Whit Ford wrote a detailed post filled with an interesting analysis of grading systems including percentages, points, standards based, rubrics… I probably missed one but that’s plenty if I didn’t! I am in the middle of three days of Understanding by Design training, and while we haven’t discussed grading, we have talked about assessment. One thing that came up was that the assessment we use should change based on what we’re assessing. They divide content into “worth being familiar with” “important to know and do” and “enduring understanding” and then claim that tests should only assess the first two, while projects should assess the second two (meaning “important to know and do” fits in both types). This made me especially interested in this section of Whit’s post:
Assessments often include one or more questions that are more challenging than the others. Reasons for doing so include:
– as a “bonus” question
– as a confidence builder for weaker students
– to identify which students work the fastest or most efficiently
– to see who understands the conceptual as well as the rote/procedural
In such cases, it is tempting to assign more points to the more challenging question(s) either because they require more time or are more difficult. Suppose an assessment contains nine questions worth one point, and one question worth three points. Consider what happens when a student answers all questions except the three point one correctly: they receive a score of 9/12 = 75%, which could equate to a C or a D depending on the grading scheme.
I wonder if the Understanding by Design folks would suggest using a performance task to assess that more challenging question; it is tough to decide how to weight the multi-step question in a test filled with more straightforward problems.
Be sure to check out the whole post since it brings up a number of other points that are worthy of discussion.