1. Qualitative Grading Notes compiled by Mary D’Alleva January 18 th, 2005 Office of Faculty Development

2. Purpose of Grading Constructive criticism: analysis of product or performance in order to improve skills Constructive criticism: analysis of product or performance in order to improve skills Evaluation: measure product or performance against objective standards in order to assign a grade Evaluation: measure product or performance against objective standards in order to assign a grade Ranking: comparing students through measured evaluation Ranking: comparing students through measured evaluation

3. The Grading Process: establishing points of reference for the instructor How well did the student’s performance or product demonstrate or address the criteria for the assigned task? How well did the student’s performance or product demonstrate or address the criteria for the assigned task? How does the student’s performance or product compare against expected norms for this level? How does the student’s performance or product compare against expected norms for this level? How does the performance or product measure against student’s earlier work (most useful to ask if assignment incorporates drafting or revision options) How does the performance or product measure against student’s earlier work (most useful to ask if assignment incorporates drafting or revision options)

4. Establishing Evaluation Criteria An essential part of qualitative grading is the development of a grading standard (rubric) that outlines and prioritizes your expectations for the assignment An essential part of qualitative grading is the development of a grading standard (rubric) that outlines and prioritizes your expectations for the assignment The achievement standards in the rubric should match the specifics of the assignment (i.e. if the assignment asks students to summarize and evaluate an author’s argument, summary and evaluation should be represented on the rubric) The achievement standards in the rubric should match the specifics of the assignment (i.e. if the assignment asks students to summarize and evaluate an author’s argument, summary and evaluation should be represented on the rubric)

5. Creating Content for Grading Rubrics Does it measure the application of knowledge/skills to a new context? Does it measure the application of knowledge/skills to a new context? Is it fair to all students (if students are self- selecting topics, have they been given clear guidelines for format and ‘thinking’ applications?) Is it fair to all students (if students are self- selecting topics, have they been given clear guidelines for format and ‘thinking’ applications?) Does it prioritize my expectations? Does it prioritize my expectations? Does it measure both quality of content and format? Does it measure both quality of content and format?

6. Giving the Grade: Biggs’ Taxonomy for Grading Students from Biggs, John (1992). A qualitative approach to grading students HERDSA News, 14(3),3- 6. LevelGradeDescription Pre-structuralF Irrelevant or incorrect learning Uni-structuralD Understanding basic ideas (retelling) Multi-structuralC Understanding & covering a # of aspects but little integration

7. RelationalB Uses ideas selectively; appropriate discipline language; applies ideas to new context Extended Abstract A High level of abstract thinking; applies ideas to new context; original thinking; ideas drawn to conclusion

8. Influences on the Grading Decision Graphic quality (visual appeal) Graphic quality (visual appeal) Readability (sentence structure, spelling) Readability (sentence structure, spelling) Use of structural conventions (text or format expectations) Use of structural conventions (text or format expectations) Student text (how well work addresses assignment) Student text (how well work addresses assignment) Teacher’s prior knowledge/expectation (assumptions of student’s level of work) Teacher’s prior knowledge/expectation (assumptions of student’s level of work) Teacher’s personality (desired student perception) Teacher’s personality (desired student perception) Teacher’s philosophy of grading/education Teacher’s philosophy of grading/education Teacher’s experience in grading Teacher’s experience in grading Quality of preceding work (overall class performance impacts individual grading) Quality of preceding work (overall class performance impacts individual grading)

9. Different Types of Qualitative Grading

10. Analytic Grading Numerical points are assigned to subskills (e.g. in writing, numerical points are assigned to rhetorical and syntactical aspects of the paper) Numerical points are assigned to subskills (e.g. in writing, numerical points are assigned to rhetorical and syntactical aspects of the paper) Analytic grading leads to easier compilation of total grading points Analytic grading leads to easier compilation of total grading points Drawbacks: using a ‘points only’ system doesn’t provide substantive commentary for improved learning; students focus on points rather than writing Drawbacks: using a ‘points only’ system doesn’t provide substantive commentary for improved learning; students focus on points rather than writing Analytic scoring works best for learning when partnered with written feedback from instructor Analytic scoring works best for learning when partnered with written feedback from instructor

11. Sample Analytic System Focus: with a clearly defined topic and relevant details (20%) Focus: with a clearly defined topic and relevant details (20%) Content: that is well-developed with details and original ideas (25%) Content: that is well-developed with details and original ideas (25%) Organization: that moves logically and smoothly from beginning to end (25%) Organization: that moves logically and smoothly from beginning to end (25%) Style: that is appropriate for audiences & topic (15%) Style: that is appropriate for audiences & topic (15%) Mechanics: demonstrating an understanding of grammar, punctuation, spelling rules (15%) Mechanics: demonstrating an understanding of grammar, punctuation, spelling rules (15%)

12. Grid Scoring Analyzes rather than evaluates writing Analyzes rather than evaluates writing Uses a simple checklist to divide writing into criteria Uses a simple checklist to divide writing into criteria Criteria judged on general categories (e.g. ‘weak,’ ‘ok,’ ‘strong’) Criteria judged on general categories (e.g. ‘weak,’ ‘ok,’ ‘strong’) Works best for assignments that include drafting (quick, non-punitive) Works best for assignments that include drafting (quick, non-punitive) Doesn’t translate well into numerical grading Doesn’t translate well into numerical grading Needs written feedback to enhance learning Needs written feedback to enhance learning

13. In Summary: Decide on and prioritize evaluation criteria per assignment based on teaching philosophy, purpose of graded assignment Decide on and prioritize evaluation criteria per assignment based on teaching philosophy, purpose of graded assignment Create grading rubric based on assignment criteria Create grading rubric based on assignment criteria Grading rubric can also be turned into a grading sheet Grading rubric can also be turned into a grading sheet Share rubric/grading sheet with students Share rubric/grading sheet with students

14. Sources 1.http://www.flinders.edu.au/teach/assess/gradin g.htm http://www.flinders.edu.au/teach/assess/gradin g.htmhttp://www.flinders.edu.au/teach/assess/gradin g.htm 2. Gallagher, Eddye. Teaching Real Writing. Bedford/St. Martins, Boston: 2001.