Standards Based Grading 2016

This year was my fifth year in using Standards Based Grading (SBG).  I’ve posted about my SBG system before but I’d like to give an update on what I’m doing.

• I give out shorter quizzes and generally avoid unit tests
• There are no differences between quiz or tests, quiz questions or test questions
• Quizzes have any where from 1 to 5 4 learning objectives on them
• Each quiz is graded according to objectives, not marks
• Each objective is graded out of 3: 1 is a start, 2 means some understanding is shown (any amount really), 3 means mastery
• Standards are split into 2 categories: A and B. They have equal weight
• A standards are more basic understandings, and allow for some flexibility or small “clerical” errors.
• B standards generally have to be completely correct
• Quizzes usually have multiple questions which address the same objective, but they all count towards one grade for the objective on that assessment
• I’ve generally refined my learning objectives such that there is less overlap between them.  In general this means that I have fewer learning objectives than I did previously. For example, I used to have a LO for calculating kinetic and potential energy, and a LO for calculating conservation of energy questions. Now I just use one LO for both because they are so intrinsically linked.
• Overall grade calculations incorporates some voodoo. I try to set some base level, such as all 2’s results in something like a 68%, and the # of 3’s scales the grade up to 100%. I believe Marzano would consider this to be conjunctive grading. I wish I could use a conjunctive grading but in practice it’s not really possible in my school. I think this type of grading requires a real shift in mindset in the community. There has to be buy-in from everyone to clearly define what a “pass” or a “70%” really represents.
• For the most part, the quiz mark is a simple calculation.  I divide the LO score by the maximum score possible. For example, if there have been 10 LO and a student is at 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, their % would be 24/30 = 80%.  I hate making this % btw, it is a total antithesis to the SBG process.
• Philosophically: any objective can be assessed at any time after evidence of learning is shown. Realistically: other rules must be put in place
• Students keep all their assessments in a duotang, along with tracking sheets where they record their grades
• Each objective will be assessed multiple times and it’s always the last/latest grade that counts.
• The portfolio holds the complete picture of what the student demonstrates, and can be used to show achievement of learning objectives in a more holistic manner than simple addition of three’s. For example, if a student makes only a few minor errors all year but each on different objectives, the portfolio can be used to show comprehensive understandings and achievement that surpasses a few small errors.
• SIA is a double edged sword: SIA requests at any time also means I can assess them on any topic at any time!
• I keep track of grades in a spreadsheet. Each quiz gets a page that holds a test, as well as there being a page that holds overall progress for each class
• I used to use ActiveGrade for tracking grades**.  ActiveGrade is being sunsetted and I will most likely use the parent product Haiku Learning for their grading software am using my own gradebook software that I wrote, SmartMark.
• Classroom quiz mark is made up of LO progress (90%) and then transfer tasks (10%).  Because the LO are basically an all-or-nothing process, I can’t ask the most challenging questions on quizzes because if I do, the whole class will all be at 2 for all LO.  So I ask questions that require competence and meet provincial guidelines.  However, to get the top 10% in quizzing, each student also has to perform well on “transfer tasks.”  TT are more challenging questions, typically in a format or structure that has never been seen before.  This means that students that do well on a TT truly are deserving of a higher grade.
• Phew.

I’ll most likely move the name of my scheme from SBG to LOGB (Learning Objective Based Grading) next year.  This name will more closely represent what we’re doing.  The focus is on learning objectives, while the “standards” are very generic.  The standards I use are seen in the graphic below.

* In terms of re-testing, students have to fill out an online form a few days before re-test dates.  The form asks them what two LO they want to re-test (max of 2 per week), what they did wrong before, and what they have learned since. I also ask that they upload some photos of work that they’ve done to show that they are ready for a re-test.

** Tracking software is a bit more complicated because the data we are collecting is not 2D but 3D. In a traditional gradebook, the 2D data is student name and test score.  In SBG, the 3D is student name, LO attempt and LO score.   So if you’re using a spreadsheet (Excel or typical gradebook table), you need a page for each Quiz. This page contains student name vs.  quiz LO score.  Each Quiz then has to be aggregated to a master page that collects student name vs. final LO score.   A typical spreadsheet could be used for SBG (student name vs LO score) but this means that LO scores are overwritten and the electronic history of past attempts is lost.