155 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. Once students understand their roles as knowledge producers in the classroom, they can apply those reflections to other coursework and throughout their careers
  2. Oct 2017
  3. Apr 2017
    1. 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.”

      Again, this implies that the professor should care. One of the principles behind my grading system is that I don't. People are welcome to do whatever they want and they get the same grade, unless they do exceptional work.

      This also implies that grades are somehow the currency of learning and that if you are getting good grades without learning, then you are somehow "winning."

      This is a misunderstanding of grades. They are really the bits of an expert system that converts qualitative evaluation of individual performances into a final score that helps people categories graduates. So they are secondary to the actual learning and performance.

  4. Nov 2016
    1. designed as a marketing strategy,

      my sense is that this has always been the case

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

      a nice transition

    3. You know what I mean.

      not exactly.

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

      Is this a case of selective seeing? Perhaps most covers have always been bland, but we see the ones from the past as more interesting?

    5. this site,

      name author, or site

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

      there are still some amazing cover designs.

    7. sites

      Wordpress is a software platform, that also happens to be centrally hosted at wordpress.com

    8. this

      why not a screenshot?

    9. It is important

      Why is it important?

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

      Is this true?

  5. Sep 2016
    1. the harmful impact of grades on creativity is no less (and possibly even more) potent when a narrative accompanies them
    2. 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”

      Just because you need to measure learning get doesn't mean you can.

  6. Jul 2016
    1. putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects)

      Grades are often an obstacle to learning.

  7. Jun 2016
    1. 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

      Importance of relevance of feedback to goals for exercise: e.g. spelling is not useful if the goal was "create a mood."

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

      definition of feedback

    3. Difficult goals370.51Easy, do your best goal

      Difficult goals are more important effect than easy, "do your best" goals.

    4. 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)

      Control, surveillance, evaluation, and competition all undermine enhanced engagement and regulation [!]

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

      Tangible rewards lower motivation

    6. Rewards and punishments89 0.14Wilkinson (1981)Teacher praise14 0.12

      Praise and rewards and punishment have very low effect sizes.

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

      Feedback is most powerful when it is about partial correction rather than lack of understanding

    8. 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”

      definition of feedback

    9. The Power of Feedback

      Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

      Should discuss student-to-teacher feedback

    1. 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

      most students who receive grades only wish they had comments; most student who received comments only were satisfied.

      [[Should check this with my students.

    2. 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

      Grades provide information about relative proficiency not clear standards for self-evaluation.

      But students would still rather have then than nothing (50%). However, of graded students, 78.9% would rather have comments than grades.

    3. 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.

      Grades group:

      • 26.7% attributed effort to avoid failure
      • 34.4% to desire for success

      In non-grades group:

      • 7.2% to avoid failure
      • 40% to need for achievement, desire to succeed.
    4. 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

      Subjects who received written comments expressed greater intrinsic motivation,

    5. 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.

      Good quotation on the negative aspect of grades.

    6. 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.

      This is an interesting point with regard to my practice: 100% for effort and no feedback is worse than grades, because it means there really is no feedback.

    7. 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

      Harter 1978 showed that grades are extrinsic motivators. Harter, S. (1978). Pleasure derived from challenge and the effects of receiving grades on children's difficulty level choices. Child Development, 49, 788-799.

    8. 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.

      make an interesting point that most studies assume that no-feedback is a status quo.

    9. 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.

      Compared it to grades only and no-feedback.

    10. 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.

      Hypothesis: that individualized, non-normative information about performance would maintain or enhance motivation.

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

      goal of study

    12. 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

      Article is about the search for information about "one's competence and success in a task", with the assumption that interest and intrinsic motivation would be greater for tasks that are perceived as supplying information about competence and undermined when this is missing.

    1. 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’

      Students' consumerist, instrumental view of learning.

    2. 80%disagreedwiththestatement‘Feedbackcommentsarenotthatuseful’

      80% of students disagreed with the statement that feedback was not useful.

    3. 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

      Most students read feedback and try to make something of it.

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

      The extent to which students do not understand what they are being assessed on, even in higher years.

    5. hesecommentssuggestthatstudentsinourstudyperceivefeedbacknegativelyifitdoesnotprovideenoughinformationtobehelpful,ifitistooimpersonal,andifitistoogeneralandvaguetobeofanyformativeuse

      What makes feedback less effective

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

      Black and Williams (2000) develop a theory of formative learning within a community of practice.

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

      Higgins, Richard, Peter Hartley, and Alan Skelton. 2002. “The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the Role of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (1): 53–64. doi:10.1080/03075070120099368.

    1. p. 63

      "Research suggests that avoidance of challenge may be related to motives and goals in somewhat complex ways. Elliott and Dweck (1988), in an experimental study, found that when children were oriented toward mastery goals they were more likely to choose tasks described as challenging and offering opportunities to learn, regardless of their level of perceived ability. But when students were oriented toward performance goals, they chose challenging tasks that served to enhance others' high opinions of their abilities only if they perceived their ability to be high. Children who perceived their ability to be low and were oriented toward performance goals, in contrast, tended to choose tasks described as easy but that would avoid unfavourable judgments of their ability. Some students may feel they are in a double-bind, preferring easy work that does not threaten their self-worth, yet taking on difficult tasks in order to demonstrate their competence or superiority... Elliot and Church (1997) found that performance-approach goals were positively associated with measures of both challenge-avoidance (fear of failure) and challence-seeking motives (achievement motivation). Avoidance of challenge, then appears, to be positively associated with performance-avoidance goals and negatively related with matery goals, but may have a more complex relationship with performance-approach goals."

      In other words, the goal has to be to focus teaching and evaluation on the inculcation of mastery goals and the avoidance of situations in which students are encouraged to engage in performance-avoidance. Once they start engaging in performance avoidance, they then stop seeing challenge.

    2. p. 75

      Why my badges may be a bad idea:

      "These results suggest that teachers may discourage avoidance behaviour among their students when they encourage students to focus on mastering the material, improvement, and understanding the relevance of classroom work in their lives. Although it makes sense that students should be less concerned with protecting their image in classrooms that emphasize understanding the material and personal, individual standards of achievement, our results suggest that de-emphasizing performance goals may be more important than increasing the emphasis on mastery goals.... Even in classrooms that contain some of the curricular elements of a mastery goal structure, such as the constructivist principle of assigning open-ended, inquiry-based projects and tasks, students may avoid novelty and challenge if they believe that, ultimately, what matters is how their performance compares to their peers."

    3. p. 73

      Makes an interesting suggestion about avoiding social comparison: give students individualised work, not by dividing them into groups, but by giving students the work they can do as fast as others in the room (i.e. hard worl to slow down the good students and easier work to speed up the slower ones.

    4. pp. 72-73

      Collectively, the results of our studies suggest that avoidance behavior is more common in schools and classrooms that emphasize performance goals, primarily by making ability differences between students and competition salient features of the learning environment. These results are intuitive. When students find themselves in learning environments that promote social comparison and make ability differences between students salient, it makes sense that they will be concerned with looking able compared to others. For those students who fear or expect that they may not compare favorably with their classmates, the adoption of strategies to avoid such negative social comparisons is to be expected."

    5. p. 72

      "...when students self-handicap, cheat, fail to seek help when they need it, and avoid the types of challenging and novel academic tasks that produce real learning, they are undermining their own learning and development. Over time, such behavior can produce a self-perpetuating cycle of academic failure and increased avoidance (Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee 1998)."

    6. p. 71

      Gheen and Midgely 1999 examined "how teachers' reports of social comparison practices related to avoiding novelty and chellenge. They found that teachers' reports of informative social comparison practices related to slightly higher levels of avoidance. However, these practices weakened the association between self-efficacy and avoiding novelty and challenge. In classrooms where teachers were high in their use of interstudent discussion about how to improve one's own work, low- and high-efficacy students were on a more equal footing when it came to avoiding novelty challenge. However, in classrooms where teachers reported using high levels of relative ability social comparison practices, low self-efficacy students' avoidance was higher than that of high self-efficacy students'"

    7. pp. 70-71

      • Gheen and Midgley 1999 looked at classroom practices of sharing information about student work:
      • Where work was shared to "see who got the right answer" (relative ability purposes) and
      • to "get hints for when you have difficulty" (acquiring information purposes"

      No surprise:

      "They found that students' perceptions of the goal structure related to avoidance of novelty and challenge. When students perceived that their classrooms emphasized mastery goals, they reported lower levels of avoidance, but when they perceived their classrooms emphasized performance goals, they were more lilely to say that thei preferred to avoid novel and challenging work."

    8. p.70

      "Students' perceptions of a mastery classroom goal structure were associated with a lower level of help avoidance whereas their perceptions of a performance classroom goal structure were associated with a higher level of help avoidance. In classrooms where students perceived that the focus was on understanding, mastery, and the intrinsic value of learning, compared to classrooms where the focus was on competition and proving one's ability, students were less likely to avoid seeking help with their work when they needed it."

    9. p. 69

      "In the learning environments of classrooms and schools, students are exposed to and perceive various messages about the purposes of achievment. For example, students can perceive that in their classroom or school, there is an emphasis on learning, understanding, and improvment (a mastery goal structure). Similarly, they can perceive messages that suggest that getting the highest grades on the test and outperforming their classmates are valued most in the classroom or school (a performance goal structure). Sometimes, these perceptions are influenced by teacher practices that emphasize a mastery or performance goal structure, such as when teachers post only the work of the highest achieving students in the class (performance-goal-oriented instructional practices)."

    10. p. 69

      Extrinsic goals (i.e. trying to get a reward or avoid punishment) are most strongly related to mal-adjustive student behaviour in the poorest performing students. I.e. marks make the poorest students doubt themselves more, be less-likely to seek help, and more likely to cheat.

    11. p. 67

      Personal mastery goals are negatively related to

      • self-handicapping (Midgley and Urban 2001)
      • help-seeking behaviour (Ryan and Pintrich, 1997, Ryan, Hicks, and Midgley, 1997)
      • probably (but less consistent) with regard to challenge avoidance
      • No significant relationship to cheating: "this is somwhat puzzling given that mastery goals represent a desire for learning, improvement, and mastery of the material. Such a goal orientation should lead students to avoid behaviors that undermine learning (i.e. handicapping) and to disdain cheating, but such relations have often not been found in our data.

      [[I wonder about this: when I do L2 language tests, for example, I don't mind "cheating" in the sense of looking at the answers if I can almost guess them.

    12. p. 65

      Contains a survey of the authors' own research on each topic (self-handicapping, avoidance of help-seeking behaviour, avoidance of challenge, and cheating.

    13. Urdan, Tim, Allison M. Ryan, Eric M. Anderman, and Margaret H. Gheen. 2002. “Goals, Goal Stuctures, and Avoidance Behaviours.” In Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning, edited by C. Midgley, 55–85. Taylor & Francis.

      Looks at four behaviours associated with performance avoidance: self-handicapping, avoidance of help seeking, preference for avoiding novelty, and cheating

    1. 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

      Shim, Sungok, and Allison Ryan. 2005. “Changes in Self-Efficacy, Challenge Avoidance, and Intrinsic Value in Response to Grades: The Role of Achievement Goals.” The Journal of Experimental Education 73 (4): 333–49.

      Studies the extent to which grades impact challenge avoidance. Makes a distinction between performance-avoidance goals and performance-approach goals. Argues that other literature has shown that only performance avoidance behaviour is maladaptive.

    2. 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

      Motivation issues do not vary whether you are talking about exams or papers.

    3. . 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

      High grades can still be associated with decreased motivation

    4. 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

      Mastery goals were associated with enhanced motivation, even in the context of a low grade.

      So if the focus is mastery, a low grade is motivating.

    5. 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

      When students achieved low grades, a performance approach goal was related to decreased intrinsic value and increased desire to avoid challenge.

    6. 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

      Performance avoidance is bad; performance approach motivation may be good.

    7. Discussion

      Discussion section

    8. 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

      Intrinsic value questions.

    9. 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)

      Survey questions on preference to avoid challenging work

    10. 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

      Asked students a) what their last grade was and b) independently, how did they think they did.

    11. 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.

      The method. Should see if I could replicate this.

    12. 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 avoidance goals see exams as a threat, see failure as reflecting lack of ability, and positive feedback is interpreted as "not failing" or "not being the worst."

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

      Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed.

    14. 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.

      If grades are succeeding (i.e. developing a mastery goal, then high grades will bolster motivation by indicating success and low grades will not diminish motivation as they will be understood as simply signalling that more work is needed.

    15. 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).

      If exams are understood as challenging, then they are seen as positive and a mastery goal results.

    16. 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

      Performance approach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation negatively, as opposed to performance-avoidance goals.

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

      Performance-oriented students exhibited a learned helplessness when experiencing failure.

    18. 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

      This paper looks at how students' goals relate to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, etc, in response to grades.

    19. 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

      Performance approach goals are positively associated with self-efficacy, but also to challenge avoiding behaviour.

    20. 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).

      Mastery goals are positively associated with "self-efficacy, challenge-seeking, and intrinsic value"; performance avoidance goals are negatively associated with these same values.

    21. 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-approach goals focus on gaining a favourable judgement;

      Performance-avoidance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgements.

    22. performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. P

      A performance goal is a goal of demonstrating competence--i.e. on the demonstration.

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

      Mastery goal is an intrinsic motivation on mastery.

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

      Definition of achievement goals. See also the next note.

    25. 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

      Point is to study how motivation changes in response to grading, especially challenge avoidance.

    26. 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

      Grades are an important aspect of student's lives and used by students themselves, even though they have motivational implications.

    1. Manual for thePatterns of Patterns of Adaptive Adaptive Learning ScalesLearning Scales

      Midgley, Carol, Martin L Maehr, Ludmila Z Hruda, Eric Anderman, Lynley Anderman, Kimberley E Freeman, and T Urdan. 2000. “Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales.” Ann Arbor 1001: 48109–41259.

      This is a survey for working out students' motivation, performance avoidance, and so on.

  8. serval.unil.ch serval.unil.ch
    1. . First,although grading has been shown to provoke challenge avoidance(Harter, 1978

      Grading has been shown to provoke challenge avoidance behaviour

    2. 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).

      When or how can the performance-orientation of grades be mitigated? "Manderlink and Sansone (1992) [argue that], when a performance-contingent reward such as a grade is attached to a performance, performance evaluation is anticipated and can arouse motivational and emotional consequences in the individual prior to engaging in the task."

    3. 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.

      grades focus attention on performance/self goals rather than task goals.

    4. 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

      achievement goal theory argues that grades engender performance focus.

    5. 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

      Describes grades as "value laden"

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

      Tunstall and Gipps 1996: A typology of assessment feedback.

    7. 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

      Dependence is equivalent of powerlessness, and powerlessness leads to inhibition, avoidance.

    8. 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

      Abstract: expectation of a grade consistently introduced greater adoption of performance-avoidance, but not performance approach, even when accompanied by formative comment.

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

      Pulfrey, Caroline, Celine Buchs, and Fabrizio Butera. 2011. “Why Grades Engender Performance-Avoidance Goals: The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation.” J. Educ. Psychol. 103 (3): 683–700.

    1. 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.”

      Grades "trump" comment. From Brookhart 2008 p. 8.

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

      Looked at feedback only, grade only, and no comment. Not clear if grades counted or not. And they received only grades.

    3. Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)

      Schinske, Jeffrey, and Kimberly Tanner. 2014. “Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently).” CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (2): 159–66. doi:10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054.

      Has a good brief history of grading.

    4. 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)

      grades motivate to avoid shame or punishment or to competitive instincts rather than stimulate learning.

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

      Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006 argue that instructor-initiated grading deprives students of opportunities to become self-regulated learners.

    6. 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.

      Ways of assessing effort: all of these seem pretty programmatic, however, and encourage gaming.

    7. 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

      Evaluative grading distracts students.

      Effort-focussed grading stimulates interest

    8. 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.

      Grading is in part used to provide feedback and to rank students. But studies show that it is ineffectual or counterproductive at both.

    9. 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

      summary: grading does the opposite of motivating students.

      Good epigraph?

    10. 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

      Even borderline students (i.e. students on the line between a C and B) and not motivated to study by grading.

    11. 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).

      Students say they want to be graded but actually would prefer descriptive comments

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

      encouraging notes with grades don't help

    13. 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)

      dampen intrinsic motivation, encourage intellectual conservatism

    14. 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)

      Grades primarily motivate people to avoid receiving bad grades

    15. 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 (

      Current grading system was designed for institutions, not students. It was a ranking and inter-rater consistency system (in fact in the beginning one hidden from the students) rather than something designed to improve performance.

    16. 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.

      Summary: grading does not provide effective feedback, and students don't read descriptive comments.

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

      Addition of grades to descriptive feedback failed to enhance student performance.

    18. 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

      Studes suggest that students don't read descriptive feedback

      [assigning non-counting grades may be a way of summarising this]

    19. 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.

      Butler and Nisan compared descriptive, evaluative, and no feedback on quantitative assignments. Best was descriptive but no grades; next best was grades; last was no feedback.

    20. 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

      Discussion of the different types of feedback: evaluative (praise or criticism), and descriptive (neutral information about areas for improvement).

    21. Higginset al., 2002

      Discusses student desire for feedback

    1. Assessment and Classroom Learning

      Black, Paul, and Dylan Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5 (1): 7–74.

      This is the original work in the area.

      Largely a literature review from 1988 through 1998.

    1. 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.

      abstract. reviw of lit on formative assessment.

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

      Dunn, K E, and S W Mulvenon. 2009. “A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education.” Assessment, Research & Evaluation.

    1. professor’s perspective in a particular cla

      This is actually an important point: unlike other surveys of effort, this one relies on professors' estimation rather than student surveys. I.e. professors can assess effort.

    2. 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

      Paper concludes that effort affects the knowledge grade positively and significantly across all specifications. This is evidence that more student effort does lead to increased learning.

    3. 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

      Options available to professors to maximise effort

      • if you give everybody the maximum grade, there is no incentive to perform
      • If you give all the credit to effort, then the signal is about how much you did and not what you learned
      • if you credit only knowledge, it may cause people below a certain intrisic skill or preparation to drop out. (low motivated students to not react well to poor grades)
    4. 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

      A model of the economics of grading:

      -grades are signals to others about ability -grades are also a way of signaling to students about performance (feedback) -students want to maximise grades to signal ability -professors want high informational quality of grade (and optionally) the signal value to others -students want the maximum grade they can get for the effort they put in (grade inflation) -professors want the greatest possible learning for the grade (grade deflation).

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

      Studies finding that class attendance affects performance.

    6. endogeneit

      ~=feedback (e.g. rewards accrue to the rich who then become richer and acquire more rewards).

    7. 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

      Some studies showed that regular study did improve scores, as opposed to cramming.

    8. 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

      Study time was not related to any measure of college grades, except study time on weekends (probably = intrinsic interest).

    9. 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

      No relationship between time studied and GPA.

    10. 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

      Conventional wisdom suggests that greater effort will improve grades. But this ignores the schochastic nature of effort (and I'd argue, knowledge).

    11. 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

      Grading system reports and weighs content and effort separately (40% 60%) for freshmen and sophmores.

    12. The effect of effort grading on learnin

      Swinton, Omari H. 2010. “The Effect of Effort Grading on Learning.” Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 1176–82. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.014.

    1. THE GRADING OF STUDENT

      Meyer, Max. 1908. “The Grading of Students.” Science, New Series, 28 (712): 243–50.

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. WhereAIsOrdinary:TheEvolutionofAmericanCollegeandUniversityGrading,1940-2009

      Rojstaczer, Stuart, and Christopher Healy. 2012. “Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading, 1940–2009.” Teachers College Record 114 (7).

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. 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).

      Let students set their own grades.

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

      Great coaches are stinting with praise and blame.

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

      Bruner's Law: "We should try and create an environment where students 'can experience success and failure not as reward and punishment, but as information'."

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

      Why do we grade:

      1) To motivate (positively or negatively) 2) To rank and sort 3) To provide feedback

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

      Second part of quotation: like the grinch my heart grew..

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

      Part one of quote on how students want to be graded because that's why they do the work.

    7. Thepeoplewhohaveahardtimecomprehendinghowchildrencouldlearnwithoutextrinsicmanipulatorsconcernmethemost.Theyaresoinvestedintraditionalschoolingthattheyhaveneverquestioneditsfoundation.Unfortunately,somehaveadistrustfulviewofthenatureofchildren;theybelievethatwithoutgradingtherewouldbenothingtostopchildrenfromrunningamok

      On how people who are against reduced grading are actually suspicious of children

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

      On the responsibility to remove practices that "let schooling get in the way of my teaching"

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

      Learning to let go of the imperative to observe and grade.

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

      On how quickly poor teaching burns out teachers.

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

      Bruner's law

    1. 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

      Chinese conceptions of creativity include collectivistic aspects of inspiration.

      Authors indicate these did not come up in U.S. studies, but these could be artefacts of design method.

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

      synonyms for lack of creativity

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

      Synonyms for creativity

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

      Chan, David W., and Lai-Kwan Chan. 1999. “Implicit Theories of Creativity: Teachers’ Perception of Student Characteristics in Hong Kong.” Creativity Research Journal 12 (3): 185–95. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3.

    5. "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."

      Synonyms for creativity from teachers (from Runco 1984)

  9. Feb 2016
    1. but I don’t think that’s nec­es­sar­ily what their con­cern is.

      OK. Now this is the response...

  10. Oct 2015
    1. This chapter suggests two ways to make the grading of writing easier,fairer, and more helpful for students: using minimal grades or fewerlevels of quality, and using criteria that spell out the features of goodwriting that we are looking for in the assignment.Grading Student Writing: MakingIt Simpler, Fairer, Clearer

  11. Sep 2015
    1. …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.
  12. Feb 2014
    1. 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.