If students know that the AI has some responsibility for determining their grades, that AI will have considerably more authority in the classroom or in any interactions with students.

收到廠商改回的英文作文模擬考成績中，發現驚人的規律，「學生作文寫的行數除以 2，就會是獲得英文作文的成績

Grading guidelines New. Item is brand new, unused and unmarked, in flawless condition. Protective wrapping should be intact. No blemishes on the outside cover. Stickers/marks indicating it may be “bargain” or “remainder” should not be considered new. Used: Like New. Item has very few defects and looks as good as new. Some minor blemishes and/or remainder marks are acceptable for this condition.   Dust cover/outside case (if applicable) should be intact.   Pages: No marking or highlighting of any kind. Shrink wrap: May be opened or missing for standard bound items. Loose leafs should be shrink wrapped to ensure all pages are present. Supplemental materials: (e.g.) CDs, DVDs, access codes should be unused. Used: Very Good. Items may have some minor defects such as marks, wear, bends, spine and page creases. Dust covers/outside case may be missing. Supplemental materials: May be missing. Water/stains: No water damage or stains of any kind acceptable in this condition. Pages: Very minor writing or highlighting (a few pages) OK. Personalization: No library labels acceptable in this condition. Name written inside OK. Binding/covers: Minimal blemishes and slight defects acceptable. No missing or loose pages. Loose leafs should be wrapped or rubber banded together and all pages must be present. Used: Good. Items with moderate wear and tear. Binding and pages should be intact. Covers: Can have curl and small creases. Moderate scuff marks or small cut OK. Corners: Can have some damage, light (1-2 inches) peeling OK, some (25%) bend OK. Pages: Minor highlighting (~20%) OK. Dog ear folds on page corners OK. Water/Stains: No visible water/spill damage. Minimal stains OK. Supplements: Can be missing/opened, unless the ISBN is a stand alone access card or a bundle edition (book with access code). Personalization: Name written inside or library labels OK. Binding: Moderate wear is OK, no loose pages. Loose leafs should be wrapped or rubber banded together and all pages must be present. Used: Acceptable. Items with more than moderate wear and tear. Binding and pages should be intact. Pages: Should be readable. Moderate highlighting and writing OK (more than ~20%). Water/Stains: Minor water/spill damage OK. Binding: Heavy wear OK, must still be intact, no loose or missing pages. Used: Unacceptable. Cover: Cover not intact. Cuts going through the cover into multiple pages. Page damage: Lines unreadable from highlighting. Page completely torn (part of page is missing) or major partial tear (high probability that normal wear and tear during next usage will result in part or all of page falling out). Water damage: Pages swollen, major wrinkling, excessive stains, major discoloration or moldy (foxing). Mismatch ISBN: Submitted ISBN does not match ISBN of what was received. Stickers or Tape: Used deliberately to hide markings specific to instructor, international, and sample editions, which are all deemed unacceptable. Rebound items. Binding: Pages are separating from binding or have been fixed with tape.

throughout an individual's schooling, the activity of readinglacks a coherent or explicit relationship to work that is assessed,unlike writing (Du Boulay 1999; Saltmarsh & Saltmarsh, 2008)

The instructor may require the submission of the notesas an evidence of pro ress before the writing of the essayis begun, or he may as! for their presentation with the com-pleted essay.

ungrading

co-constructed with students

overcome grade inflation

Une distribution gaussienne pour les notes des étudiants n’est pas un indicateur de rigueur.

There will still be general guidelines for assignments in order for them to count as complete labor. These are simple things like: How much time you spend on a task, whether you followed the labor instructions, and how many words you produce or read.

a labor-based grading system produces your final course grade by focusing on how much labor, or effort, you do in this course. The more labor you do, the higher your final course grade will be, regardless of what anyone thinks of the products of that labor.

Your first thought might be denial: you can’t mean that grades are evil banalities?

They may skim books for what they’ll “need to know.” They’re less likely to wonder, say, “How can we be sure that’s true?” than to ask “Is this going to be on the test?”

Create Extra Credit using Weighted Assignment Groups

Learning and Teaching Letter Grades are the Enemy of Authentic & Humane Learning: Bernard Bull discusses how grades work against authentic and self-determined learning. Although they are ingrained in education, he recommends considering the aspects of life free from grades and having these conversations with others. What is interesting is this is only one post being shared at the moment. Bill Ferriter shared his concerns about the association between standard grades and fixed mindset, while Will Richardson argues that grades only matter because we choose to let them matter.This continues some of the points discussed in Clive Rose’s book The End of Average and Jesse Stommell’s presentation on grades and the LMS. It is also something that Templestowe College has touched in the development of alternative pathways to higher education.

Ask yourself: Is my grading scheme allowing students to grow?

You can downplay high-stakes work by: (1) allowing students to drop one or two of their worst scores on exams, assignments, or quizzes; (2) letting students replace an earlier score with a cumulative final grade; and (3) replacing some of the weight of high-stakes work with smaller, more frequent assessments.

When assignments are optional, compliance will vary and you risk exacerbating differences in study skills, background knowledge, and the like.

attendance and attitude were the most common grading criteria employed by instrumental and choral music teachers.

(optional) Using the LTI Outcomes service, the tool can also return a piece of plain text, a basic URL, or even an LTI Launch URL. This will be attached to a student submission object in Canvas, and it’ll be visible on the student submission page and in Speedgrader

In fact, negative reactions to this proposal (“It’s unrealistic!”) point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.

grades (whether or not accompanied by comments) promote a fear of failure even in high-achieving students (Pulfrey et al., 2011)

But the reason I wanted to go back in that moment was the same reason students want to stick with familiar grading systems: I know how it works, I know how to communicate about it, I know how to get the best results from it, and it sticks within the letter-grading system I’ve used for 20 years as a teacher and longer as a student. I can recite all the dangers and disadvantages of letter grading, but because it’s the system I’ve known for pretty much my entire life, there’s still a certain comfort to it, and whenever things get weird or challenging or unpredictable, I get an atavistic desire to go back to what is familiar.

Except that if the written assessment is such that it can be graded accurately by software, that’s probably not very good assessment. If what’s important are the facts and key concepts, won’t multiple-choice do?

Automated grading is supposed to “free” the instructor for other tasks, except there is no more important task.

Why grades are “the biggest and most insidious obstacle to education”

Once students understand their roles as knowledge producers in the classroom, they can apply those reflections to other coursework and throughout their careers

This leads to the second point I once made: that students no longer need to actually read the material to get impressive grades, which contributes to both student and administrator scorn for the affected disciplines. This point caused some push-back, since professors and fellow students noted that if I wasn’t reading the material, it was my own fault for not getting the full benefit of the course. I agreed, but countered that if the difference between my reading very little of the material instead of it all was a 10 to 15 percent bump in my final grade, what did that imply about the value of said material to the course? Srigley argues that less than 20 percent of his students even access the weekly readings for his courses, largely because they know they don’t have to ­– “they can get an 80 without ever opening a book.”

designed as a marketing strategy,

which makes me wonder…Is this because of the book?

You know what I mean.

f this is the case, then why do they all look so… average

this site,

Books are now designed using stock photos, illustration software, editing software, and downloaded fonts.

sites

this

It is important

the image of a website dictates if we’re going to stay on the sit

When we reduce students to numbers and grades, they and we focus on test-taking skills and grade requirements rather than on learning

the harmful impact of grades on creativity is no less (and possibly even more) potent when a narrative accompanies them

There is certainly value in assessing the quality of learning and teaching, but that doesn’t mean it’s always necessary, or even possible, to measurethose things — that is, to turn them into numbers.  Indeed, “measurable outcomes may be the least significant results of learning”

putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects)

ntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions andNew Directions

o often, the feedbackgiven is unrelated to achieving success on critical dimensions of the goal. Forexample, students are given feedback on presentation, spelling, and quantity inwriting when the criteria for success require, say, “creating mood in a story.” Su

he main purpose of feedback is to reduce discrepancies between cur-rent understandings and performance and a goal. S

Difficult goals370.51Easy, do your best goal

addition, when the feed-back was administered in a controlling manner (e.g., saying that students per-formed as they “should” have performed), the effects were even worse (–0.78).Thus, Deci et al. concluded that extrinsic rewards are typically negative becausethey “undermine people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating them-selves” (p. 659). Rather, they are a controlling strategy that often leads to greatersurveillance, evaluation, and competition, all of which have been found to under-mine enhanced engagement and regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

ngiblerewards significantly undermined intrinsic motivation, particularly for interestingtasks (–0.68) compared with uninteresting tasks (0.18). I

Rewards and punishments89 0.14Wilkinson (1981)Teacher praise14 0.12

It is most powerful when it addresses faulty interpretations, not a totallack of understanding.

eedback is information with which a learner can confirm, add to,overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that information isdomain knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cog-nitive tactics and strategies”

The Power of Feedback

78.9% of the pupils who actually received grades would have preferred written comments, and 86.3% of those who received comments were satisfied with this mode of evaluation

Nor- mative grades provide information about proficiency relative to others; they do not provide clear standards for self-evalua- tion or for constructive attribution (Nisan, 1981). Our finding that 50% of the pupils who received no feedback would rather have received a grade may seem compatible with the argu- ments of many teachers that pupils themselves want grades

in the grades group, 26.7% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores, and 34.4% attributed it to the importance of success, whereas among those who received no feedback only 7.2% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores and 40% attributed it to the "positive" aspect of need achievement, the desire to succeed.

subjects who received written comments expressed greater interest in the tasks than did those in the other two groups, especially for the question requiring greatest commitment -- the number of extra tasks chosen

Our results suggest, as some critics argue (Holt, 1964; Sil- berman, 1970), that the information routinely given in schools -- that is, grades -- may encourage an emphasis on quanti- tative aspects of learning, depress creativity, foster fear of failure, and undermine interest. They also suggest that no such negative results ensue from the use of task-related individual- ized comments.

Even though the findings of much previous research, which compared motivation after a single trial under extrinsic and no-incentive conditions, implied that if "left alone," in- trinsic motivation for an initially interesting task would remain stable and high, our conception suggested that, in fact, re- peated nonreceipt of feedback would undermine interest. We also predicted that numerical grades would foster extrinsic mo- tivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation. The results showed clearly differential effects of these kinds of feedback on per- formance.

Harter's (1978) finding that expectation of letter grades affected children's task motivation in ways similar to the various extrinsic rewards used in other stud- ies

Most studies of extrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivation, including those men- tioned earlier, used as controls subjects who received no rewards or feedback, apparently on the assumption that un- der these conditions original levels of intrinsic motivation would be maintained.

The role of the availability of such information was studied in comparison with conditions of nonreceipt of any information and of receipt of normative evaluation.

We expected that receipt of indiviaualized, specific, non-normative information about task performance, includ- ing both positive and negative comments, would maintain or even enhance subsequent motivation.

The present research was thus designed to study the ef- fects of different feedback conditions on intrinsic motiva- tion.

One aspect that merits further study is the search for information about one's com- petence and success in a task (Festinger, 1954; Suls & Miller, 1977). Such information seems vital to a sense of mastery and self-determination because without it one can- not assess one's mastery in any given task. Thus one would expect the availability (and/or expectation) of feedback to be an important factor in task motivation in general and in determining interest, or intrinsic motivation, in particular. Specifically, one would expect intrinsic motivation to be greater for tasks perceived as supplying information about competence and to be undermined when no such informa- tion is expecte

InastudybySwann&Arthurs(1998),alargenumberoftheirstudentsseemedtotakeaninstrumentalviewoflearning,conceivingassessmenttasksasobstaclestoovercomeinthepursuitofgrades.Formativefeedbackwasviewedasameanstonegotiatetheseobstacles.InanearlierstudybyBeckeretal.(1968)ofAmericancollegelife,assessmentdemandswereubiquitous,andstudentbehaviourreectedtheinstrumentalandpragmaticstrategiestheyadoptedtocopewiththeparticularteachingandassessmentpracticesimposedonthem.Butisthistruefortoday’sstudentinthecontextoftheUK?Amajorityofthestudentsinourstudyperceivehighereducationasa‘service’,andfeltthatfeedbackconstitutespartofthatservice.Asonestudentnoted:TheywayIseeitiswe’repaying£1,000.It’smoreofaservicenow.Ifhighereducationisviewedasaservice,thenstudentsarearguablytheconsumersofthatservice.Butwhatdotheyexpecttheservicetoconsistof?Moststudentsinourstudylinkfeedbacktoattainingbettergrades.Thesestudentsperceivefeedbackcommentsasidentify-ingwhattheyaredoingrightandwrongand,therefore,helpingthemtoimprovetheirperformanceinsubsequentassessedassignmentsandexaminationsinordertoraisetheirmarks:Partofwritingtheessayquestionintheexamishavingtherighttechnique,andwhilstitwouldbeusefultosaythat‘yeah,you’rebringingingoodpartsoutsidethesubjectandit’sgoodthatyou’vebroughtinthis’,itwouldalsobegoodtoknow‘well,don’teverusethislanguageintheexam’causeit’sgoingtocountagainstyou’

80%disagreedwiththestatement‘Feedbackcommentsarenotthatuseful’

ormativefeedbackcommentscanonlybeeffectiveifstudentsreadandmakeuseofthem.MostofthestudentsinvolvedinstudiesbyHyland(2000)andDing(1998)seemedtoreadtutors’comments.Ourquestionnairedatareectthis(seeTableI).Thetimespentreadingcommentsvaries,withthemajorityofstudentsclaimingtospendlessthan15minutesdoingso(although,ofcourse,ourdatadonottelluswhenthistakesplaceorwhetherstudentsreturntolookattheirfeedbackonmorethanoneoccasion).But,overall,97%ofstudentsindicatedthattheyusually‘read’thewrittenfeedbacktheyreceive.Furthermore,wecanseefromTableIIthat82%ofthestudentsclaimedto‘paycloseattention’tofeedback.Theinterviewdataalsosupportthis:Ialwayslookforwardtoseeingwhattheyhadtosay.NormallyIgetthegradeandthenlookthroughtheself-assessmentandthetutor’sassessment,readthecommentsand...seewhatcommentshe’smadeontheessay.ThisndingisreinforcedbyHyland’s(2000)study.Henotedthatthemajorityofthestudentsinvolved(fromarangeofinstitutions)seemedtotry(evenifonlyoccasionally)tousecommentsforfutureassignments

Afurtherbarriertotheuseofformativefeedbackmaybethatsomestudentsincreasinglyfailtounderstandthetaken-for-grantedacademicdiscourseswhichunderpinassessmentcriteriaandthelanguageoffeedback(Hounsell,1987).AccordingtoEntwistle(1984,p.1),‘effectivecommunicationdependsonsharedassumptions,denitions,andunderstanding’.ButastudyatLancasterUniversityfoundthat50%ofthethird-yearstudentsinoneacademicdepartmentwereunclearwhattheassessmentcriteriawere(Baldwin,1993,citedinBrown&Knight,1994).Asoneofourstudentsnoted:‘Ihaven’tgotacluewhatI’massessedon’

hesecommentssuggestthatstudentsinourstudyperceivefeedbacknegativelyifitdoesnotprovideenoughinformationtobehelpful,ifitistooimpersonal,andifitistoogeneralandvaguetobeofanyformativeuse

Black&Wiliam’s(2000)developingtheoreticalframeworkofformativeassessmentempha-sisestheinteractionsbetweenteachers,pupilsandsubjectswithin‘communitiesofpractice’

The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering therole of assessment feedback in student learning

The Journal of Experimental Education, 2005, 73(4), 333-349 Changes in Self-Efficacy, Challenge Avoidance, and Intrinsic Value in Response to Grades: The Role of Achievement Goa

n addition, we examined whether there were differences in reactions to grades for papers versus exams. The two-way interactions between goals and type of feedback and the three-way interactions among goals, types of feedback, and grades were tested. Neither the main effects nor the interaction terms were significant, and including these terms did not alter the results for goals and goal interaction term

. Even in the context of high grades, a per formance-avoidance goal is related to decreased motivation, highlighting just how aversive evaluative situations are with this goal orientation. Pe

ulnerability to helpless behavior in the context of failure on experimental tasks. In contrast, and also consistent with Dweck's prior work (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; El liott & Dweck), mastery goals were associated with enhanced motivation during the critical phase of processing evaluative information on an important task, and this effect was not moderated by the level of the gra

Achievement goals were important to changes in motivational constructs around the receipt of grades in the classroom. As expected, the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivational constructs were moderated by grades. When students received high grades, a performance-approach goal was unrelated to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, or intrinsic value. However, when students received low grades, a performance-approach goal was related to decreased intrinsic value and increased desire to avoid chal lenge. Thus, although a performance-approach goal does not seem to have draw backs in the context of success, there are drawbacks when students experience setbacks

in recent years, some researchers have concluded that it is only perfor mance-avoidance goals that have drawbacks and that performance-approach goals promote high achievement and do not affect motivation and engagement negatively

Discussion

Intrinsic value. We adapted items developed by Eccles (1983) to assess students' intrinsic value regarding their academic work in the class. This section of the sur vey asked students, "What is your opinion of this class along the following di mensions?" Students rated the "enjoyment of work" on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all enjoyable) to 7 (very enjoyable), "interest in the work" on a scale rang ing from 1 (very boring) to 7 (very interesting), and "liking what is learned" on a scale ranging from 1 (a little) to 7 (a lot). Alpha coefficients for the three items were .92 at Time 1 and .93 at Time 2

Preference to avoid challenging work. Preference to avoid challenging work (4 items) assesses students' desires for easy, familiar tasks (Urdan, Ryan, Ander man, & Gheen, 2002). Sample items are "I prefer doing work that does not make me think too hard" and "I prefer assignments that I know I can do rather than those that are a challenge." The measure was found to be reliable in our sample (a at Time 1 = .85; Time 2 = .85)

rades. Students self-reported their grades. Grades for the English and history classes were the grades students received on the first major paper of the semester. Grades for the other courses were the grades students received on the first major exam of the semester. Grades were converted into a 13-point scale with F = 1 and A+ =13. We also assessed students' perceptions of their grades to address the pos sibility that it is the students' perceptions of their grades as successful, or not, that are more important than their actual grades. After reporting their exam or paper grades on the survey, students were asked, "In your opinion, how well did you do on the exam or paper?" The format for this item was 1 (not at all well) through 7 (very well). Students' perceptions of how well they did were highly correlated with their reported exam or paper grades (r = .77, p < .001), indicating that stu dents who received higher grades tended to feel they did w

In summary, our main goal was to examine how students' achievement goals are related to changes in self-efficacy, preference to avoid challenge, and intrin sic value in the face of evaluation. Early in the semester, we assessed students' achievement goals, self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value. We assessed students' self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value again immediately after they received their grades on their first major exam or paper. This design allowed us to examine the role of goals in the change in mo tivational constructs associated with performance feedback. Our main hypothe ses were (a) a mastery goal will be associated with enhanced motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., increased efficacy and value and lower preference for chal lenge avoidance); (b) a performance-avoidance goal will be associated with di minished motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., decreased efficacy and value and increased preference for challenge avoidance); and (c) the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivation will be moderated by grades. When students encounter low grades, a performance-approach goal will be relat ed to diminished motivation. When students receive high grades, a performance approach goal will be unrelated to changes in motivation.

Shim & Ryan 337 Furthermore, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with declines in motivational constructs, even in the context of high grades. A perfor mance-avoidance goal brings about negative achievement-related processes re garding evaluation. A performance-avoidance goal is associated with construing exams as a threat; incurring negative emotions, such as worry, fear, and anxiety; and the desire to escape exam situations (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). A perfor mance-avoidance goal, undergirded by a fear of failure, inherently involves a focus on a negative outcome (Elliot, 1999). With a performance-avoidant frame work, positive feedback is interpreted as "not failing" or "not being the worst." Al though such an assessment satisfies a performance-avoidance goal, it is unlikely to boost motivation, as the absence of something negative is not evidence of some thing positive. Thus, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with diminished motivation, regardless of whether grades are high or

Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed (a

uccess and failure are attrib uted to effort (Ames, 1992). Even in the face of failure or obstacles, a mastery goal is associated with persistence (Ames, 1984; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1995; Stipek & Kowalski, 1989). When oriented toward a mas tery goal, success (in the case of high grades) bolsters motivation, whereas a lack of progress (in the case of low grades) signals more effort is needed and thus does not diminish motivation. Therefore, we expected a mastery goal to be associated with increases in self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and a decrease in preference to avoid challenge regardless of high or low grades.

We expected a mastery goal to be associated with increases in motivation in response to grades. A mastery goal is associated with construing exams as a chal lenge and incurring positive emotions, such as eagerness, hopefulness, and ex citement (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). It is also associated with the belief that in telligence is a malleable attribute that can be developed through effort (an incremental theory of intelligence; Dweck, 1999).

n recent years, some research has indicated that performance-ap proach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation nega tively (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). In particular, when the approach versus avoidance nature of performance goals is considered, performance-avoidance goals are maladaptive, whereas performance-approach goals are often positively associated with achievement and show a positive or neutral relation to motivation

iener and Dweck (1978) demonstrated that performance-oriented students exhibited a learned helpless pattern after ex periencing failure.

In the present research, we examined how students' goals relate to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value in response to grades in the classroom

performance-approach goal has been positively associated with self-efficacy (Bong, 2001; Pajares et al; Skaalvik; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), desire to avoid challenging work (Meyer, Turner, & Spencer, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 2002), and task value (Bong; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Wolters et al). However, some researchers have found no relation between a performance-ap proach goal and self-efficacy (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares et al.) or task value (Lopez, 1999; Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2001), so it is not clear whether this is always the case

udy, a mastery goal is positively associated and a performance-avoidance goal is nega tively associated with self-efficacy, challenge-seeking, and intrinsic value (Mid dleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares, Britner, & Vahante, 2000; Skaalvik, 1997).

contrast, a performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. Performance goals can be distinguished as either approach or avoidant (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). A performance-approach goal concerns a focus on gaining favorable judgments of one's ability, and a performance-avoid ance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgments of one's ability. Achievement goals represent disparate purposes for involvement regarding aca demic tasks and, as such, have been linked to different achievement-related processes and outcomes

performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. P

mastery goal concerns a focus on developing competence and gaining understanding or mastery. I

chievement goals capture meaningful distinctions in how individuals orient themselves to achieving competence in the academic setting (Ames, 19

Our purpose in this study was to examine the role of college students' achieve ment goals in changes in their self-efficacy, preference to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value in response to grades on an important task in the classroom (first major exam or paper of the academic yea

rades are widely recognized as important in our society and carry importance for students. Grades are the basis for many ca reer decisions, including how students perceive themselves and their schoolwork. The potential undermining effect of grades for student motivation has been dis cussed often (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Kohn, 1993). Despite the importance of grades for student motivation, there has been little research examining how classroom grades relate to changes in students' motivation. Prior research has more often fo cused on different facets of performance feedback in the lab setting (Deci, Koest ner, & Ryan, 2001; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). T

Manual for thePatterns of Patterns of Adaptive Adaptive Learning ScalesLearning Scales

. First,although grading has been shown to provoke challenge avoidance(Harter, 1978

Importantly, both Elliot (1999) and Pintrich (2000) have arguedthat strong situational cues or contexts can override the effects ofchronic goal orientation. In the case of graded assessments, whenis the situational cue most salient? According to Harackiewicz,Manderlink, and Sansone (1992), when a performance-contingentreward such as a grade is attached to performance, performanceevaluation is anticipated and can arouse motivational and emo-tional consequences in the individual prior to engaging in a task.Thus, pretask performance goals would seem to be a fruitful stategoal area to explore, particularly as pretask performance goaladoption has important consequences on task performance andrelated outcomes (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; McGregor & Elliot,2002).

Kluger and DeNisi (1996), in their presentationof feedback intervention theory, used grading as an example of anexternal intervention likely to render metatask processes concern-ing self-goals, such as performance goals, salient at the expense oftask-related goals.

achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Butler,1987; Nicholls, 1984) has consistently argued that grades engendera performance focus, as performance achievement goals are ge-nerically considered as normative in content (Elliot & Murayama

Grades, a value-laden symbol indicating the rela-tive quality of a performance that is a regular feature of school life(Pope, 2001), are positioned firmly on the evaluative side of thistypology. The value of a grade reflects certain norms, and thegrade attributed reflects the degree to which normatively deter-mined standards have or have not been attained

a typology of assessment feedback, Tunstall and Gipps(1996)

Dependence on those who distribute valued resources isthe equivalent of powerlessness, and powerlessness has been as-sociated with a basic inhibition or avoidance motivational orien-tation (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003

Evaluation is an inescapable feature of academic life with regular grading and performance appraisals atschool and at university. Although previous research has indicated that evaluation and grading inparticular are likely to have a substantial impact on motivational processes, little attention has been paidto the relationship between grading and approach versus avoidance achievement goals, 2 fundamentalconcerns whenever evaluation is at stake. Three experiments, carried out in professional schools, revealedthat expectation of a grade for a task, compared with no grade, consistently induced greater adoption ofperformance-avoidance, but not performance-approach, goals. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that expec-tation of a grade, compared with no grade, consistently induced greater adoption of performance-avoidance goals even when grading was accompanied by a formative comment. Furthermore, Experiment3 showed that reduced autonomous motivation measured after having completed a task for a grade versusno grade mediated the relationship between grading and adoption of performance-avoidance goals in asubsequent task. Results are discussed in the light of achievement goal and self-determination th

Why Grades Engender Performance-Avoidance Goals:The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation

Brookhart (2008, p.8) concludes, “the grade ‘trumps’ the comment” and “com-ments have the best chance of beingreadas descriptive if theyare not accompanied by a grade.”

Butler R, Nisan M (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related com-ments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. J EducPsychol78,

Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)

Grades appear to play on students’ fearsof punishment or shame, or their desires to outcompete peers,as opposed to stimulating interest and enjoyment in learningtasks (Pulfreyet al., 2011)

icol and Macfarlane-Dick argue that studentshave been deprived of opportunities to become self-regulatedlearners who can detect their own errors in thinking. T

ssessing ef-fort and participation can happen in a variety of ways (Beanand Peterson, 1998; Rocca, 2010). In college biology courses,clicker questions graded on participation and not correct-ness of responses is one strategy. Additionally, instructors canhave students turn in minute papers in response to a ques-tion posed in class and reward this effort based on submissionand not scientific accuracy. Perhaps most importantly, biol-ogy instructors can assign out-of-class work—case studies,concept maps, and other written assignments—that can pro-mote student practice and focus students’ attention on keyideas, while not creating more grading work for the instruc-tor. Those out-of-class assignments can be graded quickly(and not for accuracy) based on a simple rubric that checkswhether students turned the work in on time, wrote the re-quired minimum number of words, posed the required num-ber of questions, and/or included a prescribed number ofreferences. In summary, one strategy for changing grading isto balance accuracy-based grading with the awarding of someproportion of the grade based on student effort and partic-ipation. Changing grading in this way has the potential topromote student practice, incentivize in-class participation,and avoid some of the documented negative consequencesof grading.

Multiple research studies described above suggest that theevaluative aspect of grading may distract students from afocus on learning. While evaluation will no doubt alwaysbe key in determining course grades, the entirety of stu-dents’ grades need not be based primarily on work thatrewards only correct answers, such as exams and quizzes.Importantly, constructing a grading system that rewards stu-dents for participation and effort has been shown to stimulate

In part, grading practices in higher education have beendriven by educational goals such as providing feedback tostudents, motivating students, comparing students, and mea-suring learning. However, much of the research literature ongrading reviewed above suggests that these goals are oftennot being achieved with our current grading practices. Ad-ditionally, the expectations, time, and stress associated withgrading may be distracting instructors from integrating otherpedagogical practices that could create a more positive and ef-fective classroom environment for learning.

Rather than motivating students to learn, grading appearsto, in many ways, have quite the opposite effect. Perhaps atbest, grading motivates high-achieving students to continuegetting high grades—regardless of whether that goal alsohappens to overlap with learning. At worst, grading lowersinterest in learning and enhances anxiety and extrinsic moti-vation, especially among those students who are struggling

High-achieving students on initial graded assignments ap-pear somewhat sheltered from some of the negative impactsof grades, as they tend to maintain their interest in completingfuture assignments (presumably in anticipation of receivingadditional good grades; Butler, 1988). Oettinger (2002) andGrant and Green (2013) looked specifically for positive im-pacts of grades as incentives for students on the thresholdbetween grade categories in a class. They hypothesized that,for example, a student on the borderline between a “C” anda “D” in a class would be more motivated to study for a finalexam than a student solidly in the middle of the “C” range.However, these studies found only minimal (Oettinger, 2002)or no (Grant and Green, 2013) evidence that grades moti-vated students to perform better on final exams under theseconditions

Rather than seeing low grades as an oppor-tunity to improve themselves, students receiving low scoresgenerally withdraw from class work (Butler, 1988; Guskey,1994). While students often express a desire to be graded,surveys indicate they would prefer descriptive comments togrades as a form of feedback (Butler and Nisan, 1986).

Even providingencouraging, written notes on graded work does not appearto reduce the negative impacts grading exerts on motivation(Butler, 1988

Grades can dampen existing in-trinsic motivation, give rise to extrinsic motivation, enhancefear of failure, reduce interest, decrease enjoyment in classwork, increase anxiety, hamper performance on follow-uptasks, stimulate avoidance of challenging tasks, and heightencompetitiveness (Harter, 1978; Butler and Nisan, 1986; But-ler, 1988; Crooks, 1988; Pulfreyet al., 2011)

rather than stimulating an interest in learning, grades pri-marily enhance students’ motivation to avoid receiving badgrades (Butler and Nisan, 1986; Butler, 1988; Crooks, 1988;Pulfreyet al., 2011)

ur current“A”–“F” grading system was not designed with the primaryintent of motivating students. Rather, it stemmed from effortsto streamline communication between institutions and di-minish the impacts of unreliable evaluation of students fromteacher to teacher (

Grading does not appear to provide effective feedback thatconstructively informs students’ future efforts. This is partic-ularly true for tasks involving problem solving or creativity.Even when grading comes in the form of written comments, itis unclear whether students even read such comments, muchless understand and act on them.

arbleet al.,1978; Butler 1988; Pulfreyet al., 2011

Anecdotal accounts, as well as some studies, indicate thatmany students do not read written feedback, much less useit to improve future work (MacDonald, 1991; Crisp, 2007). I

Butler and Nisan (1986) compared theimpacts of evaluative feedback, descriptive feedback, and nofeedback on student achievement in problem-solving tasksand in “quantitative” tasks (e.g., those requiring quick, timedwork to produce a large number of answers). They foundthat students receiving descriptive feedback (butnotgrades)on an initial assignment performed significantly better onfollow-up quantitative tasks and problem-solving tasks thandid students receiving grades or students receiving no feed-back. Students receiving grades performed better on follow-up quantitative tasks than students receiving no feedback,but did not outperform those students on problem-solvingassignments. In other words, providing evaluative feedback(in this case, grades) after a task does not appear to enhancestudents’ future performance in problem solving.

Feedback is generally divided into two categories: eval-uative feedback and descriptive feedback. Evaluative feed-back, such as a letter grade or written praise or criticism,judges student work, while descriptive feedback provides in-formation about how a student can become more competent(Brookhart, 2008, p. 26

Higginset al., 2002

Assessment and Classroom Learning

This manuscript provides a critical examination of the formative assessment literature in particular issues related to the formative assessment lexicon, Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal work, and more recent research. Finally, this manuscript provides the foundation for a series of manuscripts on “best practices” for evaluating student achievement through the use of formative assessment.

A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education

professor’s perspective in a particular cla

ConclusionsThis paper finds that the effort grade affects theknowledge grade positively and significantly across allspecifications. This is strong evidence that more studenteffort does lead to increase learning

The following examples illustratesome choices a professor can make. Suppose a professordecides to maximize student’s grades by giving all studentsthe best possible grade. If the professor does this, studentshave no incentive to put forth effort. Even worse, the sig-nal, which is just the grade, does not tell future employersanything about the students’ ability.If a professor decides instead to maximize the effortgiven, the professor gives all the credit to effort as opposedto knowledge. This maximizes the effort expended by thestudents, however, the signal only tells employers how thestudent is at giving effort and not what the student knows.If a professor instead decides to give credit only forknowledge as opposed to effort, this may cause studentsbelow a certain ability level to give no effort. This policy sig-nals to future employers which students have low or highability. However, the policy will not induce all students togive effort.9Therefore, the problem is how do you induceall students to give effort without lowering the amount ofknowledge gained by the students or weakening or mini-mizing the signal that is sent to future employe

d. A stu-dent’s grade is a signal to future employers about thestudents’ ability, therefore, students want to maximize thegrade that they receive in a class. The goal of the pro-fessor/administrator, hereafter called the professor, is toassign grades that maximize the informational learning ofthe students. Students generally want to put in the leastamount of effort to earn a given grade—the measure ofthe knowledge that the student has mastered in the class.8The professor wants to maximize the signal that the gradegives to future employers, i.e. to have the student earn thehighest grade, but does not want to lower the amount ofknowledge that the students are required to lear

s. Thismeasure includes class attendance, whichRomer (1993),Dobkins, Gil, and Marion (2010)and others, find is relatedto performance

endogeneit

study time did have an impact ongrades, whereas class attendance did not. Running a regres-sion on separate categories of students, they found thatstudents who study throughout the week derived morebenefits than crammers. In contrast to Schuman et al., theyfound that an increase in academic effort was rewardedwith higher grades.Rau and Durand (2000)also tested theeffects of effort on college grades. They found that studentswho studied daily and have better study habits performedbetter on tests, even if they had lower standardized testscores. They concluded that effort made a difference atIllinois State University.Schuman (2001)replied toRauand Durand (2000)that the difference in results were duemainly to the fact that Rau and Durand used somewhatdifferent measures of effor

at study time during theweek was not related to any measure of college grades,while study time on the weekend was significantly and pos-itively correlated with all measures of college grad

The authors found no significant increase inthe relationship between time studied and GPA. An organicchemistry lab was also studied. For this specific class, therewas even less evidence that the amount of time spentstudying affected achievement as measured by grades. Thepaper concluded that study time and grades may have asubstantial relationship, but the measures of effort in anindividual study day may not capture the variation thatoccurs from day to day

Conventional wisdom suggests that the more effort astudent puts forth, the better grade the student will earn.However, researchers find mixed results when examiningthis relationship. This finding may be due to the less thanideal manner in which effort has been measured in theliterature. Moreover, existing estimates regarding the linkbetween effort and grades are biased because the estimatesignore the stochastic nature of effor

The unique aspect of this policy is that, for freshmanand sophomore level courses, effort is a separate compo-nent part of a student’s grade.3The SE2policy requires aprofessor to report two grades to the registrar for studentstaking freshman and sophomore level courses: effort andcontent learning (knowledge). The administration weightsthe two grades differently for freshman and sophomorecourses.Tables 1 and 2present the final grade outcomes forfreshman and sophomore courses, respectively. Roughlyspeaking, knowledge and effort grades are weighted 40%and 60%, respectively, for freshman courses and 60% and40% in sophomore course

The effect of effort grading on learnin

THE GRADING OF STUDENT

WhereAIsOrdinary:TheEvolutionofAmericanCollegeandUniversityGrading,1940-2009

Ifyouhavefoundthecouragetogoawholesemesterorcoursewithoutanygrades,youwillbefacedwithapotentiallyparalyzingproblem:Howdoyoucomeupwithareportcardgradewhenyouhavenogradebook?WhenIfirstfacedthisproblem,IfoundmyselfwritingtoAlfieKohn,whereIoutlinedthatIwashappytoreportthatIhadreplacedeverydaygradingwithrealcommentsandconstructivefeedback,butthatIwasstrugglingwithhowIcouldconvertorsymbolizeallthefeedbackasagrade,notbecauseIwantedtobutbecauseIhadto.Kohn’sreplywastremendouslyhelpful:Myprimaryanswertoyourquestionis“Bringthekidsinonit.”Thisshouldbeadecisionyoumakewiththem,notforthem.Thatgoesforthegeneralclasspolicy(andtherationaleforit)aswellthespecificgradegiventoeachstudent.Someteachersmeetwitheachstudentindividuallyanddecidetogetherwhatthefinalgradewillbe.Others,whoaremorewillingtogiveupcontrolandempowerstudents,simplyletthestudentdecide.Theyinvariablyreportthatstudentsenduppickingthesamegradethattheteacherwouldhavegiven,andsometimestheyevensuggestalowerone.Buttheadvantagesoflettingthekidsdecideareincalculable,andtheprocessalsohasthesalutaryeffectofneutralizingthedestructiveeffectsofhavingtogivegradesinthefirstplace.(citedinBower,2010)Yearslater,Istillabidebythisprofoundadvice.Bringthekidsinonitremainsattheheartofmyanswertoanyonewhoasks,“Howdoyougradewithoutgrading?”First,evenifagradeismandatedforthereportcard,itmakesverylittlesensethattheonlywaytocomeupwithafinalgradewouldbetotakealistofotheraveragesandaveragethemtogethertogetafinalaverage(Wormeli,2006).

Infact,whenGallimoreandRolandactuallyrecordedandcategorized2,326ofCoachWooden’sactsofteaching,theyfoundthatonly6.6%wereactsofdisapprovalwhile6.9%wereactsofpraise(Coyle,2009).Thatmeansthemajorityofhisinteractionswithhisathleteswerejudgmentfreestatementsofinformation

IhavecometolivebywhatAlfieKohnhasidentifiedasBruner’sLaw,whichistosaythatweshouldtryandcreateanenvironmentwherestudentscan“experiencesuccessandfailurenotasrewardandpunishment,butasinformation”(ascitedinKohn,1999e,p.191)

OnceIwasabletomovepastsimplyasking“HowdoIgradebetter?”IrealizedthatIneededtofocusmoreon“WhydoIgradeatall?”Thereisalotofcommonsensearoundwhywegradestudents,butifyoulookclosely,theconventionalwisdomdoesnotmakeallthatmuchsenseandisunfortunatelyalltoocommon

haddecidednottogradetheiressays.Iwasbeamingwithexcitement;theywerenot.Suddenly,theairbeneathmywingshaddisappeared.Myexcitementwaslostonthem,andIwasdisheartened.Butwhathappenednextbothappalledandenlightenedme.Istoodthereatthefrontoftheclassandheardwhatsoundedlikeall30ofthemyellinunison,“Youmeanwedidthisallfornothing?”InitiallyIfeltlikeIhadbeenkickedinthegut,butthenIfeltliketheGrinchwhenhisheartgrewthreesizesthatday.

IremembersearchingtheWebforalternativestogradingandfindinganarticletitled“TheCostsofOveremphasizingAchievement”(Kohn,1999b).ItwasthefirstAlfieKohnarticleIhadeverread,butitwouldbefarfromthelast,anditprovedtobethepedagogicalpillthatIhadbeenlookingfortocuremyailmentsforgrading.Irememberdevouringthearticleandreturningtomygrade8classroomthenextdaywithasenseofrevitalizedurgencythatIcouldnotwaittosharewithmystudents.Thatyearmyteachingassignmentincludedtwoclassesofabout30grade8studentswhomItaughtlanguageartsandscience.Inanefforttointegratethetwosubjects,Ihadassignedmystudentstowriteanessayontheparticlemodelofmatter.Asfarastheyknew,Ishouldhavebeengradingtheirpapers,butIwasabouttoblowtheirminds.Iwalkedintocl

Thepeoplewhohaveahardtimecomprehendinghowchildrencouldlearnwithoutextrinsicmanipulatorsconcernmethemost.Theyaresoinvestedintraditionalschoolingthattheyhaveneverquestioneditsfoundation.Unfortunately,somehaveadistrustfulviewofthenatureofchildren;theybelievethatwithoutgradingtherewouldbenothingtostopchildrenfromrunningamok

Fortoolong,Iwaslettingschoolinggetinthewayofmyteachingandtoomanyofmyteachingpracticeswerebasedonpedagogythatwasatbestunhelpfulandatworstharmfultomylongtermgoals.Throughcriticalquestioningandextensiveresearch,Icametotheconclusionthatmypedagogyhadtorevolvearoundonepriority:learning.Iftherewerethingsthatworkedtosabotagelearning,thenitwasmyprofessionalresponsibilitytoremovethem

IamnotthesameteacherIusedtobe.WhenIstarted,Iwasfocusedonpowerandcontrol.Iassignedloadsofhomework,dishedouthugepenaltiesforlateassignments,assignedpunishmentsforrulebreakingbehavior,andaveragedmarkstodeterminethestudents’finalgrade.IdidsomeofthesethingsbecauseIwastrainedtodosoinuniversity.However,mostoftheseteachingstrategieswerebeingdonemindlesslyand,forthemostpart,IwassimplyteachingthewayIwastaught.

IttookonlysixyearsbeforeIwantedtoquitteaching.Ihadbecomeincreasinglyunhappywithmyteachingandmystudents’learning.Iwastiredoflaboringthroughhoursandhoursofmarking,andIhatednaggingkidstocompletetheirhomework.Insteadofstudentsasking“Whatisthisquestionworth?”Iwantedthemtoactuallygetexcitedaboutthecontent.Iwantedchange,andIcameclosetothinkingthatchangerequiredmetoleavetheprofession

Bruner’s Law -we want kids to regard success and failure as information not as reward and punishment.

The respondents also de- scribed a creative person as one who has a collectivistic orientation, such as one who "inspires people," "has contribution to the progress of society" and "is appreciated by others." These descriptions, found in this sample of Chinese people, did not occur in U.S. investigations (Rudowicz et al., 1995

onventional, " "timid, " "lack of conjidence. "and "conforming. "

imaginative, " "always ques- tioning, " "quick in responding. " "active, " and "high intellectual ability, "

Implicit Theories of Creativity: Teachers' Perception of Student Characteristics in Hong Kong

"self-directed," "curious," "original," "artistic," "intel- ligent," "interested in many things," "exploratory," "unique," "innovative," "flexible," "imaginative," "al- ways questioning," "nonconforming," "challenging," "uninhibited," "independent," "sensitive," "expres- sive," "inventive," and "good at designing."

but I don’t think that’s nec­es­sar­ily what their con­cern is.

grading rubric

…move away from measuring academic success according to rigid marking criteria. They should focus on learning through experience and the cycle of failure inherent in creative endeavours.

Alternatively, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng who are the founders of Coursera, a Stanford MOOC startup, have decided to use peer evaluation to assess writing. Koller and Ng (2012) specifically used the term “calibrated peer review” to refer to a method of peer review distinct from an application developed by UCLA with National Science Foundation funding called Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR). For Koller and Ng, “calibrated peer review” is a specific form of peer review in which students are trained on a particular scoring rubric for an assignment using practice essays before they begin the peer review process.