Transcript Slide 1
FDW
Joint Session on
Holistic Grading
LTC Brian J. Lunday
05JUL12
FDW
Joint Session on
Holistic Grading
LTC Brian J. Lunday
05JUL12
FDW
Joint Session on
Holistic Grading
COL Alex Heidenberg
05JUL12
Common Assessment Mechanisms
FDW
• Course-wide
–
–
–
–
• Instructor-specific
WPRs (Exams)
TEEs (Finals)
Projects
Course-specific topical exams
(FCE, FDE, FIE…)
Graded Event
Sample point
allocation
(MA104)
–
–
–
–
–
Quizzes
Homework
Presentations
Class preparation
Subjective grade*
• 10% of instructor points
• Think twice before doing this
at all. Are you assessing
understanding or rewarding
extroversion (or mimicry)?
Points
Instructor Points
150
FDE
60
WPRs (3)
390
Project
100
CCE
50
TEE
250
Total
1000
Slide 4
FDW
What are the purposes for grading
student work?
FDW
What is holistic grading?
Determination of the overall quality of a piece of work or an
endeavor by considering various aspects or components of the
work without marking or tallying them.
Education.com
What are the advantages and disadvantages of holistic grading
FDW
Discussion
• What are some advantages to holistic grading?
– Analytic rubrics can be too prescriptive (in either
direction)
– Allows time to focus on feedback/comments (quick)
• What are some disadvantages to holistic grading?
– Accepts a certain level of imprecision
• What are some caveats…?
– Must communicate standards
– Calibration still necessary
7
FDW
Accuracy vs. Precision
• What is the difference between accuracy and
precision?
• What does this mean with respect to grading?
8
FDW
Math Department Grading Guidelines
FDW
SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION
LETTER
GRADE
Beyond expectations of the course
A+
4.33
Dominates the material
A
4
Mastery
A-
3.67
Excellent performance
B+
3.33
Good understanding
B
3
Proficient; Aptitude for the subject
B-
2.67
Can build upon this foundation
C+
2.33
Passing; Proficient now (short range)
C
2
Short-range understanding
C-
1.67
D
1
F
0
Marginal performance with some
elementary understanding
Failing; Definitely failed to
demonstrate understanding
NUMERICAL GRADE
QUALITY POINT
10
FDW
You still need a rubric…
11
FDW
A rubric
• A scoring guide to evaluate a student’s
performance based on established criteria.
• Chocolate Chip Cookie Rubric
– Chips
– Texture
– Color
– Taste
– Flavor
12
FDW
A rubric
4- Delicious
Chip in every bite, chewy, golden brown, rich, creamy, highfat flavor
3 – Good
75% bites have chips, chewy in the middle, but crisp on
edges, a little too brown or undercooked
Store bought quality, medium fat content
2 – Needs Improvement
50% bites have chips, too crispy or too under cooked,
tasteless, low-fat content
1- Poor
Too few chips, texture resembles dog biscuit, burned,
chalky non-fat contents
13
FDW
A rubric in the making
• Focused holistic grading
– Work exceeds standard, meets the required standard,
– falls just short of the standard, does not meet the standard
• Analytic holistic grading
– Divided by performance area
– Correctness, organization, style, substance
• Major , Minor Errors
14
FDW
Description
Problem-specific Holistic Rubric
MA104 WPR#3, 2012
For this problem
Grade
Points
Correct answer w/supporting work &
correct units of measurement.
A+
30
Minor calculation/unit error.
A
28
Finds critical point but doesn’t classify
it; answers final question correctly.
B
25
Passing; proficient now
Finds critical point.
C
22
Marginal performance
Takes first-partial derivatives correctly.
D
20
Struggles with the right concept.
High F
18
No concepts correct, despite related
work
Low F
8
No work of value
No value
0
Exceeds course expectations
(no mistakes)
Dominates the material
Good understanding
Failing; definitely failed to
demonstrate understanding
Sample procedure within MA104
• For A, B, or C-level work, instructor identifies the mistake(s) for the student
• For D or F-level work, instructor also refers the student to the text for a similar problem, such as
“See Example #4, pg. 948.”
in order to help the cadet remediate conceptual or procedural gaps.
Caveat
• Cadets often solve (or approximate solutions to) problems in unexpected and completely valid ways!
Keep your eyes (and your mind) open!!
15
FDW
Questions?
* Caution: don’t confuse humor with beliefs.
16
Generic Holistic Rubric
USAFA Math Department, 2009
FDW
Well-executed
• Applies a strategy that makes
sense for the given question
• Applies appropriate
mathematical concepts and
processes
• Does not introduce
superfluous material
• Technology is used
appropriately
• Work is logical and includes a
sanity check of the final
answer
Well-communicated
• Readable: Work stands alone (retains
context) and is neat and professional in
appearance
• Organized: Provides a clear logical flow
form beginning to end
• Provides sufficient supporting detail and
explanation throughout
• Work is free from grammatical errors
• Mathematical composition, terminology,
and notation is correct
• Results and/or conclusions are clearly
annotated
Essentially Correct
• Precision: Performs
mathematical operations
correctly and derives the
correct results
• Uses an appropriate degree of
accuracy
• Draws correct inferences from
graphical or numerical data
• Any computational or
algebraic errors are trivial and
isolated
• Correct units are used
5
4
3
2
1
Outstanding (“A”)
Good (“B”)
Average (“C”)
Deficient (“D”)
Failing (“F”)
Well-executed,
wellcommunicated,
essentially correct
Generally wellexecuted but may
have minor
communication
flaws or some
math errors
Adequately
executed but with
some non-trivial
errors or
inconsistent
communication
Flawed execution
possibly with nontrivial errors or
poor
communication
Unsatisfactory
execution and/or
communication
with fundamental
errors
Slide 17