IEPIS Newsletter - November 2012 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||
|
In this issue: |
HANDLING THE GRADING LOAD IN A CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT
When we become teachers, we understand that we will provide learning experiences for students and give them feedback about their performance. We know that this feedback helps students develop their skills and informs them of the quality of their achievement. In recent years, however, an even greater focus on student performance and achievement has increased assessment expectations of teachers everywhere. Besides giving formative and summative feedback to students on how well they meet objectives, teachers must now
Focusing on student achievement is important and laudable, and so today’s “culture of assessment” is likely here to stay. Yet for teachers in intensive English programs (IEPs), whose classes often meet 5 days per week and whose curricula are ambitious and extensive, these increased reporting and documentation requirements can become overwhelming. Students need and deserve timely feedback, but busy teachers have finite time and energy for additional documentation. In our IEP at a university in the midwestern United States, we began in recent years to feel overwhelmed by the increasing documentation load. The “intensive” in intensive English program took on a new meaning for instructors, and we had concern that constant measurement and evaluation by teacherstook students out of the learning equation, making them less independent. We decided to devote an in-service day to assessment issues, and after discussion the faculty developed our program’s Assessment Vision. In our ideal world, students receive frequent and timely feedback from multiple sources, and instructors grade and assess enough to document students’ achievement of outcomes. In addition, instructors strike a balance in the freedom of assessment, using as appropriate response, assessment, evaluation, or grading (Tschudi, 1997). Finally, assessment and evaluation is a responsibility that is shared by both the teacher and the student. As we worked to achieve our vision, we took specific steps: 1. Define Expectations for Frequency of Assessment How often should we measure whether students meet learning outcomes? Unless expectations for frequency of assessment are defined by a program, teachers may be overassessing for their documentation, leading to stress. At our in-service day, we had a group discussion and reached consensus about assessment frequency for our specific program and for our specific learning outcomes. This gives all faculty—both new hires and senior instructors—benchmarks for assessment frequency. Focusing our definition on outcomes puts emphasis on student learning, not on what teachers “do” in the classroom. Here is one example: Intermediate-Level Outcome: Student will be able to write a
short essay with rudimentary organization (introduction, body, and
conclusion) By setting specific expectations for frequency, we avoid the possibility that instructors might be underassessing or overassessing. By defining “enough,” we can prevent instructor overload. 2. Share Ideas and Models for Assessment Types Great ideas for dealing with the grading load may be close at hand from your own colleagues. Another agenda item at our in-service day was to brainstorm and share models for assessment types for all of the subjects we teach. Then we selected from this list assessment types that documented observable and measurable outcomes, that saved time, or that promoted students’ independence and ability to self-assess.All of these criteria were important to us. Some of the ideas in this article were gleaned from our program’s meeting. 3. Adopt Technology Technology can help teachers handle the grading load. In our IEP, we have used freeware and also programs licensed by our university to assist us with grading, reporting, and documentation. Engrade is a free online grade book program we have adopted. ¨Instructors can record grades, students can see them in real time, and—most significant for us—we can tag assignments with standards that document specific outcomes. Turnitin and its companion program, GradeMark allow us to check for plagiarism and originality; they also allow instructors to drag and drop their comments onto uploaded student essays from a customizable comment library. Instructors can also set up their own rubric in GradeMark or import Common Core rubrics to assess writing. Jing is a freeware program that allows instructors to make short screencast movies with audio. An instructor can open a document sent electronically from a student and use Jing to highlight problem areas while making voice commentary to explain the issues. Sending the student a link to the screencast means paperless grading. Camtasia, the paid version, has more features and capabilities. Using Blackboard, Moodle, or similar learning environments can also help instructors manage their grading loads when testing applications are incorporated in the setup. Technology can also be used to outsource some of the grading that instructors have to do. Online textbook ancillaries are increasingly common, and textbook publishers are moving some of their workbooks online. Intentional adoption of these supporting ancillaries can lighten the checking and grading responsibilities of teachers and may be motivating to students. 4. Use Multiple Modes of Assessment and Feedback Some of the pressure on teachers in today’s culture of assessment is the time factor—getting feedback to students quickly. The following strategies can decrease pressure on instructors to “mark and return” students’ work to them, yet still provide them with timely feedback:
Observed Outcomes Chart
Summative Continuum Rubric
5. Stack the Deck for Student Independence and Responsibility The last thing we want to hear students say is, “I haven’t worked on this anymore because I haven’t received your corrections on my first draft yet.” Ensuring that students are doing their own part in achieving outcomes is also a goal of those who wish to “handle the grading load.” Consider trying the following:
All teachers share the goal of wanting students to learn and improve. Documenting this student learning beyond simple grades in today’s culture of assessment may be time-consuming, but it can be done. By defining expectations for frequency of assessment, sharing ideas for assessment collaboratively, adopting technology, using multiple modes of assessment and feedback, and encouraging student independence and responsibility, IEPs can strike a balance in grading and assessment. Teachers can document student learning outcomes as they “handle the grading load.” REFERENCES: Tschudi, S. (Ed.). (1997). Alternatives to grading student writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Jane Conzett is the director of the Intensive English Program at Xavier University, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Lara Dorger is a longtime Instructor in the Intensive English Program at Xavier University. |
|||