April 1, 2022

My students seem a little better this week, although many are still struggling to focus.  But time waits for no one and I must prepare my next exam and motivate my students to learn the core concepts that it will assess their learning of. The “Teaching” article by Beckie Supiano in the March 31, 2022 Chronicle of Higher Education “Teaching” column just happens to be on “Tweaks to Improve Grading and Assessment”.

Baby Steps

For many professors, traditional approaches to grading and assessment were some of the first things they had to rethink when colleges moved to emergency online teaching two years ago. Many found that the changes they made — switching to frequent low-stakes quizzes, say, or letting students drop a low score — reduced anxiety and enhanced learning.

Lots of colleges changed their policies, too, in those early days, particularly in allowing courses to be graded pass/fail. But that was one of the first pandemic changes to be dropped. That’s because many external pressures prop up the use of traditional grades, including accreditation, graduate- and professional-school admissions, and competition with peer institutions.

So what can individual faculty members do, if they’re no longer satisfied with their old approaches but have been encouraged to return to normal?

That was one interesting strand of a panel discussion on grading and assessment that Beth and I moderated last week, the third installment in our Talking About Teaching series (you can register to watch a recording of the panel here).

Professors often have more autonomy in how to assess and grade their students than they might imagine, said Regan Gurung, one of our panelists. Still, said Gurung, associate vice provost and executive director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Oregon State University, it’s a good idea to talk about a significant shift with your chair. “I mean, I’m a full professor, I still check with my department head before I make a major change,” he said, “just to make sure I’m in line with department policies and university policies.” It helps, Gurung added, to come to such a conversation with evidence to back up a proposed change.

Not every change, though, has to be big. Rather than changing a course all at once, professors can feel out students’ comfort level — and their own — by taking things one step at a time. “Pick an assignment, try this, try that, and be open to feedback,” Gurung said.

Panelists also suggested that professors could:

  • Continue to give tests, if they find that works best in their courses, but adjust some of the questions. Isis Artze-Vega, vice president for academic affairs at Valencia College, suggested, for instance, that they could ask questions that give students “authentic moments” of applying what they know. “We talk about authentic assessments as if they had to be fundamentally different from tests,” she said, “but what about authentic test questions?”
  • Allow students to drop a quiz grade or to retake quizzes. That could be incorporated into large-enrollment classes without creating extra work, said Viji Sathy, associate dean of evaluation and assessment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The learning-management system can provide fresh questions for retakes, she added. This approach sends students a message: “Not one single assessment is going to take you down,” she said. “You’re going to have lots of chances in this course, and I’m here to support you every step of the way.”
  • Give some assignments for which there is no grade. Gurung described an assignment he gave a class of 350. Students worked in groups to answer questions in a Google form — and got points just for putting something into the form. They took it seriously, he found, “because it was engaging, because it was fun.”

This semester in my non-majors biochemistry course of >150 students I made the free response questions on the exams take home, open book/notes/etc. and allowed them to work together.  The students appear much less stressed and the answers turned in are much better, overall.  We are measuring learning outcomes with a concept learning inventory administered at the beginning and the end of the semester.  We will see.

Remember, the remaining CNS MTI workshops this spring semester focus on rethinking student learning assessment and grading.  Today, April 1, at 11:30 AM to 1 PM Hilary Freeman is leading a workshop “Implementing Standards Based Grading in Math 160” and Tuesday, April 19, at 11:30 to 1 PM Debbie Garrity and Dan Sloan are leading a workshop “Assessment Strategies Post-COVID: Opportunities and challenges”, both held in Room 386 LSC.  These workshops dovetail nicely with Albert Lionelle’s workshop “Summative and Formative Grading in the Sciences” focusing on standards-based grading back at the beginning of February.

Finally, Gwen Gorzelsky and the TILT Team invite you to complete one or more active learning, discussion-based, facilitated virtual courses from their Best Practices in Teaching curriculum. You’ll learn, apply, and reflect with colleagues on research-based teaching approaches. Each course runs three weeks and requires ~5 hours/week.

There are two steps to register:

  • First Four Weeks, 5.23.22 – 6.12.22. To register, please:
    1. Enroll in the Classroom Climate Domain Certificate program.
    2. Once enrolled in the program, locate Best Practices in Teaching at CSU: First Four Weeks and register for a session.

NOTE: These courses count toward the Teaching Effectiveness Initiative. If you’re interested in participating, please see the TEI Pre-approved Professional Development List for domain alignment.

Hope to see you today at 11:30 AM for Hilary Freeman’s CNS MTI workshop and lunch (there are usually extras).  Have a great weekend.  Time to get back to those projects in the yard.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Laybourn (he/him/his)
Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Director, W2R S-STEM Program
Director, NoCo B2B Program
Director, REU Site in Molecular Biosciences
paul.laybourn@colostate.edu
970-491-5100