Mastery Grading - A More Equitable Approach to Grading

Sharona Krinsky and Robert Bosley

Cal State Los Angeles

October 23, 2020

The Big Questions

Why do we assign grades?

​

What do grades tell students?

​

Are our grading practices equitable? Valid?

​

​

​

Should grades reflect:

• Learning?
• Understanding?
• Memorization?
• Behavior?
• Attendance?
• Experiences?

• Compliance?
• Speed of learning?
• Quantity?
• Involvement?
• Places for improvement?
• Past shortfalls?

​

Our Philosophy:

Grades should reflect demonstrated mastery of course content and have a positive effect on student learning.

​

​

Problems with Traditional Grading

1. Stifles Risk taking (failure is penalized heavily) (Ennis and McCauley 2002)
2. Demotivates students (Feldman 2019, Dweck 2006)
3. Invites bias (Subjective grades appearing objective) (Kang and Lane 2010, Staats 2014)
4. Averages hide and mislead (lots of lost information) (Greenwald 2006)
5. Disjunction between goals of the course and individual scores. (Guskey 2017)
6. Equity! (Feldman 2019, Epstein 2017, Codrington 2012)

What is Mastery Grading?

“Mastery-based grading is an innovative system for assessing learners that promotes deeper learning. The idea behind this fresh grading concept is to structure your courses in a way that allows learners the time and flexibility to focus on mastering a standard rather than achieving a certain number or letter grade [on a specific assessment]...”

• Beth Gallegos

Key Attributes of Mastery Grading

1. A clear list of learning targets, objectives or standards.�Students are given access to a list of learning targets and what skills are necessary in order to meet those targets.�
2. Assessment of mastery instead of points or partial credit.�Student work is graded based on mastery of the associated learning target(s) using a scale from “no mastery shown” to “full mastery demonstrated”.�
3. Eventual mastery matters.�Students are given multiple attempts to demonstrate mastery and are not penalized for failing to demonstrate mastery on earlier attempts. Students are given opportunities to revise, resubmit, and/or retry their work.��Adapted from Introduction to Mastery Grading

​

Features of Mastery Grading

1. Opportunity to “fail forward”
2. Student autonomy
3. Flexible ways of demonstrating mastery
4. Encourages a growth mindset
5. Removes the instructor as the gatekeeper of the points.
6. Success in the course is defined as meeting course learning targets/objectives.
7. Removes “time” as a component of success

​

Components of a Mastery Graded System/Class

How is a final grade assigned?

​

Components of a Mastery Graded System/Class

How is mastery assessed?

​

Quiz problem - Assessing content

Standard: Introduction to Sequences

I can:

• Find the terms of a sequence defined implicitly or explicitly.

​

​

Problem:

​

​

Mastery Levels

2-Level Rubric:

• Mastery
• Not Mastery

3-Level Rubric:

• Mastery
• Needs Revision
• Needs Reassessment

4-Level Rubric:

• Jedi Master (M)
• Jedi Knight (K)
• Padawan (P)
• Youngling (Y)

Both M and K are Mastery

Components of a Mastery Graded System/Class

What about non-mastery work?

How are mistakes handled?

How is late work handled?

How is missing work handled?

​

Example

Linear Algebra

24 Linear Algebra Standards�4 Mathematical Practice Standards�One P³ “Habits of Mind” Standard

​

A - Master 27 or more standards

B - Master 24 or more standards

C - Master 21 or more standards

​

Example

To Master a Linear Algebra or Mathematical Practice Standard

Get a ✔️ on two mastery assessments

Opportunities:

1. Portfolio style “homework” assessment
2. Initial Quiz
3. Requiz #1
4. Requiz #2
5. Final Exam

To Master the P³ Standard

Get 620 or more points (out of at least 800 available).

How has this worked in practice?

Statistics

Calculus

• In use since Fall 2018.
• 3,000+ students
• Spring 2020 - over 400 students taking the course, only 4 identified instances of cheating via “Chegg”

• In use since Spring 2017.
• 13 courses in the Calculus sequence
• 325+ students
• Pass rate over 80%, most with A’s and B’s
• Students report never having worked harder and have pushed through their learning longer than in other classes

Questions?

Articles and Resouces

https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/52813/how-teachers-are-changing-grading-practices-with-an-eye-on-equity

http://southhills.jordandistrict.org/files/2012/01/Parent-Article-2-Grading-and-the-Growth-Mindset.docx

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov11/vol69/num03/Five-Obstacles-to-Grading-Reform.aspx

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/education/learning-curve/san-diego-unified-changes-grading-system-after-minority-students-disproportionately-impacted/509-04bf22ea-51df-428a-84c5-82ccc63f36ec

Ennis, C. D., & McCauley, M.T. (2002). Creating urban classroom communities worthy of trust. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 149-172.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Feldman, Joe (2019). Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms. Corwin.

Staats, Cheryl (2014). Understanding Implicit Bias. American Educator, Winter 2015-2016. American Federation of Teachers

Greenwald, Anthony and Krieger, Linda (2006). Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations. California Law Review, Vol 94, No 4.

Guskey, Thomas, et al (2016). A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure. Review of Educational Research. American Educational Research Association

Kang, J. and Lane, L. (2010) Seeing Through Colorblindness: Implicit Bias and the Law. UCLA Law Review, Vol. 58, p. 465

​

​

​

​