User talk:Phil the Philomath/Contract grading: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Contract grading
-Contents
-	Overview
-	Labor-based contract grading
-	Implementation
-The problem with percentage based grading [NEW TAB]
-	Student reaction
-	Advantages
-	Disadvantages
-	References
-'''Overview[edit]'''
-In traditional grading, educators determine assignments, exams, and projects before the course begins. Students are expected to follow the syllabus and complete the tasks presented. The grade the student receives is a reflection of how well they completed the pre-determined syllabus. In this system, students are expected to follow a path that reflects the syllabus.
-However, the contract grading system allows each student to make his or her own path for the class, which allows students to pick and choose which assignments or projects they want to complete. Grades are assigned on the basis of the agreement between the student and the professor. With contract grading, students have a say in their curriculum, as well as how their grade is ultimately assessed. For some students this grading system requires a more active role.[1]
-Although the student decides what is to be accomplished throughout the course, similar to a contract, both the student and professor must come to an agreement. After students turn in their initial contract or proposal, the teacher may make revisions or require some changes be made before a final agreement is made. Similar to a contract, a contract grade must also be signed by both parties, confirming the agreement for a particular grade. However, the contract grading system is not as binding as a business contract. The student may re-submit the contract mid-semester provided the professor approves the changes.[2]
-'''Labor-based contract grading[edit]'''
-In 1993, Peter Elbow problematized traditional writing assessment by suggesting a shift in what to assess. When a teacher uses a letter, number, grid, symbol, or another kind of ranking system to reply to a student's writing assignment, they are evaluating according to a hypothetically unilateral standard of writing. A standard to which writing is measured, however, is subjective. In his article published in the journal College English, Elbow suggests that writing assessment be based on effort rather than on a subjective evaluation aligned with a standard.[3] Asao Inoue has contributed to the literature on this topic, especially in the context of the writing classroom. He emphasizes a version of contract grading called labor-based contract grading as practice of antiracist writing assessment.[4][5] This form of grading is connected to the effort a students puts forth rather than a "standard" form of writing.[4]
-'''Implementation[edit]'''
-Students, in addition to choosing the grade they desire and how many assignments they will complete, must also commit themselves to the completion of their contract. Once the student determines the number of works he or she chooses to complete, contracts are then signed and agreed upon. There is a grace period for changing of contracts, but it is ultimately up to the professor to accept or to reject any proposals. The student then has the responsibility to complete and turn in the contracted assignments, with a few deadlines to meet.
-'''The Problem with percentage based grading[edit]'''
-In 1912-1913, Daniel Starch and Edward Charles Elliott conducted a study on the unreliability of academic grading curriculum. They found that there were no significant increase in learning in a grading system based on absolute standards.[9] To test whether percentage based grading could truly encapsulate the accuracy of a student's performance they had high school teachers from different institutions grade sets of two student papers per subject. In their case study, they had 147 high school English teachers grade two identical English papers. The difference in score for the first paper ranged from 64% to 98% and the second ranged from 50% to 97%. It was made clear to Starch and Elliott that every instructor has their own difference in view in regards to academic performance. [10] The same result occurred with mathematics, two student papers were sent to 128 high school math instructors. Scores for one paper ranged from 28% to 95%. These scores were the results of whether an instructor gave credit for showing work or graded solely based on the answer the student chose. [11] Judging by the fact that each instructor has their own view on grading, it would be unfair to the students who could potentially bring out a grade A level assignment but have an instructor who views it as C level.
-'''Student reaction[edit]'''
-A study published in 1990 received opinions about the contract grading system from 51 undergraduate education majors and 28 graduate students majoring in education at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada. Students at both education levels reacted to the contract grading system in a positive manner. They agreed that the grading system and assignments were made clear from the beginning, that the system was appropriate, and that grades were assigned fairly. When asked to rank the effectiveness and importance of the various aspects of contract grading, students reported that the key elements were the control they felt they had by being able to determine their grades, the clearly stated expectations for performance in the course, criterion referencing of assignments, and the mastery approach to learning.[6]
-'''Advantages[edit]'''
-Contract grading can enable the student to progress at his or her own pace; additionally, contract grading emphasizes learning and reduces grade competition by shifting student and teacher attention away from the end result of an assignment or course and towards the processes or habits that necessarily result in academic and intellectual growth.[7] Systems of this style also encourage a cooperative learning process. By requiring instructor and student to work jointly, emphasis is added on the desires of the student and the goals he or she wishes to accomplish. According to Bucknell University, contract grading "facilitates the development of a partnership learning environment in which students are likely to retain more information, make better use of information, and be more highly motivated to learn than in teacher-directed learning environments." Due to the freedom allowed by the system, time management skills are acquired and exercised.
-'''Disadvantages[edit]'''
-Contract grading could be viewed as threatening to students who have relied upon structured grading processes. Increased responsibility may cause anxiety for students expecting more common approaches. In addition to concerns for the individual student, contract grading is largely dependent upon implementation by the instructor. An instructor may, through this grading system, cause students to take on greater responsibility for learning and success while simultaneously restricting freedom. Contract grading systems are susceptible to paternalism on the part of the instructor. Whereas the students take on the responsibility of choosing assignments, they may not also actively determine expectations.[8]
-'''References[edit]'''
-^ "Using Learning Contracts in the College Classroom". Michigan State University. 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2007.
-^ "Alternative to Traditional Grading". Kansas State University. n.d. Archived from the original on May 29, 2007. Retrieved September 28, 2007.
-^ Elbow, Peter (January 1994). "Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment". College English. 55: 187–206.
-^ Jump up to: a b Inoue, Asao. "Labor-Based Grading Contracts - The WAC Clearinghouse". wac.colostate.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-16.
-^ Inoue, Asao B. (2015). Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press. ISBN 9781642150698.
-^ "Student Reaction to Contract Grading". N/A. November 2, 1990. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
-^ Davis, John Q. "Contract Grading in the Realm of Ends and Means." Academia.edu, 2019, p. 4.
-^ Hugh Taylor (November 1980). "Contract Grading". National Institute of Education. Retrieved March 15, 2012.
-^Starch,D.and Elliott,E.C. Reliability of grading high school working English. School Review, 1912,20, 42-457.
-^Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1912). Reliability of the grading of high school work in English. School Review, 20, 442-457.
-^Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1913). Reliability of the grading of high school work in mathematics. School Review, 21, 254-259.

Revision as of 21:48, 19 April 2021