SBG-ish

One of the great things about being on Twitter and participating in some of the chats is how it pushes me to write more. One of the #slowmathchat questions this week was to tag some of your favorite people on Twitter and why.

One of the people I tagged was Professor Jon Hasenbank from Grand Valley State University, because of his Standards Based Grading material. He asked how I've made it mine, and how I've made it better. I'm not totally happy with it right now, but I think it's benefited my students in several ways.

The most helpful thing I have taken from his blog posts about SBG is the rubric. I think the descriptors are very clear, yet leave enough room for interpretation. I also love the right column of the rubric, which gives students "next steps" they should take if they want to move up.

My biggest use of the rubric has been as a formative assessment tool. I'll have students rate themselves after doing a practice quiz, entrance or exit slip, homework assignment, etc. I need to get a little more consistent, as students have trouble with both rating themselves accurately and at following through with the "next steps." I add my rating, too, so students can at least think about how I might see it differently than them. I also try to give examples of what work at certain levels looks like, but again, I could use more consistency.

I teach Algebra 2 Honors on my own, so I've been able to use it more expansively there. Our school still uses percentage grading, so I've come up with a few ways to make it work in a percentage system.

First, I determine whether the assessment is a 4-level or 5-level assessment. Usually something more procedural fluency based would have 4 levels, and something where either more application, flexibility, or conceptual understanding is required would have 5 levels.

Our school uses 90-80-70-60, so I use 0 percent for Level X, 30 percent for Level 1, 60 percent for Level 2, 80 percent for Level 3, 94 or 100 percent for Level 4, and 100 percent for Level 5.

I can use it to grade an assessment holistically. If the assessment is small enough, I will put the rubric directly on the assessment and underline reasons why the student got the rating that she did.

Sometimes, I use an average of individual problems, along with considering the lowest level rating overall, to convert it to a percentage.

Or, sometimes I label problems with level scores, so if a student gets the Level 3 questions, he gets an 80 percent, and then higher scores based on performance on Level 4 or Level 5 questions. Evidence from Level 4 or Level 5 questions could replace the Level 3 question.

As far as standards, I use the Common Core Standards, and about 50 points per standard. Based on how small or large the standard is, this can be either weighted higher or lower, or combined with other standards. I score standards individually, even when I combine scores into a larger grade in the gradebook. Our school uses an 80 percent cap for re-tests, so I let them bank higher scores on standards, and re-take any score falling below Level 3, or 80 percent.

In Algebra 2 Honors especially, I am very generous, (to a fault sometimes I worry) with chances for revision. I most often let students have more time to finish an assessment if they need it. I'm very explicit about when I don't do this, and often, students are okay with it because I am explicit about it and explain why. Sometimes, the fact is, you just need to study it and not make excuses. Life's like that sometimes.

Benefits:

The attitude in my classes where I've used it more expansively have been better. It's also allowed me to at least open some conversations about traditional grading practice with other colleagues. I think it helps promote the idea that you're expected to keep trying to improve.

Drawbacks:

I feel like it would work better full on rather than square-peg-round-holed into another grading system. I just don't feel confident in the infrastructure in my school to do it. Students know how to play the game, and I have to challenge that reality, but still acknowledge that it exists.

I feel like the regular kids need it more than the honors kids, but it's difficult when the expectation is that people teaching the same course should be doing things the same way.

I feel like kids take advantage of when I am generous with revisions in a bad way. It's an excuse or a safety net not to work hard. Again, I've made it very clear that sometimes I will not do it. But that they take advantage of opportunity for revision at least shows they care a little.

As I said, it's not a perfect system, but I think there are many aspects of it that have been helpful. As far as my next steps, I am really intrigued by Jon's use of indicators, and would like to try to incorporate it into a unit by the end of the year.