Category: Educational Assessment

Grading for Growth: Reconsidering Points, Purpose, and Proficiency – Faculty Focus
“Will this be on the test?”

If that question immediately makes your heart race, muscles tense, or your face do an unflattering cringe type of expression, you’re not alone. This question used to immediately spike my blood pressure too, until I realized I wasn’t actually frustrated with the question itself or even the student who asked it, but I was frustrated with the culture we have created in education that influences this type of behavior.

Many students approach their education with a narrow goal: study hard, ace the exam, and get an A in the class. It can feel disappointing when students seem to only care about what will be on the test or how they can bargain to bump up their grades, compared to learning and applying new knowledge to real-world experiences. Traditional grading systems tend to highlight performance above progress and prioritize short-term achievements over long-term growth. This approach not only confines deeper learning but also limits students’ understanding of what success in education truly means. Alternative grading methods that support critical thinking and meaningful reflection, like competency-based grading, can effectively promote student learning and enhance engagement.

Point-Chasing vs. Progress-Making: When Learning Takes the Lead

Traditional grading systems often:
- Emphasize point accumulation rather than true comprehension
- Include punitive consequences for errors without offering a chance to revisit/improve early coursework
- Encourage a focus on “final” grades instead of continuous learning and growth
Traditional grading can also be inconsistent (“Traditional Grading Systems vs. Standards-Based Grading Systems” 2023). A student who only partially understands the content might pass with the application of extra credit or a grading curve, while another student who makes significant progress over time may still fail simply due to early struggles that cannot be counterbalanced. As educators in higher education, we recognize that learning isn’t always linear; so why do our grading practices assume it is?

Meeting Students Where They Are: What is Competency-Based Grading?

Competency-based grading promotes multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency in specific skills or learning outcomes instead of assigning a single score or high-stakes pass/fail grade to an assignment (Townsley and Schmid 2020). In addition to knowledge, this framework assesses expected student attitudes and skills in a progressive design that holds students accountable. It is important to define clear learning outcomes along with a constructive feedback process to guide future development toward mastery. Naturally, this approach shifts the focus from a final judgment to ongoing growth and improvement. If a student does not meet expectations for a certain skill, they aren’t faced with a permanent loss of points but instead could remediate and try again. (Hanson n.d.)

Putting Mastery into Motion: Strategies to Get Started

Transitioning from a traditional grading system can be a daunting task. Here are six helpful strategies to get started:
1. Start small. Unless the program is completing a comprehensive curriculum redesign, reworking your entire course all at once is not recommended and would likely overwhelm you and the students alike. Pilot competency-based grading by applying it to a single assignment or unit taught within the course.
1. Define clear learning outcomes. Identify the specific skills and competencies all students should be able to demonstrate. Ensure outcomes are specific, measurable, and student-centered. For example, “will demonstrate proper hand hygiene using aseptic technique” is preferable to “will understand proper hygiene practices”.
1. Use outcome-driven rubrics. Competency-based education closely aligns with backward design, so use the determined learning outcomes to build directly correlated rubrics. Focus on mastery, not points. Allow students to access the rubrics in advance. Describe what “competent” looks like by providing specific criteria with behavioral statements for different levels of achievement and provide routine formative feedback on how students can improve if they do not meet expectations. Some of the same assignments can be used, but the method of assessment changes.
1. Use a 4-point scale (or similar) to assess student progress. Competency-based grading focuses on students demonstrating mastery of specific learning objectives rather than accumulating points. (“Extending Our View of Extending” 2022)
1. Plan for remediation activities. Incorporate opportunities for revision/resubmission attempts or re-demonstrations into the course schedule. For feasibility, set limits on the total number of resubmissions/re-demonstrations allowed or set a specific timeframe such as within one week of receiving faculty feedback.
1. Focus your feedback. Avoid commenting on everything and instead, try to highlight one or two priority areas to guide students toward targeted improvement and maintain a manageable workload. Offer timely individualized support and feedback based on each student’s needs. (Farah 2021; Townsley and Schmid 2020)
Troubleshooting the Transition

Challenges are expected to accompany any change but can usually be mitigated with some thoughtful planning. Although higher education seems to collectively be moving toward competency-based grading, some faculty may experience resistance from their faculty peers and learners. Being transparent by sharing the reason behind the change and how it will benefit students can help increase understanding and engagement from both parties. Providing real-world examples in this area and the powerful impact competency-based education has already had on learning is an influential bonus! Faculty may express valid concerns centered around the increased workload related to time and additional resource demands necessary for success. Since remediation takes time and effort from students and faculty alike, be sure to set clear limits on remediation assignments and the process for completion. Be the example you set for others by utilizing available resources and seeking out professional development opportunities to increase your knowledge. Several online tools, including assessment builders, feedback templates, and progress-tracking programs, can assist faculty in maintaining consistency and efficiency in competency-based grading implementation.

What You Gain When You Grade for Growth

After making the transition and offering a more personalized and reflective learning experience, students focus more attention on what they are learning as opposed to what grade they are getting. Their confidence and willingness to take academic risks increases while anxiety decreases without the fear of irreversible grade penalties taking up real estate in their mind. Instead of asking “How many points did I lose?”, students start asking “How can I improve or make that better?” – which is inspiring! Grading for growth isn’t about lowering academic standards. It’s about redefining meaningful learning and reshaping expectations. Minor changes can lead to major transformation. Take the first step and be prepared to marvel at what happens when students are empowered with the tools and encouragement to grow.

Lisa Pitzer, DNP, MSN, RN, CNE, CNE-cl, serves as an Assistant Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing in Peoria, Illinois. In this role, she oversees the Nursing Resource Center Simulation Laboratory and provides instruction in fundamentals and medical-surgical nursing. Dr. Pitzer is a Certified Nurse Educator and Certified Academic Clinical Nurse Educator whose scholarly interests focus on simulation-based pedagogy, curricular innovation, and advancing student success in nursing education. She is an active member of the National League for Nursing, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, and Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

References

“Extending Our View of Extending.” My Growth Mindset, March 6, 2022. https://mygrowthmindset.home.blog/2022/03/06/extending-our-view-of-extending/.

Farah, Kareem. “How to Set Up Mastery-Based Grading in Your Classroom.” Cult of Pedagogy, September 2021. https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/mastery-based-grading/.

Hanson, Ben. “3 Key Shifts from Traditional Grading to Competency-Based Learning and Assessment.” Learner-Centered Collaborative. Accessed May 22, 2025. https://learnercentered.org/blog/traditional-grading-to-competency-based-assessment/.

Townsley, Matt and Deron Schmid. “Alternative Grading Practices: An Entry Point for Faculty in Competency-Based Education.” The Journal of Competency-Based Education 5, no. 3 (2020): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1219.

“Traditional Grading Systems vs. Standards-Based Grading Systems.” KnowledgeWorks, 2023. https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/traditional-grading-vs-standards-based-grading/.
Source link
September 24, 2025

More Than a Name: How Assignment Labels Influence Student Learning and Performance – Faculty Focus

In higher education, assignment titles often serve a functional purpose, indicating the sequence of assignments rather than their specific objectives. However, intentionally structuring assignment titles and formats can significantly influence student engagement and learning outcomes, especially in online courses. Applying adult learning theory, we redesigned assignments to emphasize process-based learning and offer scaffolded opportunities for students to engage with authentic tasks. This approach clarified expectations, enhanced performance, and fostered a more collaborative relationship between faculty and instructional designers.

We grounded our redesign in adult learning theory (andragogy) because our student population skews older, with an average age of 25, and many are returning learners balancing coursework with careers and family responsibilities. Adult learning theory emphasizes that adults learn best when they understand why they are learning something, see clear relevance to real-world contexts, and are given opportunities to reflect and apply their knowledge authentically. With these principles in mind, we aligned assignments with professional scenarios, built feedback opportunities into the workflow, and broke tasks into logical phases to support reflection and critical thinking.

Building on this foundation, we reconsidered how assignments were labeled and structured. Traditionally, assignments were labeled “Homework 1” or “Homework 2.” These labels communicated sequence but not purpose. To foster student understanding and engagement in a Prescriptive Analytics course that focuses on model building and model analysis, we restructured assignments around two key phases—Model Setup and Model Insights—and renamed them using a consistent structure—Model Setup and Model Insights—followed by a number (e.g., Model Setup 3, Model Insights 3). This format clarified each assignment’s stage in the modeling process without overwhelming students with overly complex titles.

Figure 1. The revised prescriptive analytics modeling format and goals emphasize the modeling process and are split into two submissions with interim instructor feedback.

To enhance student learning, we divided the homework assignments into two submissions with an interim instructor assessment. For instance, in one assignment where students had to match project managers to various projects, they first reviewed fictional emails presenting the problem, constraints, and necessary data. After completing their project’s initial setup, students received individualized instructor feedback that encouraged them to think critically about how they approached the problem and the assumptions they made before moving on to analyze their results. This opportunity for early intervention provided support, reduced confusion, and built students’ confidence to better prepare them for creating and running their spreadsheet models. Overall, this two-step approach fostered deeper thinking and engagement with the instructional material and interpreted the outcomes through additional questions and presentations.

To support student learning and prepare them for the graded modeling assignments, we introduced each module with a sequence of low-stakes, formative quizzes built around simplified case-based scenarios using business-style communication such as mock emails and voicemails. These activities helped students build familiarity with core modeling concepts and decision-making logic before tackling more complex tasks.

Graded modeling assignments were framed using business-style communications such as mock emails and memos to reinforce real-world relevance. For example, in Model 4, students received a series of emails outlining a realistic assignment problem, including objectives, constraints, and relevant data. Students submitted their Model 4 Setup individually and received instructor feedback before advancing to the Model 4 Insights phase, where they used Excel to build an optimization model, interpret the results, and respond to scenario-specific questions in a timed quiz. A short video presentation accompanied their submissions to explain their recommendations and rationale. Excel was selected as the modeling platform because it is freely accessible to our students and includes Solver functionality. This two-phase assignment format, supported by structured templates and clearly defined expectations, offered early guidance, encouraged iterative learning, and promoted deeper engagement with course concepts while supporting individual accountability.

The results were clear when comparing course participation before and after implementing the new approach. Submission rates for all modeling assignments increased by 18 percentage points. In addition to higher completion rates, students demonstrated measurable improvements in problem formulation, critical thinking, and communication skills. These changes aligned closely with the course learning outcomes and were reinforced through targeted quiz prompts and structured instructor feedback.

Most notably, engagement in the “new approach course” extended beyond basic requirements. While at least one sensitivity analysis was required, nearly half of the students voluntarily completed an additional, optional analysis. Given how difficult it can be to motivate students to complete even required coursework, this level of voluntary participation highlights the power of purposeful assignment design to drive deeper student investment.

Based on this redesign experience, we recommend several strategies for instructors and instructional designers aiming to create more engaging, authentic assignments. These include using purposeful titles, scaffolding complex tasks, framing assignments in real-world contexts, and integrating tools that support communication and feedback.

Table 1 provides an overview of these strategies and design recommendations:

Strategy	Example	Purpose
Descriptive Titles	“Model Setup 4” “Model Insights 4”	Clarifies the purpose and phase of work
Scaffolding	Two-part submissions with feedback	Reduces cognitive overload, reinforces learning
Real-World Framing	Case-based prompts, mock business emails	Builds relevance and engagement
Technology Integration	Spreadsheet model, video reflection	Supports student modeling practice, professional communication of a problem statement, solution approach, and recommendation with diverse student expression

By renaming assignments, scaffolding tasks, incorporating real-world scenarios, and integrating student-centered feedback mechanisms, we helped students move from performative task completion to meaningful, process-oriented learning. Our collaboration demonstrated that intentional course design, grounded in adult learning principles, can make assignments more than a grade. It can make them matter.

Most importantly, these strategies are highly transferable. While our work was rooted in a prescriptive analytics course, the principles of clear purpose, scaffolded structure, and authentic engagement can be applied across disciplines and modalities. Faculty and instructional designers can adapt these approaches for various disciplines in the humanities, sciences, or professional programs to support meaningful learning.

This redesign also reinforces the value of partnership between instructors and instructional designers. Through open collaboration, we combined disciplinary expertise with design thinking to create a learning experience that was more intentional, more engaging, and ultimately, more effective.

Salina Randall, MEd, is the Associate Director of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology at the University of West Florida. She leads initiatives focused on instructional design, faculty development, and digital accessibility. With over a decade of experience in higher education, she supports faculty in designing inclusive, engaging, and data-informed learning experiences. Her work spans course design, accessibility compliance, and strategic communication, with a particular emphasis on empowering faculty through collaboration and practical solutions.

Dr. Julie Ann Stuart Williams is a Professor of Business Administration at the University of West Florida. Her research spans operations management and business education, with recent work focusing on improving business student writing and modeling-based learning. She has co-authored papers with students in journals such as the European Journal of Operational Research and Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. A recipient of UWF’s Faculty Excellence in Teaching Award, Dr. Williams also serves on the editorial board of INFORMS Transactions on Education and as 2nd Vice Chair of the INFORMS Committee on Teaching and Learning. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering from Georgia Tech.

Source link

September 8, 2025

$Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus$

Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus
Rubrics are a valuable tool that supports student growth and facilitates instructor grading and feedback (Suskie, 2018). As instructors, we see this value; unfortunately, many of our students, especially first-year students, are unfamiliar with the concept. This presents an opportunity to raise their awareness of a tool that will benefit them as they master concepts and seek course success.

The Context

During a two-week mathematics-focused summer bridge program, I teach a segment called Behind the Scenes, which highlights various success strategies students will need to leverage to be successful in college. One lesson exposes these students to the concept of rubrics, covering everything from their purpose, structure, and application.

The Illustration

As noted by Doyle and Zakrajsek (2018), “The human brain is constantly looking for connections. Connections help you use prior knowledge to build bridges to the new material, creating a more meaningful understanding of the new material” (p. 15). Building off this idea, the lesson begins with an illustration about desserts, specifically cake, a concept which will resonate with most if not all students. The following instructions are given:

I took a vote and decided that math is out, cake is in. Cake has much more bearing on your future than math. Your assignment is to design the cake I want to eat for lunch today. You will be graded on this, and it will be worth a lot of points. Take a couple of minutes to sketch out your design, making note of the details. You will not be graded on your artistic ability or lack of materials.

As students are working, I’m walking around the room. Sometimes, they will ask me questions about my preferences. Much to their dismay, I tell them I am not answering questions at that time, but that they will understand why in a few minutes.

The Discussion

I ask for volunteers to share their designs with me. As the student shares, I find a reason why I do not want to eat their cake. Perhaps there are not enough layers, or it’s not my favorite flavor. I will then subjectively give them a grade, loosely based on the rubric I will eventually show them, but with an element of randomness to aid the discussion. Finally, I’ll show them a picture of the right answer: a three-layer lemon cake decorated with pale yellow frosting, lemon slices, and a few small flowers.

I then pose a series of questions for discussion:
- What did you think of my grading?
- Was it subjective or objective? Why?
- If we repeated this assignment, what would you want to know to meet my expectations?
Understandably, students are not a fan of how I graded, correctly identifying the subjective nature. Based on the grading and feedback they heard me give the volunteers, they can identify several criteria that would be helpful to know in advance. As we talk through these ideas, I make the connection that in higher education the tool we use to be transparent about expectations and objectively grade assessments is called a rubric. Of course, I also backtrack and tell them, “FYI, math is back in – turns out it is useful.”

Once we have defined a rubric, we talk about the structure. I present to them a sample cake rubric, and talk about the grid format, with rows representing the criteria we will be evaluating (layers, flavor, decoration); columns representing the performance rating (needs improvement, proficient, advanced); and the cells containing descriptions of performance and point values (0, 5, 10).

The Application

After we establish what a rubric is and how instructors use it, we turn towards application of rubrics as a way for them to pre-grade their assignments before submitting. Each student in the program will be enrolled in a first-year seminar their first term, which becomes the example from which they can practice. I pass out the first-year seminar rubric along with the assignment prompts, which are consistent throughout the course. I also provide two sample responses, one that clearly does not meet expectations (43 words total), and one that does meet expectations (270 words total). I ask them to work in pairs to review the submissions and grade them using the given rubric, which includes four criteria and two performance levels.

Pairs are then asked to report out their score for the first submission, and we talk through their decisions. I share with them my grade as well. This process is repeated for the second submission. We also discuss what they liked about the experience and what they found challenging. In all, this lesson takes about thirty minutes but could be shortened or lengthened as needed.

Doyle and Zakrajsek (2018) further identified that “when learning something new, it helps to be interested in it, see a value to it, pay attention to it, associate it with something you already know, and practice it a lot” (p. 100). The cake illustration is something they already know, and let’s be honest, if it relates to food, college students are very interested. Through the absurd example, they see the value which piques their curiosity and attention. The hands-on practice, while maybe not sufficient in and of itself, at least provides some experience with a new idea from which they can build their confidence.

This rubric lesson not only raises awareness of a grading technique they will encounter over their time in college, but they get practice with an actual rubric that will be used in their first term. Further, their review of poor and exemplary submissions can help frame the direction they need to take when it comes to their own assignments. As McGuire (2015) pointed out, one way “to help your students gain competence is giving them targeted feedback, rubrics, and exemplars” (p. 88).

When students understand the purpose of the rubric, they are better positioned to achieve success in their courses. Proactively, it allows them to assess whether they are meeting assignment expectations before the due date. Reactively, it allows them to understand why they missed points, leveraging the feedback as formative assessment and making corrections for future assignments.

Sarah A. Forbes, PhD, is the Student Academic Success Director and a first-year seminar instructor at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. In these roles, she helps students learn new strategies for academic success. Sarah also serves as a first-year seminar instructional designer, summer bridge program director, and academic advising program administrator.

References

Doyle, T., & Zakrajsek, T. D. (2018). The new science of learning: How to learn in harmony with your brain. Stylus Publishing.

McGuire, S. Y. (2015). Teach students how to learn. Stylus Publishing.

Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Source link
August 27, 2025

My Journey in Alternative Grading: From Curiosity to Clarity – Faculty Focus

I read Susan Blum’s Ungrading as a first-year graduate student and was immediately smitten. At the same time, COVID-19 forced many seasoned instructors to grapple with assessing their students, making alternative assessment more mainstream. My first attempt at alternative assessment didn’t go very well. I failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade. I struggled to make my system transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. For the next four years, I used Kevin Gannon’s grading contract to implement more structure and Barbara Schapiro’s ‘third space’ to reflect on what worked for me and my students. My system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use contract grading. Each assignment has 1-10 points, with a total of 100 points. Each point corresponds to a specific objective and is graded complete/incomplete. In my more recent students’ evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations at the beginning of the semester.

My Journey in Alternative Grading: From Curiosity to Clarity

The first time I stood in front of 20 bored freshmen, all alone, teaching a course I had designed, also all alone, I was teaching a general education writing and speaking course at the University of Iowa. After using traditional grading the first semester, I turned to alternative assessment in the second. In brief, my students received a complete/incomplete grade for any given assignment and then a cumulative midterm and final grade. I wanted to deemphasize grading entirely, but in retrospect the flaws were glaring. Halfway through the semester, in the middle of class, a student burst out in confusion and frustration, “Where did my grade even come from?” What a good question. My first system failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that at the end of the day my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade.

As a first-year graduate student, I had read Susan Blum’s Ungrading and was immediately smitten. Blum (2020) argues that grades provide minimal feedback, they deemphasize learning, and what they actually measure is inconsistent (10-14). I came to alternative assessment alongside many other instructors as COVID-19 forced seasoned instructors to grapple with assessment policies. In 2021, a Faculty Learning Community formed at the University of Iowa to address assessment practices and, spurred on by their work, in 2023 the University changed their grading policy page to include alternative assessment (“Grades: Undergraduate Policies”).

During the next four years, I implemented Barbara Schapiro’s (2009) ‘third space,’ which takes into account what benefits both me and my students (423-439). I took a more structured approach, first using Kevin Gannon’s contract and Asao Inoue’s labor-based grading model and eventually designing my own contract. I struggled to make contract grading transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. But the system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use a blend of labor-based, or specifications, grading, and contract grading. In specifications grading “the instructor designates bundles of assignments that map to different letter grades” and in contract grading “each student signs a contract indicating what grade they plan to work towards” (“Alternative Approaches to Assessment”). In evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations better.

Despite the flaws in my first grading system, it taught me that I functioned better in a classroom when I use alternative assessment, and I have maintained some semblance of the complete/incomplete system ever since. Traditional grading felt too subjective, based on a sliding scale of bad, average, or great. As a TA, I even received rubrics with that language. As much as it was my job to teach students to write, I also felt the grading system disadvantaged those students who came in with subpar high school educations and less writing experience. I wanted to design a system that addressed those problems.

Gannon’s Contract Grading: A Transparent Framework

Kevin Gannon’s (2022) grading contract (see Figure 1) heavily influenced my third semester of teaching. In Gannon’s model, students begin with a B- and achieving, or failing to achieve, specific requirements raise or lower their grade. His system was easy to explain and students responded positively. When I introduced Gannon’s system, I used the word ‘labor’ a lot. In Asao Inoue’s (2022) labor-based grading model, he defines labor as “the engine that runs all learning. You can’t learn without laboring” (76). But, on my own, I doubted whether I could evaluate a student’s labor when it mostly took place outside of the classroom. I aimed, therefore, to bring the writing process further into the classroom, including proposals, drafts, and revisions. I especially wanted students to understand that the ‘final’ assignment was anything but. Usually written in one to three weeks (if not one to three days), ‘final’ assignments are first thoughts, or, if we’re lucky, second thoughts. Drafts and revisions help students embrace what Gannon (2020) calls “not-yetness,” the recognition that they are still learning and the goal is not perfection (146).

Figure 1: Gannon’s Contact System

Grade	Number of Non-Participation Days	Number of Late Assignments	Number of Ignored Assignments
B-minus	0-4	0-4	0
C-minus	5-6	5	1
D-minus	more than 6	6 or more	more than 1

Despite the overall success of the system, I had problems. Students were still demotivated by a lack of clear expectations. Because everything was graded complete/incomplete, three-sentence reading responses held the same weight as thousand-word essays, making it unclear how much time I expected them to spend on a given assignment. My assignments also didn’t have detailed enough rubrics and some students felt quality didn’t matter.

My Grading Design and Process

At this point, I started teaching general education in literature, which had different grading expectations. Needing to change my system anyway, I created a contract with 100 points, each assignment assigned 1-10 points (See supplementary materials). I like this system. I’m still using it two years later. But my first go-around had only middling success. The system seemed straightforward to me, but my students were confused, as nearly all of them pointed out in their evaluations. Although students understood what the assignments were, my rubrics were sparse – perceptive readers might notice this as a reoccurring problem.

So, here’s how I fixed it: On the first day of class, I explain my system and give everyone a copy of the contract, which I ask them to fill out with their desired grade. Being in physical contact with the contract helps them understand it better and immediately establish a goal for the semester. I explain the larger purpose of the contract, but I also boiled the system down to some simple numbers: if a student successfully completes all the main assignments and three revisions, they get an A.

And, at long last, I have a functioning rubric. I still grade each point complete/incomplete. For simple assignments like reading responses, where I just want students to get their thoughts down, it’s a simple question of “Did you do the assignment?” For more complicated assignments, I assign each point an objective, and each objective introduces a new skill or concept. For example, in an eight-point paper, I assign four points to close reading (See Figure 2). The objectives build from including close reading consistently in the paper to synthesizing the new skill they’re learning (close reading) with the class content (monster theory). The objectives become more difficult and the final objective requires the most subjective grading. But overall, the system allows the students to see whether they’re meeting requirements even before I’ve given them a grade, and the system highlights what skills or content they are struggling with.

Figure 2: Analysis Rubric

1 point	Close reading throughout the paper that addresses specific, quoted moments from your song
1 point	Close reading that makes an argument about why those specific moments are there throughout the paper
1 point	The paper addresses monstrosity as we have discussed it in class (i.e. have you told us what the monster is a metaphor for?
1 point	Analysis heavily relies throughout on an argument about monstrosity that goes beyond ‘monster as metaphor.’

Conclusion

I find alternative assessment highly effective. Even though I recently received the comment, “Never do contract grading again,” student evaluations are overwhelmingly positive and more often sound like, “So helpful, literally my favorite thing ever.” Stress reduction and increased motivation appear frequently in evaluations. But more than that, alternative assessment taught me how to be a teacher. Improving my grading system required me to create clearer rubrics, state the purpose of my lessons, design assignments that gave my students more agency, and provide more concrete methods of measuring participation. This meant a lot of big changes at once, but alternative assessment can be implemented in much smaller steps, like using it for one assignment or rewriting one rubric. Now that I have a good system, I’m working on those smaller steps, like making assignments more time effective and integrating revisions more effectively. Implementing alternative assessment was really hard, but I hope as more teachers take it up, there will be more resources for those who want to take the plunge.

Sarah Barringer is a graduate student at the University of Iowa. Her dissertation, “Transmasculine Narratives in Medieval Literature,” argues that transmasculine characters in medieval literature allowed medieval audiences to imagine a gender that comprised both feminine and masculine elements. She teaches general education in literature courses at the University of Iowa on monstrosity and identity.

References

“Alternative Approaches to Assessment.” The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University. https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/beyond-the-grade.

Blum, Susan. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning: And What to Do Instead. West Virginia University Press, 2020.

Gannon, Kevin. Radical Hope: A Teaching Manifesto. West Virginia University Press, 2020.

Gannon, Kevin. “Some Thoughts on Moving into Labor-Based Grading Contracts.” The Tattooed Professor, 2020, https://thetattooedprof.com/2022/01/04/some-thoughts-on-moving-into-labor-based-grading-contracts/

“Grades: Undergraduate policies.” College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Iowa, 2024, https://policy.clas.uiowa.edu/clas-policies-and-procedures/undergraduate-education/grades-undergraduate-policies.

Inoue, Asoa. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. University Press of Colorado, 2022.

Schapiro, Barbara. “Negotiating a Third Space in the Classroom.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 9, no. 3 (2009): 423-439.

Source link

June 2, 2025

Taking Grades (Stress) Out of Learning – Faculty Focus
I found myself sitting in a classroom, staring at a test I couldn’t answer. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t recall learning any of the material. The harder I struggled to remember, the more my anxiety grew—until I jolted awake, covered in sweat. It was the same nightmare that had haunted me for over a decade. One day, during a casual conversation, a colleague—a psychology professor—made an unexpected observation: my experience resembled symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Me? Trauma?

My Learning Experience: From a Model Student to Getting Lost

I grew up in China in the 1980s as the only child of factory workers. Having experienced hardship, my parents hoped I would escape their life by earning a college degree. They told me a good education would guarantee a bright future.

From a young age, I pushed myself to excel academically. In my mind, the purpose of learning was to get good grades. Grades were everything—symbols of success and a source of validation. But this came with a constant fear: the fear of failure, of disappointing my parents, and of falling short of expectations.

This fear intensified in high school, where frequent tests ranked students publicly. I studied relentlessly under immense pressure, and my hard work paid off when I was accepted to my desired university. I continued this pattern in college, focused solely on grades and making my parents proud. But when I graduated, I felt lost. I had no clear direction or career. Didn’t my parents tell me a college education would ensure a bright future? Where was my future?

In my confusion, I began reading for curiosity rather than exams. One day, I came across The Importance of Living by Lin Yutang, who critiqued the Chinese education system. He argued that modern education prioritized memorization over true understanding, with grades and diplomas replacing the real purpose of learning. He compared knowledge to an adventurous exploration, best enjoyed with an open and curious mind.¹

That moment of reading was transformative. I realized I had never understood the true purpose of education; I had equated learning with good grades, a narrow and misleading focus. Reflecting on my educational journey, I saw how it had been marked by stress, fear, and a constant chase for perfection.

In that moment, I knew I wanted to become a teacher educator. I wanted to help future teachers see education for what it truly is—a journey of growth, curiosity, and empowerment, not just a pursuit of grades. My goal was to break the cycle of stress and fear that had shaped my own experience and instead inspire educators to foster passion, encourage exploration, and create a lasting, positive impact on their students’ lives.

My Teaching Journey: Cultivating a Growth Mindset Through Ungrading

For the past 11 years, I have been a professor of social studies education, working with both pre-service and in-service teachers. I have never used traditional tests in my classes because I don’t believe that teaching ability can be measured through exams. Instead, I assess my students’ learning through lesson plans, presentations, and projects—assignments that require logical reasoning, creativity, and critical thinking. To accompany this teaching philosophy, I adopt ungrading² in all my courses.

Below are some practices I use in my ungraded class, focusing on learning and growth.

Feedback-Only: No Points

I do not attach points to any assignments. Instead, I provide rich feedback. If students want to know how well they did in an assignment, they must read my feedback. I believe that mistakes are one of the most powerful learning tools. By removing the pressure of grades, students are less afraid to take risks and make errors, knowing they will have opportunities to revise and improve. In my classroom, mistakes aren’t something to fear—they’re an essential part of the learning process.

Steps:
1. Provide explicit instructions in class. Ask for questions to ensure every student understands how to complete the assignment.
2. Follow the “Feedback Sandwich”³ method to give each student rich feedback. Through the Learning Management System (LMS) in my university, Desire2Learn (D2L), I prefer giving feedback through video, allowing my students to hear my voice and see my facial expressions to better understand the tone. This personalized approach makes feedback more engaging and encourages students to reflect, revise, and improve their work.
3. Students revise and resubmit their work.
4. I review their revised work and provide further feedback.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until students’ work reaches the standards and the lesson’s objectives.
Guided Reflections

Reflection is a vital part of learning. It encourages students to recognize the value of their experiences, deepen their self-awareness as learners, and apply their knowledge in meaningful ways to their lives.

In addition to the reflections accompanying projects, I use one mid-term reflection and one end-of-semester. ⁴

Some typical questions in the mid-term reflection include:
- What were your goals for this course?
- What are some of the main things you’ve learned so far?
- Review all your reading quizzes (or any other small assignments). How do you evaluate your preparation for them?
- How many assignments have you completed, including peer evaluations?
- Is there anything remaining uncompleted? If so, please list them here.
  
  Item(s)
  
  Anticipated date(s) of completion
- How do you feel about your participation during class? Explain.
- How many class meetings did you miss? If you missed any, what were the legitimate reasons?
- Is there anything you would like me to help with?
- What would it be if you were to give yourself a grade right now? Why?
Some typical questions in the end-of-semester reflection include:
- Read your (individual assignment) and feedback. Have you revised your work based on the feedback? Why or why not?
- Read your (group project) and feedback. Thinking of your contribution to this project, what did you learn from it?
- What do you know now that you didn’t know at the beginning of the semester?
- After taking this course, what profound insights have you gained about social studies education?
- How many classes did you miss? What legitimate reasons did you have for missing those classes?
- Please suggest a grade for yourself. Justify why you give yourself that grade.
Ungrading may not lighten an instructor’s workload, however, the effort I invested in this approach has proven immensely rewarding. I’ve witnessed a noticeable shift toward more internally motivated students, stronger professor-student relationships, and, most importantly, happier, less stressed students. The sense of fulfillment that comes from these positive changes is unparalleled.

Jing A. Williams is Professor of Social Studies Education at the University of South Dakota (USD). She teaches elementary and secondary social studies methods courses. She is the three-time recipient of the Faculty Excellence Awards in Teaching at the School of Education at USD. In 2024, she was the keynote speaker at the Online Faculty Symposium hosted by USD’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Dr. Williams’ research interest focuses on the global perspective of social studies education. She is the lead author of Teaching with a Global Perspective: Approaches and Strategies for Secondary Social Studies Teachers, published by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) in 2024. She is the Book/Media Review Editor of the Journal of International Social Studies, the official publication of the International Assembly of the NCSS.

¹ Lin Yutang, The Importance of Living (Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1998).

² Susan Blum, Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead, ed. Susan Blum (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2020).

³ The Muse Editors, “Feedback Sandwich: Does It Really Work? When and how to Use It,” The Muse, 12/23/2024, accessed on December 29, 2024. https://www.themuse.com/advice/feedback-sandwich

⁴ These reflection prompts are revised based on the samples from: Susan Blum, “Just One Change (Just Kidding): Ungrading and Its Necessary Accompaniments,” in Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead, ed. Susan D. Blum (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2020), 53-73.

References

Blum, Susan. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2020.

Fink, L. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2013.

Lin, Yutang. The Importance of Living. Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1998.

The Muse Editors. “Feedback Sandwich: Does It Really Work? When and how to Use It.” The Muse, 12/23/2024. Accessed on December 29, 2024. https://www.themuse.com/advice/feedback-sandwich
Source link
April 18, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations.” Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations. Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Course-Correcting Mid-Semester: A Three Question Feedback Survey – Faculty Focus
When students’ evaluations are viewed by instructors as a type of formative assessment to be used as a tool for instructional improvement, mid-semester feedback surveys allow instructors to immediately respond to their students’ needs (Chapman & Joines, 2017; Diamond, 2004). Further, when these changes happen in real-time, students see that their feedback is valued and better understand how it is used (Sojka et al., 2002; Spencer & Schmelkin, 2002). Sojka et al. (2002) noted that “under the current system, if a professor does change a course based on student evaluations, the students who made these comments do not have the opportunity to experience the changes, and that of course reinforces the idea that faculty ignore student evaluations” (p. 47). Thus, integrating an anonymous, mid-semester feedback survey would allow student feedback to guide instructional changes before the conclusion of the semester when course evaluations are typically sent out. In this teaching tip, I provide a simple structure for crafting an open-ended series of questions that ask students to provide anonymous feedback focused on teaching effectiveness that will help instructors respond to each semesters’ students based on their present needs. The start, continue, stop survey is anonymous, delivered mid-semester, and asks students only three open-ended questions:
1. What should I start doing?
2. What should I continue doing?
3. What should I stop doing?
Source link
March 14, 2025

Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures of Student Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

Curriculum assessment and evaluation projects may not always spark immediate enthusiasm, but a recent well-organized team project in our higher education program demonstrated the power of collaboration. Thanks to the incredible participation of our faculty, improvements in student learning were not just planned, but successfully implemented. The changes made as part of this academic assessment/evaluation project to enhance student success yielded significant improvements. The positive impact on student learning results is rewarding when the impact on student learning results is positive!

The measures are crucial to our curriculum assessment/evaluation, program accreditation, and appraising evidence of student success. A key aspect of our approach is the use of both indirect and direct measures to gauge student learning within program and course assessments. This method allows us to redesign course assessments, incorporating authentic direct and indirect measures to foster student success.

What is a Direct Measure Assessment?

Our program faculty evaluated and updated our program curriculum, including assessment measures, as an aspect of continuous quality improvement within our educational assessment program. A direct measure objectively quantifies student learning (Bugeja & Garrett, 2019). It is crucial that these direct measures, which include course assignments (for example, papers, demonstrations, worksheets, presentations, virtual simulations, live simulations), examinations, capstone projects, student portfolios, and internship evaluations (Bugeja & Garrett, 2019), align with learning outcomes. This alignment ensures that the assessment accurately reflects the intended learning goals.

Well-constructed rubrics further enhance the quality of the assessment measure by communicating the criteria to the student and increasing the objectivity of the measure (Postmes et al., 2023). Linking examinations to learning outcomes and blueprints (List of topics the examination is assessing) increases authenticity (Abdellatif & Al-Shahrani, 2019). See the sample alignment template included at the end of this article.

What is an Indirect Measure Assessment?

An indirect measure is a subjective perception of the experience (Bugeja & Garrett, 2019). Examples of indirect measures include surveys (student, employer), focus groups, and exit interviews (Bugeja & Garrett, 2019). Indirect measures should not solely measure a course outcome or competency but should support a direct assessment measure. For example, in a major course assignment or project such as a Change Theory Application Project paper or poster presentation (direct measure), the student also completes a reflective self-evaluation survey of the project specific to learning outcomes or competencies (indirect measure). The indirect measure is valuable because it provides a different perspective but supports the direct measure.

Implementing Direct and Indirect Assessments

The program-level outcomes measure student success at program graduation. They are also known as end-of-program outcomes or terminal program outcomes. Course-level outcomes should match the attainment of the program-level outcomes.

After reviewing program-level assessment plans, the focus becomes the course level. We recommend reviewing and updating an existing alignment table or creating one that includes the course outcomes, module/unit objectives, competencies, learning activities, and assessments (modify the items per your school). We have included a sample alignment table at the end of this article. The alignment table map helps check the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Leveling and ensures all course outcomes and competencies link to course assessments (direct and indirect measures).

Next, examine the current course assessments. Identify course assessments worthy of updating and revision or develop a new assessment measure. Use mostly direct assessments with a few supporting indirect assessments, such as exit evaluations, focus groups, alums, and employer surveys. Remember, an indirect assessment should only add another viewpoint that supports the direct assessment measure.

Map the course outcomes, module learning objectives, course-assigned knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, competencies, and learning activities (for example, readings, videos, posters) in an alignment table. Add the final assessments to the alignment table after updating course assessment measures. Check that most measures are direct and that all course outcomes, objectives, and competencies link to a direct measure. Use only a few supporting indirect measures to safeguard genuine assessment of learning.

Summary

Educational assessment is valuable for informing curricula, demonstrating student learning, and determining program effectiveness for academic accreditation. Using direct and indirect measures in education provides data about student learning and program evaluation. Alignment mapping can help plan and check for consistency in the course. Multiple data measures, such as direct measures and a few supporting indirect measures, increase confidence in the findings and analysis, known as triangulation (Demeter et al., 2019). After completing course revisions with a particular emphasis on using direct and indirect assessment measures, we have noted improvements in student learning assessment at the course level.

Course Level Alignment Table Map

Course Outcomes	Module Objectives	Course Competencies	Learning Activities	Course Learning Assessments (Identify Direct and Indirect Measures)

Course Level Alignment Table Map Tips:

Add and delete rows and columns as needed.

The verb levels in the outcomes, objectives, and competencies should align with the learning activities and assessment measures.

Not all courses will have competencies; this may vary depending on the discipline.

Colleges and universities vary in the word use of outcomes and objectives, so modify the headings in the alignment table to match your school.

Nancyruth Leibold, EdD, RN, MSN, PHN, CNE, AHN-BC is an Associate Professor of Nursing at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Nancyruth is the Health Sciences Editor at Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT).

Laura Schwarz, DNP, RN, PHN, CNE, AHN-BC is a Professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Laura is a Certified Peer Reviewer for Quality Matters.

References

Abdellatif, H., & Al-Shahrani, A. M. (2019). Effect of blueprinting methods on test difficulty, discrimination, and reliability indices: cross-sectional study in an integrated learning program. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 10, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S190827

Bugeja, M., & Garrett, M. (2019). “Making the connection”: Aggregate internship data as direct and indirect measure informing curricula and assessment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 74(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695817749077

Demeter, E., Robinson, C., & Frederick, J. G. (2019). Holistically assessing critical thinking and written communication learning outcomes with direct and indirect measures. Research & Practice in Assessment, 14(1), 41-51.

Postmes, L., Bouwmeester, R., de Kleijn, R., & van der Schaaf, M. (2023). Supervisors’ untrained postgraduate rubric use for formative and summative purposes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2021390

Source link

January 24, 2025

Category: Educational Assessment

Point-Chasing vs. Progress-Making: When Learning Takes the Lead

Meeting Students Where They Are: What is Competency-Based Grading?

Putting Mastery into Motion: Strategies to Get Started

Troubleshooting the Transition

What You Gain When You Grade for Growth

The Context

The Illustration

The Discussion

The Application

My Journey in Alternative Grading: From Curiosity to Clarity

Gannon’s Contract Grading: A Transparent Framework

My Grading Design and Process

Conclusion

My Learning Experience: From a Model Student to Getting Lost

My Teaching Journey: Cultivating a Growth Mindset Through Ungrading

Feedback-Only: No Points

Guided Reflections

How It Works

Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

What It Does

How It Works

Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

What It Does

Context

Learning Outcomes or Goals

Teacher Preparation

Procedure

Caveats and Alternatives

Conclusion

What is a Direct Measure Assessment?

What is an Indirect Measure Assessment?

Implementing Direct and Indirect Assessments

Summary

Course Level Alignment Table Map

Course Level Alignment Table Map Tips: