Creating the Conditions for Deeper Learning Through Assessment

One condition for deeper learning that I've focused on recently is Authenticity. I wasnt to be sure that communication with students about the grades and progress is authentic and rooted in something real. The longer I teach the more I realize how artificial grades and assessments can be. I wanted to try something that would be more grounded in student experience and character rather than being directly tied to their work. Below is a summary of what I'm working on.
​

Weekly Evaluation

The main idea of this prototype grading style is to be rapid and ongoing. I learned that the more often I could communicate with students, the better. This is especially true at distance. I worked to create a grading system that ultimately would be used weekly.

Below is a sample of an email that I send out to students weekly.

Hi {{First Name}},


Here is my impression of your work from last week! Like the first week, your Public Critique participation weighed heavily on Effort and Presence. 


(each scored out of 5)
Presence: {{Presence3}}
Effort: {{Effort3}}
Creation: {{Creation3}}

Total: {{Total3}} of 14 or a letter grade of {{Letter Grade3}}

{{Personal Note3}}

If we are in disagreement about any of these scores, please email back with any changes I should make. Otherwise I will input your letter grade to Powerschool later tomorrow!


Best,

P

I use a Google Spreadsheet to keep all their information organized and do my grading, then automate sending them a weekly update. The class gets the chance to give me feedback or offer changes before I post their weekly grade to Powerschool (our grading system)
​

Feedback

Upon showing this to peers, I heard 2 main components of feedback. First there is the issue of giving students a grade based on my subjective interpretation of their character or behavior during a week. This could be problematic and I might be enacting some oppressive patterns with my class. The second portion of feedback was that this grading method is not tied to checkpoints within the project or classwork. 

On the first point I both agree and disagree. In my experience testing this method, many students take the opportunity to write me back and tell me why they deserve a different score. I am careful in the language of the email to not use deficit language and encourage revision. I could go further with this. Also, the categories that I am evaluating came from me, and I was the one who defined success in each area. In the future, it would be better to work with students at the beginning of the semester to choose categories and write out what a 3, 4 and 5 look like for each.

For the second point I would like to refine my categories to be more explicit. To me, high effort (one of my categories) involves having all work in on time and high creation (a second category) involves doing high quality work on assignments. As I define these areas with students, I can be more clear about this.

Subsequent Drafts

​In the future, I will co-create 1 or more of the categories with the students as a kind of norm setting task at the beginning of class and define expectations for each with them as well. This should reflect not only what I see as being valuable but their view too.

I would also like to include a function where students set a goal for the next week. They might choose one category and pick a score they would like for the next week and include ideas about how to reach or hold that goal. In setting a goal and describing what they want to do to achieve it I would be pulling in more elements of student centered evaluations and involving them more deeply in the process. 

Reference

Santos, J. (2020). Supporting Latinx Students in Rigorous Learning Environments (Unpublished master's thesis). High Tech High GSE.