhanced relationships between the students
    and promoted future professional skills needed.
  • Kinser (2007) states by using weighting schemes
    and contracts, students will benefit from group
    work by building confidence in teamwork, being
    empowered, becoming better negotiators, and
    learning how to effectively handle and balance
    weak team members.

15
Team Grading What exactly will I learn?
  • How to use
  • Individual Weighting Formula
  • Team-Forming Contracts Team-Weighting Contract
  • Team Process Assessment Tool

16
3. Personalized Grading Plans What is it?
  • A grading plan that is developed by a team
    comprised of the general educator, special
    educator, EC student and his parents. The plan is
    created specifically for assigning grades to an
    exceptional student who is in a regular education
    classroom.

17
Personalized Grading Plan Why try it?
  • Many students with disabilities receive
    inaccurate and unfair grades that provide little
    meaningful information about their achievement.
  • PGPs will
  • force collaboration
  • clarify the purpose of grades
  • monitor student achievement
  • implement grading adaptations that work
  • pinpoint specific expectations in all subject
    matter
  • allow students to be exposed to the rigor of the
    regular classroom curriculum

18
Personalized Grading Plan What does research
say?
  • Research shows that 60-70 of students with a
    learning disability pass their mainstream classes
    but received below a C- grade average (Donahoe
    Zigmond, 1990).
  • Assigning grades to exceptional students ought
    and should be a collaborative process (Salend
    Dunhaney, 2002).
  • The purpose of creating PGPs is not to make it
    easier for students to get higher grades, but to
    produce accurate, meaningful, and fair grades
    (Munk Bursuck, 2003).
  • Approximately 70 of students in research
    projects have receive higher report card grades
    when their schools used PGP (Munk Bursuck,
    2003).

19
Personalized Grading Plan What exactly will I
learn?
  • How to
  • collaborate with teachers, students, and parents
    when developing a Personalized Grading Plan (PGP)
  • implement grading adaptations that work
  • base part of grades on product, process, and
    progress
  • incorporate Individual Education Plan (IEP)
    objectives into students grades

20
Workshop Benefits
  • Teachers will
  • Reduce grading time
  • Improve student learning
  • Assign more equitable grades
  • Communicate achievement more clearly
  • Decrease parental and student confusion

21
References
  • Cheng, W. Warren, M. (2000). Making a
    difference Using peers to assess individual
    students contributions to a group project.
    Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 243-255.
    Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Education
    Research Complete database.
  • Davis, J., Rand, D. (2001). Self-grading versus
    instructor grading. Journal of Educational
    Research, 73(4), 207-217. Retrieved November 15,
    2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
  • Donahoe, K., Zigmond, N. (1990). Academic
    grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled
    students and low-achieving peers.
    Exceptionality, 1, 17-27. Retrieved November 14,
    2009, from Education Research Complete database.
  • Edwards, N. (2007). Student self-grading in
    social statistics. College Teaching, 55(2),
    72-76. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from
    Education Research Complete database.

22
References
  • Kinser, A. (2007). Using contracts to determine
    individual grades in team projects. Decision
    Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1),
    207-221. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from
    Education Research Complete database.
  • Munk, D. D., Bursuck, W. D. (2003). Grading
    students with disabilities. Educational
    Leadership, 61(2) 38-43. Retrieved November 14,
    2009, from Education Research Complete database.
  • Salend, S. J., Duhaney, L. M. G. (2002).
    Grading students in inclusive settings. Council
    for Exceptional Children, 34(3), 8-15. Retrieved
    November 14, 2009 from Education Research
    Complete database.
  • Strong, B., Davis, M., Hawks, V. (2004).
    Self-grading in large general education classes.
    College Teaching, 52(2), 52-57. Retrieved
    November 15, 2009, from Education Research
    Complete database.
About PowerShow.com