Action Research on the Assessment and Grading Practices of Grade 7 Mathematics

Gary JohnstonSpring 2012

Rational:Years of “category grading” in the classroom

with little change in internal/external test scores.

Marginal improvement in MAP test scores.School wide “push” for using data to drive

teaching, assessment practices.Earlier workshops in the year:

David Suarez: Differentiation, Math Assessment

Tom Schimmer: Assessment that Matters

Changes to the Grade 7 Math ProgramPart 1:Grading Changes

Part 2: Assessment Changes

Part 3: Our Results

Part 1-How we changed our grading practice

Part 1-How we changed grading 0% Emphasis on assignments/homework

All entered in the grade book but are practice on the way to mastery. (Schimmer)

0% Emphasis on quizzes All entered in the grade book but are practice on the way to

mastery. (Schimmer) 0% Emphasis on projects

Show real world applications, but can be superficial. Students can get help from parents, peers, and work may not be done equally in group work. Entered in the grade book.

100% Emphasis on summative assessments (final test) “Summative evaluations are not mere reflections of retained

knowledge but are the most valid and reliable indicator of depth of understanding” (Holt)

Part 1 Continued: Why we changed our gradingWant students to become

responsible learners, not feel entitled to third and fourth chances.

Want to build self-discipline and self-esteem that is deserved, not sugar coating their poor academics

Too many grading policies are “subjective” and prone to bias.

Want “Self-Improvement” through personal assessment, not teacher-assigned work

“Category Intensive” grading dilutes notable achievements.

Part 1 Continued: How Practice/Assignments were Assessed

“Flipped Lessons” More time for in-class practice.

Answers posted in class so students can check!

Student’s “Self-Assess” their work on the following 3 point rubric:3 points: Well done,

complete some minor mistakes

2 points: majority complete, many mistakes

1 point: very incomplete, many mistakes

Part 1 Continued: How Quizzes were usedFormative feedback-

Assessed by TeacherProcedurally low

scaffolded skill. Check-in on basic abilities before higher order thinking applications

Gave teacher opportunities to remediate understanding

Entered into grade book, but given 0% weighting as it’s practice.

Part 1 Continued: How Projects were used•Practice on the road to higher understanding.•Most units had a project.•Projects tend to span many days and have group elements so assessment of them is inaccurate. Who’s work are we assessing, the student’s, group members, tutors or parents?

Part 1-How Summative assessments were used“Practice Test” prior to

actual test. (Actual Test was retake)

Policy: “Retesting is a privilege, not a right. Although we may deny students the opportunity to retest, we never deny them the opportunity to relearn”

“Summative evaluations are not mere reflections of retained knowledge but are the most valid and reliable indicator of depth of understanding” (Holt)

Other supporting resources:Online curriculum and practice guides with

standards, benchmarks, essential questions, target vocabulary and a “tally sheet” that students can use to document their understanding and make curriculum transparent.

Differentiation on homework, quizzes, projects, tests

Quiz Reflection on the “nature of the mistake”Warm ups and tests that have elements of

previous units to keep skills sharp

Part 2-How we changed our assessments

Part 2-How we changed the quality of our assessments

Used opened ended tests which scaffold up through higher order thinking skills (application, synthesis, analysis)

Almost exclusively word problems for “authentic purposes”

Elements of “mathematical reasoning, critical thinking”

Incorporated spiraling areas of the curriculum.

Part 3-The Results

Grade 7 Math Mean MAP Test Scores

215225235245

Spring Scores

*NWEA RIT Scale Norms 2011 page 46

Both Elshoff’s and Johnston’s classes

Grade 7 Median Math RIT Increase 2010-2012

0246

Median Increase from Fall to Spring

Median Increase from Fall to Spring

Both Elshoff’s and Johnston’s classes

Grade 7 Mean RIT Increases 2010-2012

2010-2011 2011-2012232234236238240242244246248250

Spring ScoreFall Score

Internal Test Grade Changes: Unit 1-Unit 7

F D C B A0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Test Grades for Unit 1Test Grades for Unit 7

*Johnston’s Class Only

Typical Scores on Assessments

Quiz Practice Test Final Test58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%

Program Survey Questions:1. Did the grading policy this year help you

become a better student?2. What are the strengths of offering 2-3 levels

of “choice” Green, Blue and Black?3. Which element of practice/assessment has

helped you learn the most?4. How would you rate your learning of math

this year compared to other years?5. In general, how would you rate your

“stress” level of this math course?

Did the grading policy this year help you become a better student?

No, ve

ry m

uch

No som

ewha

t

Neutra

l

Yes,

somew

hat

Yes,

Very M

uch

05

101520253035

Number of responses

Number of responses

What are the strengths of offering 2-3 levels of “choice” Green, Blue and Black?“The strengths of offering two or three levels of

instructional practice is that you can choose your level for your tests. If you want to challenge yourself, you can choose Blue test or Black tests.”

“The strength of offering two levels of instructional practice are for green, it helps us becomes better at the skills that we are not good at and blue is for students who want to take a risk of higher level skills.”

“To let each individual student choose what level they would prefer to be in, instead of the whole class doing the same thing (which would be kind of boring).”

Which element of practice/assessment has helped you learn the most?

Homework Quizzes Projects Practice Tests

05

101520253035

Number of Responses

Number of Responses

How would you rate your learning of math this year compared to other years?

0

10

20

Number of responses

Number of responses

In general, how would you rate your “stress” level of this math course?

Not str

essfu

l at a

ll

Usuall

y not

stres

sful

Neutra

l

Somew

hat s

tressf

ul

Extrem

ely St

ressf

ul048

121620

Number of responses

Number of responses

Key Findings Final tests show the highest level of understanding.

When they are administered, students have had the most practice.

Most students said the course was “somewhat stressful” followed by “Neutral” and “Usually not stressful”. Low levels of stress do increase performance.

Designing “Practice Tests” to help students focus on areas for remediation helped them learn the most.

55% of respondents felt that the grading policy helped them learn math “somewhat” and 19% said it helped them learn math “very much”

Bibliography “Effective Grading Practices” ASCD

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx

Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, March 2005 Published by the California Department of Education Sacramento, 2006 )

NWEA RIT Scale Norms 2011-Northwest Evaluation Asssociaion Student Survey: Survey Monkey

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=jdrbk0002ZpFyaNKx1e%2f2ylLnJt%2fErryKohL0pMSnpI%3d