An important consideration as we evaluate lessons from teaching during the pandemic is to ask the difficult question of our unconscious (or even conscious) design of our courses. Are they fundamentally about “identifying the most qualified students” or “providing all students in the class a chance to maximize their learning”?
Many of our “cherished” approaches have been revealed to be more about identifying the most qualified students in an efficient and scalable way, that also involves a surprisingly narrow definition of “most qualified”. Many of these evolved because of pressures of scale and time, but the net result is that we are leaving talent on the table, as it were. In fact, this falls into the general issue of approaching student learning from a growth versus fixed mindset perspective, which has been shown to have real impacts on who we allow to participate in our fields (Canning, Meunks, Green & Murphy. (2019). STEM Faculty Who Believe Ability is Fixed Have Larger Racial Achievement Gaps and Inspire Less Student Motivation in Their Classes. Science Advances. 5(2). Link).
One major area for consideration is grading. A look at grading history shows that our current grading system emerged in the mid-1900’s largely as a communication tool when the number of students and institutions reached a certain critical size. Therefore, it is certainly timely to reconsider our approach to grading to ensure that we are explicitly rewarding learning (if that is indeed our agreed upon goal). A good review of these issues is found in:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4041495/
To help guide departments in this process, here are some categories and questions to consider, additional resources available at UCI, and some initial literature resources. In addition, units can reach out to OVPTL if they are interested in specific historical data related to performance in their major not already available through the COMPASS tools (https://compass.uci.edu/).
- How are low-stakes versus high-stakes assessments distributed throughout the course?
- How much flexibility do students have in demonstrating their achievement of learning objectives?
- Do the forms of assessment used align with how students will be expected to apply the learned knowledge/abilities in subsequent courses and as professionals in discipline?
- To what extent do the assessments leverage teamwork and the reality of open access to information (internet)?
References
David J. Nicol & Debra Macfarlane‐Dick (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31:2, 199-218, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
- Do deadlines and late policies allow for partial credit and/or a limited number of dropped scores?
- Are these policies made explicit and available to all students rather than negotiated individually?
- How does the design of course assessments and grading policies facilitate and/or restrict possible approaches to academic integrity?
References
McCabe & Trevino. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences. The Journal of Higher Education. 64(5): 522-538. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2959991?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Pulvers & Kiekhoff. (1999). The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and College Classroom Environment. Research in Higher Education. 40: 487-498. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018792210076
- To what extent are students’ grades determined by their performance in relation to their classmates or their individual achievement of an objective standard? (e.g., Norm based versus criterion-based grading)
- To what extent are grades used to motivate student engagement in learning activities verus provide a final measure of learning?
References
Lok, McNaught & Young. (2015). Criterion-Referenced and Norm-Referenced Assessments: Compatibility and Complementarity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 16(3): 450-465. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2015.1022136
Sadler. (2010). Interpretations of Criteria-Based Assessment and Grading in Higher Education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 30(2): 175-194. https://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0260293042000264262
Williams & Wong. (2009). The Efficacy of Final Examinations: A Comparative Study of Closed-Book, Invigilated Exams and Open-Book, Open-Web Exams. British Journal of Educational Technology. 40(2): 227-236. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00929.x