standards-based grading at jrms

7/28/2019 Standards-Based Grading at JRMS

1/16

Running head: STANDARDS-BASED GRADING 1

Standards-Based Grading Training at John Read Middle School

Nicole Graham

EDU623

Dr. Linda Kaiser


2/16

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING 2

Standards-Based Grading Training at John Read Middle School

Alfie Kohn, a forward-thinking educational author, says, Grades are not a necessary part

of schooling. They dont prepare students for the real worldIt takes courage to do right by

kids in an era when the quantitative matters more than the qualitativeWe have to be willing to

challenge the conventional wisdomwhich is this case means asking not how to improve

grades, but how to jettison them once and for all (Kohn, 2012). Standards-based grading (SBG)

is a grading system trend which aims at remedying the aforementioned problems with the

traditional grading system. The following training was developed using the ADDIE model of

instructional design and is intended to train interested staff members at John Read Middle School

on how to effectively implement SBG in their classrooms.

Analysis

As educational psychologists reported, grades often limit student engagement in learning,

making the focus about the grade as opposed to the reward of learning a new concept.

Moreover, grades may inhibit students from taking risks for the sake of earning a grade for

completing an easy task. Grades can also lower the quality of student work by providing an

extrinsic motivator for an intrinsic quality (Kohn, 2012).

In an effort to reduce these negative effects of grading, the entire Redding Elementary

School transitioned to a SBG system. John Read Middle School (JRMS) may soon be in line to

make a similar switch to SBG in the near future. Rather than force SBG onto unwilling staff

members as simply another initiative, interested staff members should be trained in how to create

standards for SBG, how to grade holistically using the SBG grading scale, how to use

PowerTeacher for recording progress and how to communicate this shift in grading practices to

parents. This training should be a hybrid system of face-to-face sessions as well as online


3/16


sessions.

As a result of some staff members at JRMS being trained on and implementing SBG in

their own classrooms, the remainder of teachers at JRMS has the potential to learn about SBG.

This may lead to more teachers reporting grades using SBG, perhaps even the entire school. If

JRMS does implement SBG as a school, teachers might be more willing to use this system since

they know and are familiar with coworkers using this grading system.

Audience

This training involves interested teachers at JRMS in Redding, CT. This school

building houses roughly fifty teachers of grades 5-8; some teachers have their elementary

certification, while others have their 7-12 content specific teaching certificate. Teachers at JRMS

range from having two to approximately thirty-five years of teaching experience and they hold at

least a Masters Degree in Education. Many teachers completed post-graduate coursework and

several teachers hold a 6th

year and/or administrative certificate (Easton, Redding and Region 9,

n.d.).

JRMS is part of a tri-district called ER9. This school district consists of elementary

and middle schools in the towns of Redding and Easton, CT, which both feed into one regional

high school. Currently, the ER9 district is in the District Reference Group (DRG) A, which

means it has one of the highest socio-economic statuses in Connecticut. Standardized test scores

for ER9 are consistently one of the highest in CT. The ER9 school district has minimal hierarchy

within its structure. The only steps between classroom teachers and the superintendent and

assistant superintendent are building principals and assistant principals (Easton, Redding and

Region 9, n.d.).

The learning styles of JRMS teachers differ greatly, as does their comfort level with


4/16


technology. Some teachers are able to learn new concepts quickly, while others need more time

to process and practice before they are comfortable with new material.

Currently, only one teacher at JRMS implements SBG in his classroom. Roughly two-

thirds of the JRMS staff has been exposed to the notion of SBG through a morning professional

development study group. As part of this study group, teachers readFair Isnt Always Equal:

Assessing & Grading in the Differentiated Classroom by Rick Wormeli. The study group used

this book to start a dialogue regarding different grading practices, including SBG (Wormeli,

2006). As a result of this study group, several teachers became interested in learning more about

SBG.

Learning Environment Analysis

Since this training will occur in a face-to-face environment, as well as an online

environment, the following resources need to be available:

Meeting room with Internet/WiFi access Laptops SmartBoard Access to PowerTeacher Current subject-specific curriculum for each participant Examples of SBG resources (grading rubric exemplars, videos of SBG implementation in

other schools)

LiveBinder accounts for all participantsAll of these resources, with the exception of SBG resources and LiveBinder accounts, are

already currently available at JRMS. The SBG resources need to be researched and the

LiveBinder accounts have to be created. The LiveBinder accounts are free and only require a


5/16


username, password and e-mail address in order to be created.

If this training will take place during the school day, participating teachers will also need

release time and sub coverage for their classrooms. Money for this coverage should be accounted

for in the schools budget.

Task Analysis

For this training project, several skills need to be developed, all of which are new to

participants. Participants need to learn how to create standards for their curriculum. These

standards should be written as manageable student tasks. If possible, these standards should also

be written in student-friendly language. Participants then need to learn how to use SBGs 4 point

holistic grading system. Exemplars of student work from each level should be provided with

which to model quality work at each level. The results of the SBG standards and rubric

exemplars should be uploaded to participants LiveBinder accounts forfuture editing and

collaboration between coworkers.

Participants also need to learn how to set up PowerTeacher to input SBG grades.

Standards need to be uploaded to the PowerTeacher platform for each teacher. Participants

should be able to use the test mode of PowerTeacher to trial entering standards for their students.

Lastly, participants need to create a means of communicating SBG practices to parents.

Situational Analysis

In order to deliver this training effectively, teachers need to break their thinking from

traditional grading scales and rubrics. As Alfie Kohn (2012) expressed, Its not enough to use

standards-based grading, teachers need to change the way in which they approach the entire

grading process. Teachers cannot fit their traditional points system into a 4 point scale. SBG is a

complete change in providing feedback to students without the looming threat of grades


6/16


overhead. Although this training does not focus on the philosophy of SBG, a lack of

understanding of this theory will hinder the effectiveness of implementing a SBG system.

Another possible barrier to an effective training is an absence of follow up sessions. The

initial training on how to create standards and implement SBG is only the beginning of a

conversation about how teachers grade and should drive a shift in how JRMS views grading in

general.

Technology Analysis

The majority of the resources needed are available currently at JRMS. The Library

Reading Room can house the training. A mobile laptop cart can be brought in for the purpose of

the training and access to PowerTeacher and LiveBinders can be reached through the internet.

Design

Schedule

This Standards-Based Grading (SBG) Training will take place for interested teachers

towards the end of the school year, so participants will have the necessary skills and knowledge

to implement SBG into their classrooms fully for the following school year. In order to

accomplish this, a target goal of implementing the training will be set to March, immediately

following the Connecticut Mastery Tests. This training was developed using the ADDIE model

of instructional design, outlined by Chuck Hodell (2011). Since the training is set to take place

in March, the analysis, design, and development phase need to take place beforehand. It is

anticipated that the analysis phase will begin in October of the desired school year. Based on

Hodells (2011) framework, the following schedule explains the required steps for full

implementation of the design process.


7/16


Phase StepsAnticipated

Timeline

Analysis

Describe current situation Analyze population Analyze learning environment

Analyze tasks and content mastery Analyze situation Analyze available technology Evaluate analysis elements

October-November

Design

Create schedule Outline course objectives Describe learning theory Create lesson structure Decide on assessments Decide on media specifications Evaluate design elements

December

Development

Create lesson plan Create assessments Decide on needed technology Decide on training logistics (location, facilitator,

etc.) Evaluate development elements

January-February

Implementation Put lesson plan into action Evaluate implementation elements MarchMay

Evaluation

Conduct summative assessments for trainingparticipants

Decide on next steps after training is completeJune

It is important to note that the evaluation phase Hodell (2011) discusses in the ADDIE

model takes place within each of the analysis, design, development and implementation phases.

The above table depicts an evaluation phase; however, this evaluation phase refers to the

evaluation of the course rather than of the ADDIE model itself.

Course Outcomes and Objectives

The participants in the SBG training are expected to accomplish the following objectives

by the end of the training:

Objective # 1Given a Blooms Taxonomy flipchart and a copy of their curriculum,JRMS teachers will be able to create leveled standards in student-friendly language for 3


8/16


units.

Objective #2Given a LiveBinder account, JRMS teachers will be able to upload theirstandards to their account for 3 units.

Objective # 3Given holistic rubric exemplars and samples of student work, JRMSteachers will be able to successfully assess student work on the 4-point SBG grading

scale on 5 different assessments.

Objective # 4Given access to the PowerTeacher test mode, JRMS teachers will be ableto input scores for at least two assessments, including reassessment scores and feedback,

without error.

Objective # 5Given current research on SBG practices, JRMS teachers will be able tocreate a means to communicate new grading practices to parents.

Learning Theory

Confucius once said, Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve

me, and I will understand (McKenzie, 2013). This saying is the basis of experiential learning

theory, which supports this training. In a very general sense, experiential learning theory focuses

on learning through direct experience (McKenzie, 2013). Since this training involves only

adults, it is appropriate for this training to also be supported by a learning theory which addresses

the specific needs of adults. According to Culata (2013), adults learn best when training

pertains to the self-directed, problem-centered nature of most adult learning. Experiential

learning supports how adults learn because it allows adults to be active participants and hence in

control of their own learning. In order to support experiential learning, adults should participate

completely in the learning process,[the training should be] based upon direct confrontation


9/16


with practical, social, and personal or research problems, and self-evaluation [should be] the

principal method of assessing progress or success (Culata, 2013).

This training supports experiential learning theory because participants in the program

are voluntary. Those teachers who participate in the training have hands-on experience with

creating their own curriculum standards and assessing student work using the SBG holistic

rubric. Evaluation in the training is also self-reflective through the use of surveys.

Lesson Structure

This training will occur over multiple days, with teachers getting release time from their

classrooms for half or whole days. Each topic counts as one session. In order to complete the

training in time, there should be two sessions per month. Ongoing discussions for each topic will

occur in an online setting throughout the duration of the training. Each session is broken down

into the five training objectives, with the exception of the introduction session. The training is

sequenced so that each session builds on the previous session. Necessary skills are broken down

into session so as to not overwhelm participants and also to ensure participants have mastered

each step in the SBG implementation process before proceeding to the next step. The majority of

the sessions begins with a mini-lesson or guided instruction regarding the topic. Then,

participants are given time to work in small groups to complete their task while collaborating

with other participants. The following plan outlines the details of the sessions:

Topic Content Method Resources Assessment Time

Introduction

Overview oftraining and

objectives

Rationale forSBG

Presentation ofRES Grading

System Q&A session

Smallgroups,

Face-to-

face

learning

Teachersfrom RES

SmartBoardwith

internetaccess

capability SBG video WikiSpaces

Informal,using Q&A

session as

feedback

HalfDay


10/16


with RES Go over

WikiSpaces

page

Discussion andquestions ofprevious sessiontopics

Online Computerand Internetaccess

Access toWikispace

Informal Ongoing

Standards

Demonstration ofwriting standards

for SBG usingstudent-friendly

language (i.e. I

can) Participants have

time to writestandards Group share of

written standards

Direct

instruction

and smallgroups,

face-to-

face

Copies ofcurriculum

for eachsubject

based on

participants

(electronical

ly or hardcopy) Laptops or

iPads

JeffersonCounty

SchoolsWebsite

Observation

and feedback

given duringgroup share

Whole

Day

Discussion andquestions of

previous sessions

topics

Online Computerand Internet

access

Access toWikispace

for

discussion

Informal Ongoing

LiveBinder

Overview of howLiveBinder works

Participants signup for LiveBinderaccounts and setup binder

templates for

classes Participants have

time to upload

standards

Direct

instructionand small

groups,face-to-face

Computerand Internetaccess

LiveBinderaccounts forparticipants

Informal

observationof task and

check in withparticipantsat end of

session

Half

Day


previous sessionstopics


access Access to

Informal Ongoing


11/16


Wikispace

SBG Grading

Demonstration ofSBG holistic

rubrics Participants

practice gradingstudent workusing rubric and

share results in

groups Participants take

time to anticipate

what each level

of the SBG 4-point rubric looks

like for their

individualstandards Chalk Talk

Direct

instruction

and smallgroups,

face-to-face

Computerand Internet

access Examples of

SBGholisticrubric

websites

and videoclips

Materialsfrom

previoussessions

Informal

observation

during chalktalk

Whole

Day


previous sessions

topics


access Access to

Wikispace

Informal Ongoing

PowerTeacher

Demonstration ofhow

PowerTeacher

can be set up tocalculate SBG

Participantsupload standardsto template

Participants loginto

PowerTeachertest mode to

practice entering

assessment

grades, retakesand comments

Direct

instruction

and small

groups,face-to-

face

Computerand Internet

access

ElectronicExcel

template for

uploadingSBG

standards

Access toPowerTeacher test mode

Informal

observation

and check in

withindividual

participant at

end ofsession

Half

Day


previous sessions

topics


access Access to

Wikispace

Informal Ongoing

Communicati Participants Small Computer Informal Whole


12/16


on

and AuthenticAssessment

brainstorm ways

to communicatenew grading

system to parents Participants draft

communication Formal authentic

assessment

group and Internet

access Access to

SBG

rationale

resourcesfrom

informationsession

during

communication activity

Formal

authenticassessment

Day


previous sessions

topics


access

Access toWikispace

Informal Ongoing

Assessment

At the end of each session, formative assessments will be done in the form of

collaborative peer editing and also through the use of Wikispaces. Assessing small group

activities allows for participants to receive immediate feedback on their work and helps simplify

the revision process. Collaborative peer editing also increases a sense of community between

participants (Center for Instructional Technology and Training, 2013). Formative assessments

will also take place during the ongoing use of Wikispaces throughout the training. In this setting,

participants will be able to pose questions to the facilitator and also to other training participants.

This can be used to encourage discussion, create a sense of community between participants

when they are not together for a training session, and also allows the facilitator to observe how

each participant understands what was taught during each training session (Center for

Instructional Technology and Training, 2013).

A summative assessment will be done for this training in the form of an authentic

assessment. Participants will create standards and assessments for an additional unit in their

curriculum not completed during the training itself. These materials will be uploaded to

LiveBinder accounts and assessed on a rubric shown to the participants beforehand.


13/16


Media Specs

This SBG training requires the use of laptops or iPads with internet access for each

participant. A SmartBoard or computer with audio-video capabilities is also needed. It is not

necessary, but would be nice if the laptops have the ability to remotely connect to a local printer,

so participants can print out their work during the group collaborative editing times. Participants

also need to access the PowerTeacher test site available only at JRMS. Additionally, invitations

need to be sent via e-mail to participants for their WikiSpaces accounts.

The primary use of laptops and/or iPads for this training is to increase mobility. Work

and learning are often two sides of the same coin, and people want easy and timely access not

only to the information on the network, but also to tools, resources, and up-to-the-moment

analysis and commentary (Johnson, et al., 2012). Using laptops and iPads for this training

allows participants to take their training anywhere in the school while allowing them to have

access to documents, websites and network capabilities. Participants are using LiveBinders as a

way to benefit from cloud computing. Teachers have access to their saved work within and

outside the school setting. LiveBinders also allows participants to collaborate with others as

their work develops (Johnson, et al., 2012).

Implementation

This training will take place at John Read Middle School in the library reading room

between March and May, for two sessions per month. The facilitator for the training will also be

the instructional designer. Others involved in the training include several teachers from Redding

Elementary School (RES) and the administrative professional trained on PowerTeacher. Before

the training takes place, the instructional designer will meet with the RES teachers to discuss

possible talking points for the group sessions. In addition, the instructional designer will need to


14/16


meet with the administrative professional to review what will be demonstrated to participants

regarding PowerTeacher.

Evaluation

There will be many opportunities for participant evaluation throughout this training. In

addition to formative assessments during the project, there will also be summative assessments

aligned with Kirkpatricks four levels of evaluation. A Level 1 evaluation, based on participant

reaction, will take place via an online survey on Google forms. The survey will measure how the

participants felt about the training and whether they enjoyed the setup of the training sessions.

The survey will also ask participants to gauge whether or not they learned what they needed to

learn in order to implement SBG fully in their classrooms for the following school year as well

as their comfort level for transferring their newly learned information to others. Additionally, the

survey will ask participants to describe how their perspective on SBG has changed from the

beginning of the training (Kirkpatrick, 2012).

Participants learning will also be evaluated through an authentic assessment described

previously in the design section. Teachers will be asked to write standards for a new unit plan not

completed during the training itself. They will also come up with an exemplar of what each

standard should look like on the rubric scale. This authentic assessment supports Kirkpatricks

Level 2 evaluation because evaluations at the learning level [are being] tied directly to

objectives (Hodell, 2011).

Next Steps

Since this training will run through the end of the school year, the group will meet again

within the first few months of the next school year to follow up with the progress teachers have

made using SBG in their classrooms. Teachers will share what they have done independently


15/16


and discuss any breakthroughs or frustrations with implementing this new grading system.

Additionally, an interest survey will be conducted among the staff towards the mid to end of the

school year to see how many teachers would like to learn more about implementing SBG in their

classrooms. Ideally, those who learned about SBG will pass their interest on to other teachers,

resulting in the need for more training sessions, which can then be taught by the original SBG

training participants.


16/16


References

Center for Instructional Technology and Training. (2013).Assessment tools. Retrieved from

http://citt.ufl.edu/tool-type/assessment-tools-methods/

Culata, R. (2013). Experiential learning. Retrieved from

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/experiental-learning.html

Easton, Redding and Region 9 School Districts. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.er9.org/pages/Easton_Redding_Region_9

Hodell, C. (2011). ISD from the ground up: A no-nonsense approach to instructional design (3rd

ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: ASTD Press.

Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). TheNMC horizon report: 2012

Higher education edition, 14-21.

Kirkpatrick, D. (2012). Kirkpatricks learning and training evaluation theory. Retrieved from

http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm

Kohn, A. (2012). The case against grades. [Article].Educational Leadership, 11, 28-33.

McKenzie, M. (2013). Rescuing education: The rise of experiential learning.Independent

School, 72(3), 24.

Wormeli, R. (2006).Fair isnt always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated

classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

standards-based grading at jrms

Documents