Differentiated Tiered Grading (DTG) Bloom’s Taxonomy-Based, Criterion-Referenced Grading Schema

grades vs. rigor

Bloom’s Taxonomy Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge

Observations It is Not Reasonable to Expect All Students to Acquire Evaluation/Creation Mastery in All Subjects Current Grading Schemas Are Not Calibrated Percentage Scores (i.e., A=90%, B=80%, etc.) are Arbitrary Bell Curves Can Portray Excellence as Failure or Mask Incompetence as Success

Grading vs. Assessment Assessment - the evaluation process of knowledge retention using tools such as observation, tests, portfolios, etc. Grading - the process by which those assessments are quantified and reported.

Rubrics Linear Scale Useful for Formative Assessment Rarely Justify the Point Differentiation

“When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very great the stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument. …Variability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to students.” - I.E. Finkelstein (1913)

History of GrADING Kevin E. Baker

Why did grading become necessary? Increasing numbers of students Social Inequity Lack of a universal standard to compare systems

When did our system begin?

1785: Yale President Stile’s diary contained a footnote commenting that 58 students were present for an examination and were graded as follows: 20 Optimi (good) 16 Second Optimi 12 Inferiores (below, beneath, underneath, lower) 10 Pejores (to render worse )

1813: Yale Yale develops a record of examinations to be kept by the senior tutor of the class A 4-point grading scale is developed

1877: Harvard A 6 division system was developed Division 1 – 90 or more on a scale of 100 Division 2 – 89 to 75 Division 3 – 74 to 60 Division 4 – 59 to 50 Division 5 – 49 to 40 Division 6 – below 40

1883: Harvard A reference in the archives of a student receiving a grade of B First use of a letter grade

1884: Harvard According to the Annual Report of the President of Harvard, the percentage scale was retired and to be replaced with a five-group system.

1886: Harvard The 5-class system is implemented Class I – 90% Class II – 80% Class III - 70% Class IV – 60% (Passing without distinction) Class IV – 59% (Failing)

1895: Harvard Three-class system replaces the old five-class system Passed with Distinction Passed Failed

1897: Michigan Develops a five-mark system Passed Incomplete Conditioned Not Passed Absent

1897: Mount Holyoke Develops the first formal letter grade system A – Excellent – 100 to 95% B – Good – 94 to 85% C – Fair – 76 to 84% D – Passed – 75% E – Failed – Below 75%

1898: Mount Holyoke Changes the grading scale from the previous year A – 95 to 100 B – 90 to 94 C – 85 to 89 D – 80 to 84 E – 75 to 79 F – Failed

Advantages of the Letter System Translates between school systems “Understood” by general public

Disadvantages of the Letter System Decreased rigor falsely translates as success for some students Extreme rigor falsely translates as failure for some students Uncalibrated Tool Assessment is sometimes arbitrary Assessment is not easily duplicated

The DTG Method

Differentiating Bloom’s Taxonomy

Differentiating Bloom’s Taxonomy (Revised)

Class I Knowledge, Comprehension & Application Vocabulary, Matching, Single-Standard Problems Expectation for “Average” HS Graduate Entry-Level Job 100% Success at this Level Equates to Mid-Range “C” or Equivalent Point of Central Tendency PCSD (75% = C)

Class II Analysis & Synthesis “Word Problems” (Math), 2 or More Standards Above “Average” Performance 100% Success at Class I & II Equates to a Maximum “B” or Equivalent PCSD (75% + 14% = 89% = maximum B)

Class III Evaluation Evaluate a Completed Problem & Describe Why it is Correct or Incorrect Excellent Performance Must be Consistently Competent at Class I & II Levels and Delve into Class III to Earn an “A” or Equivalent PCSD (75% + 14% + at least 1% = 90% = A)

Analysis

Quantitative Analysis Method was Significant (.000) Variance was Significant (.000) Gender was Insignificant Minority Status was Insignificant Home Language was Insignificant

Qualitative Analysis Easy to Use? Yes…If you are familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy Vary rigor w/o artificially changing grades? Yes

Case Study – “Maria” ELL (Level 1) Historically Poor-Mediocre in Math Would Have Failed 1st Semester in a Traditional Model Earned a “C” Overall Passed a High-Stakes Exam with a 33% Pass Rate

Benefits to PCSD

Allows teachers to adjust rigor without artificially inflating or decreasing grades. Provides meaningful grades Puts the liability for grades back on the student (where it belongs) Easily Implemented Adaptable to any teaching method

Questions?