From a student’s perspective, grading can seem like a mysterious and even sometimes arbitrary process, and yet it has the potential to be an important, productive, and educational part of a course.
(Note: For ideas on low-stakes (ungraded) evaluation of students, see our page on Classroom Assessment Techniques.)
It helps to recognize that grading serves multiple purposes beyond the obvious one of giving the registrar information for their calculations of credits and GPAs. Assessing students:
For all these benefits to accrue, however, you have to devise a consistent and fair system of grading that aligns with your teaching goals, and you have to communicate that system to your students.
In their book Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment, professors Barbara Walvoord and Virginia Johnson Anderson remind us that “a model for calculating course grades is not just a mathematical formula; it is an expression of your values and goals.” In other words, when devising a system for grading student work, you need to keep in mind your learning goals for those students, so that you (a) evaluate students on dimensions that you care about, dimensions that are relevant to those goals, and (b) so that your feedback can help them pursue those goals.
Your first decision is going to be about how much weight you give to each graded student activity (tests, papers, projects, participation), and this should certainly map on to your values and goals for the course.
In a unit-based approach, you weight a variety of activities equally across the length of the semester. You might do this in a course that covers a number of topics of similar importance. Giving equal weight means that a test or paper for the first section of the course, say, has no more or less impact on a student’s overall grade than a test or paper for the final section of the course. (In a maximal version of this, there might be four exams, each of which was worth 25% of the final grade.) One advantage of this structure is that it encourages a relatively steady level of student effort throughout the course.
In a developmental approach, you give more weight to activities that come later in the semester; a final exam or project or essay contributes more to the final grade than earlier work. (Perhaps the first paper of the semester is worth 15% of the grade, and the final one is worth, say, 35%, the rest of the points being associated with other activities.) This is a good choice for classes where students are going to be in a better position to show their learning at the end of the semester than at the beginning—if, for example, it’s a class where students have to amass a number of skills before they can experience a qualitative shift in their aptitude.
Grading does take time and energy, but there are ways to do it more efficiently:
There are a few easy things you can do to ensure you’re approaching grading in a fair and consistent way: you can remove names from assignments before grading (which can be easier if assignments are submitted electronically), can make sure you grade assignments in a different order each time (e.g., don’t always go through the stack alphabetically), and, most importantly, you can define clearly (for yourself and for students) exactly what you want students to do.
One way to nail this down and communicate it to students is through the use of rubrics that describe what you’re looking for and explain the basis for your grades. The two main types of rubrics, Holistic and Analytic, approach the matter in different ways. Analytic rubrics delineate a variety of dimensions you’re interested in and, for each dimension, indicate what distinguishes different levels of performance (A, B, C, D, F; Excellent, Successful, Fair, Failing; etc.). Here’s a hypothetical example:
|Spelling||Lots of spelling errors (didn't use spell check!)||Errors of a specific type, but not consistent or only in technical language||Virtually error free|
|Draws upon sources||Little or no source material used||Used sources only mentioned in class or syllabus||Draws not only on sources mentioned in class, but also found appropriate new ones|
|Methodology||No method evident||Chose a methodology but not the best choice, and/or incorrectly applied||Best method chosen and appropriately applied|
And here’s an example of how an analytic rubric could be applied to a presentation:
|Use of visual aids||No visual aids or confusing, distracting visual aids||Visual aids used, but aids don't add to the verbal persentation||Visual aids are clear and necesssary additions to the presentation|
|Performance||No attempt to engage with audience; no evidence of preparation||Attempts to engage audience, though infrequently or not fully successfully||Performance is dynamic, engaging, and clearly rehearsed|
|Knowledge||Presenter makes significant mistakes about material||Presenter shows mastery of presented material but struggles with related material||Presenter has master of presentation content and related material|
These various dimensions could be weighted equally in the calculation of the grade, or you could give more weight to some and less to others. Either way, the key is to communicate the system and your reasons for adopting it.
Holistic rubrics, on the other hand, are concerned with the overall quality of the work, considering all the dimensions of success at once. For example, here’s a rubric for the participation grade in Georgetown University Professor Betsy Sigman’s Developing and Managing Business Databases course:
Rather than separate out elements like preparation and frequency and relevance of contributions, these concerns are combined into one overall judgment. This can, of course, be applied to work handed in, such as this excerpt from Georgetown University Professor David Ebenbach’s paper-grading rubric:
Choosing between holistic and analytic rubrics is a matter of matching the rubric to the situation. Analytic rubrics are particularly useful when you have multiple graders who need to come together to agree on grades, or when you want to focus students’ attention on particular concerns about the work, or where you want to weight different concerns differently. Holistic rubrics, on the other hand, tend to be a good fit for experienced graders, or any situation where you want to emphasize overall quality rather than specific elements.
Find out more about rubrics at our Assessment Portal.
Also, keep an eye open for the possibility of bias. The human mind depends on unconscious mental shortcuts and generalizations just to get through the day, so we all regularly do this kind of heuristic thinking. When these shortcuts intersect with identity groups, they can be dangerous. For example, maybe, without even realizing it, you have a picture in your mind of what a “good student in the major” looks like, and maybe that picture has a very particular demographic profile. Or maybe you see a particular kind of name on your roster and think, completely unintentionally and perhaps even unconsciously, “That student is going to have trouble writing in the English language.” Those are examples of implicit bias, and they can attach to race, nationality, class, religion, gender, sexuality, or any of a number of other identity-related categories, and they can lead to an approach to grading that’s not equally fair for all of your students. Again, we’re all equipped with brains that work this way, so we all have bias of one form or another (or, likely, multiple forms). The appropriate question isn’t Who’s biased? but What are my biases, and what am I going to do about them? See our inclusive pedagogy page for ideas on how to counter bias. Or check out our inclusive pedagogy pamphlet for ideas and tips on bias, assessment, and a variety of other areas you can address to make your class more accessible to all students.
Please reach out to us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you'd like to have a conversation with someone at CNDLS about these or other teaching issues.