Contract grading

Last updated

Contract grading is a form of grading which results from cooperation between an instructor and their student(s), and entails completion of a contracted number of assignments of specified quality that correspond to specific letter grades. These contracts often contain the following two characteristics: First, there are no finite amount of, say, "A" grades given in the class. Any student who completes the work that corresponds to a "B" grade will receive a "B". The second characteristic is that instructors and students know exactly what is expected from them to receive a certain letter grade. Contract grading may be contrasted with other grading methods such as grading on a curve or percentile systems. These curve and percentile systems include the Common Curve, Missouri Curve, and The Gaussian Curve. Grading on these curves creates an expectation that the number of "A"s and "B"s should correspond to the number of "D"s and "F"s, with the majority of students receiving a "C". [1] In the 2010s, contract grading was discussed and promoted as a method to respond to racism within academia and, more specifically, writing in academia. Asao Inoue, a large contributor to this topic, wrote in his book Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom, "Designing fair and meaningful grading practices is about cultivating with our students an ecology, a place where every student, no matter where they come from or how they speak or write, can have access to the entire range of final course grades possible." [2]

Contents

Overview

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 devise his or her own path for the class by allowing students to pick and choose which assignments or projects they intend 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 in how their grade is ultimately assessed. For some students, this grading system requires a more active role. [3]

Although the student decides what is to be accomplished throughout the course, as with 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. 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 resubmit the contract mid-semester provided the professor approves the changes. [4]

Labor-based contract grading

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. [5] 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. [6] [7] This form of grading is connected to the effort a students puts forth rather than a "standard" form of writing. [6]

Hybrid Contract Grading

There is a second form of grading contracts that is known as Hybrid Grading Contracts. Hybrid Grading Contracts combine elements of Labor-Based contracts with traditional grading contracts. Hybrid Grading Contracts assess both labor and quality of a student's work in determining a student's grade. [8]

Implementation

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. [9] 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. First a teacher presents the grading contract to this class then the class if often given time to read over the contract. Next, if the teacher chooses to do so, the teacher will negotiate the terms of the contract. This means that the number of missed or late assignments to achieve a certain grade will be negotiated. There may or may not be a grace period to allow changes in the contract. Ultimately, all final decisions are left to the teacher. At the end of the contract, students will earn the grade that matches the terms of the contract.

Labor-based contract grading is also used to combat systemic racism in the classroom by calculating grades based on labor and having less restrictive guidelines in the classroom. [10]

Studies and Research

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 increases in learning in a grading system based on absolute standards. [11] 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%. [12] It was made clear to Starch and Elliott that every instructor has their own difference in view in regards to academic performance. 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. [13] Since instructors have a different perspective on Grade A Level work, personal biases would come into play in percentage based grading.

According to a study done in 2001 by William Yarber of Purdue University found that the knowledge attained from courses using grading contract systems is equal to the knowledge attained from traditional grading systems. Additionally the study found that the attitudes of students toward learning were the same in courses that used the grading contract system and the traditional grading method. [14]

Student reaction

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." [15]

A study conducted during the 1974–75 school year by James J. Polczynski on 280 students at a Midwest state university found that contract grading raised students instrumentality levels. The study also found that students opinion of their grade and the importance they place on their grade did not change. [16] The largest change that the study found was that students felt a stronger assurance that a particular performance would match the grade they received better under the grading contract system then a traditional grading method. [16] Moreover, students also reported that they felt they had more control over their grade in the course which in turn increased their level of motivation to participate in the course. [16]

Advantages

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 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. Labor based grading contacts are seen as more fair than conventional grading contracts because course grades are determined by the amount of labor done by students and not influenced by knowledge the students had prior to the course. [5]

Removing racism from the classroom

[2] Labor-based grading contacts are seen as more fair than conventional grading contracts because course grades are determined by the amount of labor done by students and not influenced by knowledge the students had prior to the course. [7] Labor-based grading contracts seek to mitigate racial disparities in grading outcomes. A student's grade under a labor-based grading contract is solely determined by the work the student puts into the course rather than their prior knowledge of the subject. Evaluating a student's performance in the course based on knowledge alone can lead to racially disparate outcomes. [7] It is important to note that only labor-based grading contracts achieve this; because hybrid contracts require a standard of quality, they are still susceptible to said disparities.

Disadvantages

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. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outcome-based education</span> Educational system based on the desired goals

Outcome-based education or outcomes-based education (OBE) is an educational theory that bases each part of an educational system around goals (outcomes). By the end of the educational experience, each student should have achieved the goal. There is no single specified style of teaching or assessment in OBE; instead, classes, opportunities, and assessments should all help students achieve the specified outcomes. The role of the faculty adapts into instructor, trainer, facilitator, and/or mentor based on the outcomes targeted.

Educational assessment or educational evaluation is the systematic process of documenting and using empirical data on the knowledge, skill, attitudes, aptitude and beliefs to refine programs and improve student learning. Assessment data can be obtained from directly examining student work to assess the achievement of learning outcomes or can be based on data from which one can make inferences about learning. Assessment is often used interchangeably with test, but not limited to tests. Assessment can focus on the individual learner, the learning community, a course, an academic program, the institution, or the educational system as a whole. The word 'assessment' came into use in an educational context after the Second World War.

Electronic assessment, also known as digital assessment, e-assessment, online assessment or computer-based assessment, is the use of information technology in assessment such as educational assessment, health assessment, psychiatric assessment, and psychological assessment. This covers a wide range of activities ranging from the use of a word processor for assignments to on-screen testing. Specific types of e-assessment include multiple choice, online/electronic submission, computerized adaptive testing such as the Frankfurt Adaptive Concentration Test, and computerized classification testing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Project-based learning</span> Learner centric pedagogy

Project-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered pedagogy that involves a dynamic classroom approach in which it is believed that students acquire a deeper knowledge through active exploration of real-world challenges and problems. Students learn about a subject by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond to a complex question, challenge, or problem. It is a style of active learning and inquiry-based learning. PBL contrasts with paper-based, rote memorization, or teacher-led instruction that presents established facts or portrays a smooth path to knowledge by instead posing questions, problems or scenarios.

The Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) is a Crown agency of the Government of Ontario in Canada. It was legislated into creation in 1996 in response to recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Learning in February 1995.

Educational technology is the combined use of computer hardware, software, and educational theory and practice to facilitate learning. When referred to with its abbreviation, edtech, it often refers to the industry of companies that create educational technology.

In US education terminology, rubric is "a scoring guide used to evaluate the quality of students' constructed responses". Put simply, it is a set of criteria for grading assignments. Rubrics usually contain evaluative criteria, quality definitions for those criteria at particular levels of achievement, and a scoring strategy. They are often presented in table format and can be used by teachers when marking, and by students when planning their work. In UK education the rubric is the set instructions at the head of an examination paper.

A lesson plan is a teacher's detailed description of the course of instruction or "learning trajectory" for a lesson. A daily lesson plan is developed by a teacher to guide class learning. Details will vary depending on the preference of the teacher, subject being covered, and the needs of the students. There may be requirements mandated by the school system regarding the plan. A lesson plan is the teacher's guide for running a particular lesson, and it includes the goal, how the goal will be reached and a way of measuring how well the goal was reached.

English-Language Learner is a term used in some English-speaking countries such as the US and Canada to describe a person who is learning the English language and has a native language that is not English. Some educational advocates, especially in the United States, classify these students as non-native English speakers or emergent bilinguals. Various other terms are also used to refer to students who are not proficient in English, such as English as a Second Language (ESL), English as an Additional Language (EAL), limited English proficient (LEP), Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD), non-native English speaker, bilingual students, heritage language, emergent bilingual, and language-minority students. The legal term that is used in federal legislation is 'limited English proficient'. The instruction and assessment of students, their cultural background, and the attitudes of classroom teachers towards ELLs have all been found to be factors in the achievement of these students. Several methods have been suggested to effectively teach ELLs, including integrating their home cultures into the classroom, involving them in language-appropriate content-area instruction early on, and integrating literature into their learning programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summative assessment</span> Assessment used to determine student outcomes after an academic course

Summative assessment, summative evaluation, or assessment of learning is the assessment of participants in an educational program. Summative assessments are designed to both assess the effectiveness of the program and the learning of the participants. This contrasts with formative assessment, which summarizes the participants' development at a particular time in order to inform instructors of student learning progress.

Writing across the curriculum (WAC) is a movement within contemporary composition studies that concerns itself with writing in classes beyond composition, literature, and other English courses. According to a comprehensive survey performed in 2006–2007, approximately half of American institutes of higher learning have something that can be identified as a WAC program. In 2010, Thaiss and Porter defined WAC as "a program or initiative used to 'assist teachers across disciplines in using student writing as an instructional tool in their teaching'". WAC, then, is a programmatic effort to introduce multiple instructional uses of writing beyond assessment. WAC has also been part of the student-centered pedagogies movement seeking to replace teaching via one-way transmission of knowledge from teacher to student with more interactive strategies that enable students to interact with and participate in creating knowledge in the classroom.

Peer assessment, or self-assessment, is a process whereby students or their peers grade assignments or tests based on a teacher’s benchmarks. The practice is employed to save teachers time and improve students' understanding of course materials as well as improve their metacognitive skills. Rubrics are often used in conjunction with Self- and Peer-Assessment.

Peer feedback is a practice where feedback is given by one student to another. Peer feedback provides students opportunities to learn from each other. After students finish a writing assignment but before the assignment is handed in to the instructor for a grade, the students have to work together to check each other's work and give comments to the peer partner. Comments from peers are called as peer feedback. Peer feedback can be in the form of corrections, opinions, suggestions, or ideas to each other. Ideally, peer feedback is a two-way process in which one cooperates with the other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Differentiated instruction</span> Framework or philosophy for effective teaching

Differentiated instruction and assessment, also known as differentiated learning or, in education, simply, differentiation, is a framework or philosophy for effective teaching that involves providing all students within their diverse classroom community of learners a range of different avenues for understanding new information in terms of: acquiring content; processing, constructing, or making sense of ideas; and developing teaching materials and assessment measures so that all students within a classroom can learn effectively, regardless of differences in their ability.Differentiated instruction means using different tools, content, and due process in order to successfully reach all individuals. Differentiated instruction, according to Carol Ann Tomlinson, is the process of "ensuring that what a student learns, how he or she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he or she has learned is a match for that student's readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning." According to Boelens et al. (2018), differentiation can be on two different levels: the administration level and the classroom level. The administration level takes the socioeconomic status and gender of students into consideration. At the classroom level, differentiation revolves around content, processing, product, and effects. On the content level, teachers adapt what they are teaching to meet the needs of students. This can mean making content more challenging or simplified for students based on their levels. The process of learning can be differentiated as well. Teachers may choose to teach individually at a time, assign problems to small groups, partners or the whole group depending on the needs of the students. By differentiating product, teachers decide how students will present what they have learned. This may take the form of videos, graphic organizers, photo presentations, writing, and oral presentations. All these take place in a safe classroom environment where students feel respected and valued—effects.

Teaching and learning centers are independent academic units within colleges and universities that exist to provide support services for faculty, to help teaching faculty to improve their teaching and professional development. Teaching centers also routinely provide professional development for graduate students as they prepare for future careers as teaching faculty. Some centers also may provide learning support services for students, and other services, depending on the individual institution. Teaching and learning centers may have different kinds of names, such as faculty development centers, teaching and learning centers, centers for teaching and learning, centers for teaching excellence, academic support centers, and others; a common abbreviation is TLC.

Just-in-time teaching is a pedagogical strategy that uses feedback between classroom activities and work that students do at home, in preparation for the classroom meeting. The goals are to increase learning during classroom time, to enhance student motivation, to encourage students to prepare for class, and to allow the instructor to fine-tune the classroom activities to best meet students' needs. This should not be confused with just-in-time learning, which itself focuses on immediate connections between learners and the content that is needed at that moment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flipped classroom</span> Instructional strategy and a type of blended learning

A flipped classroom is an instructional strategy and a type of blended learning, which aims to increase student engagement and learning by having pupils complete readings at home and work on live problem-solving during class time. This pedagogical style moves activities, including those that may have traditionally been considered homework, into the classroom. With a flipped classroom, students watch online lectures, collaborate in online discussions, or carry out research at home, while actively engaging concepts in the classroom, with a mentor's guidance.

Feminist pedagogy is a pedagogical framework grounded in feminist theory. It embraces a set of epistemological theories, teaching strategies, approaches to content, classroom practices, and teacher-student relationships. Feminist pedagogy, along with other kinds of progressive and critical pedagogy, considers knowledge to be socially constructed.

Writing assessment refers to an area of study that contains theories and practices that guide the evaluation of a writer's performance or potential through a writing task. Writing assessment can be considered a combination of scholarship from composition studies and measurement theory within educational assessment. Writing assessment can also refer to the technologies and practices used to evaluate student writing and learning. An important consequence of writing assessment is that the type and manner of assessment may impact writing instruction, with consequences for the character and quality of that instruction.

School organizational models are methods of structuring the curriculum, functions, and facilities for schools, colleges, and universities. The organizing of teaching and learning has been structured since the first educational institutions were established. With greater specialization and expertise in a particular field of knowledge, and a gathering of like-minded individuals, instructors clustered into specialized groups, schools, and eventually departments within larger institutions. This structure spread rapidly during the 19th and 20th centuries with factory model schools and their "assembly-line" method of standardized curriculum and instructional methods. Beginning with the progressive educational movement in the early-mid 20th century, and again with similar trends in the late 20th and early 21st century, alternative models structured towards deeper learning, higher retention, and 21st century skills developed. The organizational models of schools fall into several main categories, including: departmental, integrative, project-based, academy, small learning communities, and school-within-a-school.

References

  1. ↑ Taylor, Gary (October 1971). "The Bell Curve Has An Ominous Ring". The Clearing House. 46 (2): 119–124. doi:10.1080/00098655.1971.11478010.
  2. 1 2 Inoue, Asao (2019). Labor-Based Grading Contracts : Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. Fort Collins, Colorado : The WAC Clearinghouse, 2019.
  3. ↑ "Using Learning Contracts in the College Classroom". Michigan State University. 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2007.
  4. ↑ "Alternative to Traditional Grading". Kansas State University. n.d. Archived from the original on May 29, 2007. Retrieved September 28, 2007.
  5. 1 2 Elbow, Peter (January 1994). "Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment". College English. 55 (2): 187–206. doi:10.2307/378503. JSTOR   378503.
  6. 1 2 Inoue, Asao. "Labor-Based Grading Contracts - The WAC Clearinghouse". wac.colostate.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-16.
  7. 1 2 3 Inoue, Asao B. (2015). Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press. doi:10.37514/PER-B.2015.0698. ISBN   9781642150698.
  8. ↑ Elbow, Peter; Danielewicz, Jane (2009). "A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching". College Composition and Communication. 61 (2): 11. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  9. ↑ Taylor, Hugh (1980). "Contract Grading". National Institute of Education.
  10. ↑ Inoue, Asao. "Social Justice Framework for Anti-Racist Writing Assessment: Labor-Based Grading Contracts". Workshop on Labor-Based Grading Contracts. University of Oregon. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  11. ↑ Starch, Daniel; Elliott, Edward Charles. "Reliability of grading high school working English". The School Review. JSTOR   1076706 . Retrieved 30 April 2021.
  12. ↑ Starch, Daniel; Elliott, Edward C. (1912). "Reliability of the Grading of High-School Work in English". The School Review. 20 (7): 442–457. doi:10.1086/435971. JSTOR   1076706. S2CID   145805750 . Retrieved 30 April 2021.
  13. 1 2 Starch, Daniel; Elliott, Edward C. (April 1913). "Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1913). Reliability of the grading of high school work in mathematics". The School Review. 21 (4): 254–259. doi:10.1086/436086. JSTOR   1076246. S2CID   143940177 . Retrieved 30 April 2021.
  14. ↑ Yarber, William (1974). "Retention of Knowledge: Grade Contract Method Compared to the Tradition Grading Method". The Journal of Experimental Education. 43 (1): 92–96. doi:10.1080/00220973.1974.10806310. JSTOR   20150998 . Retrieved 7 May 2021.
  15. ↑ "Student Reaction to Contract Grading". N/A. November 2, 1990. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
  16. 1 2 3 Polcynski, James (May 1977). "Expectancy Theory and Contact Grading Combined as an Effective Motivational Force for College Students". Journal of Educational Research. 70 (5): 238–241. doi:10.1080/00220671.1977.10884996.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.