Equitable and Transparent Grading Reform

Intent

To reform the previous Block Grading System, a norm-referenced approach, into a system that promotes transparency and cultivates a more inclusive, equitable learning environment by reducing competition and encouraging a growth mindset.

Problem

The Block Grading System, designed to ensure consistent grades across sections and semesters in the sequence of Calculus courses, used a common final exam with a curve to maintain average final exam letter grade near departmental benchmarks. However, concerns arose, including lower benchmark averages for lower-numbered courses disadvantaging minority students, inconsistent experiences across sections, stress from unclear grades until the final exam, increased competition due to norm-referenced grading, decreasing sense-of-belonging and perceptions of grades being too low, and discouraging further STEM studies.

Solution

The key grading and assessment changes being implemented by the source to make the grading system more inclusive, equitable, and supportive of student growth, while reducing competition and fostering a sense of belonging, particularly for students from historically underrepresented groups in STEM.

• Mandatory Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grading for certain courses with no letter grades and therefore eliminating curving of grades along with removal of midterm and final exams.
• Increasing transparency in grading expectations and computation, which include explicit and binding weighting systems to all assessment categories, and decrease the impact of the final exam.
• Efforts to reduce disparities in student experiences across sections. For example, the same faculty teaches two sections to make the student experience more consistent.
• Shifting from high-stakes assessments toward formative and mastery-based grading, with a greater emphasis on student effort.
• Experimenting with different grading options (e.g., offering students a choice between traditional grading or alternative grading systems with less emphasis on exams).
• Continuing efforts to standardize in-class exams across sections to ensure more consistent experiences for students.
• Reformatting class sizes and structures, such as creating a large lecture with smaller sections, to improve consistency in student experiences.
• Participating in equity-focused initiatives, for example, joining an NSF-funded project to implement and investigate equity-focused changes in introductory math courses.

Applicability

The grading and assessment changes described work best in large multi-section courses with diverse student populations, such as introductory multi-section Calculus sequence courses.

It can also be implemented in STEM gatekeeping courses, where grading can impact students’ decisions to continue their studies. For example, a mastery-based system can reduce dropout rates and stress.

Tradeoffs to consider:

Administrative and Logistical Complexity: Implementing mastery grading or eliminating curves may require substantial restructuring of assessment methods, additional faculty training, and increased coordination across sections.

Increased Faculty Workload: Mastery grading and formative assessments may require more time from instructors for individualized feedback and designing multiple assessment opportunities.

Scaling Challenges: These reforms may be easier to implement in smaller classes but harder to scale effectively in very large courses with limited instructional resources.

How to Implement

Implementing the described grading policy changes in a large, multi-section course, such as a Calculus sequence, requires a structured, step-by-step approach with collaboration from instructors, administrators, and teaching assistants.

The process, as noted by the source, is ongoing and incremental. Changes should be piloted gradually in a few sections or course levels (e.g., Calculus I), particularly in courses where students traditionally encounter more difficulties. Engaging instructors, teaching assistants, and students early on to gather real-time feedback about the impact of the practice will help refine the system before expanding it further.

See Also

List any other related plays here as a bullet list of chapter links. Then remove this text.

Source

Source: Andrew A. Cooper (2020) Techniques Grading: Mastery Grading for Proofs Courses, PRIMUS, 30:8-10, 1071-1086, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2020.1733151

Described by: Debarati Basu, (basud@erau.edu)

References

Insert references to publications or web pages describing, evaluating, or sharing experiences with this technique. Then remove this text.

Community Discussion

Community members are free to comment on, ask questions about, share experiences, or otherwise contribute to knowledge about this play by posting comments below. See Chapter 33. Join Our Discussions for details.

• Insert a comment here