Disciplinary Applications #2

Math

Resources, schedule, Zoom: thegradingconference.com �Slack community: bit.ly/join-alt-grading

Recording and posting

We are recording this session.

We plan to post recordings and slides so you can review them later.

We retain the right to rebroadcast and distribute the recording.

By participating, you are agreeing that your contributions become part of the recording. This includes video, audio, chat, and Q&A.

​

Today: Getting started with?

Now Parallel sessions

5A - Student Perspectives

5B - Strategies & Practices #2

5C - Disciplinary Applications #2: Math

5D - Introduction to Alternative Grading #2 - Designing the Grading Architecture

​

4:00 - 4:30 Stretch break (offline)

4:30 - 5:30 Parallel sessions

5:30 - 6:00 Closing out day 1

6:00 - ? Wrap-up and optional social events

​

Jennifer Moorhouse, Hartnell College

Senorina Vazquez, Hartnell College

Lipika Deka, CSU Monterey Bay

Jeffrey Wand, CSU Monterey Bay

​

June 13, The Grading Conference

Supported with a grant from the California Education Learning Lab

Grading for Growth

in the

Calculus Sequence

Disciplinary Applications #2: Math

Abstract

​

The California Education Learning Lab (CELL) challenged colleges to smooth the Calculus pathway to STEM, and increase success rates of URM students. In our prototype Grand challenge project “Grading for Growth in Calculus I,” supported by the CELL grant, we implemented SBG in multiple sections of Calculus I at California State University, Monterey Bay and at Hartnell College, along with an active learning model with a focus on growth mindset and metacognition.

In our follow up grant, we are extending the model to precalculus at CSUMB and Hartnell. In addition, we plan to extend our model to the entire Calculus sequence at both institutions and disseminate our work to other colleges.

Why SBG? A Brief History of Grading

• 1600s Harvard used an oral exit interview to award a degree
• 1832 Yale started to use a 4 point scale to rank students without disclosing to students to “thwart unhealthy competition”
• 1898 Mt Holyoke established a college for women and established the modern grading system as a sorting system
• 100 years of sorting led to a misapplication of the Gaussian curve
• There is no basis for “average” learning from cognitive science
• 1994 The Bell Curve published to “explain” variations in intelligence
• 1994 Hernstein & Murray suggest the bell curve:
• only reflects pre-existing inequities in society
• supports racialized beliefs about outcomes in grading systems
• supports a fixed mindset

Trust & Equity

• Trust is fostered by assessment practices that demonstrate we believe 100% of students can learn.
• Avoid punitive language that suggests a lack of trust and low expectations of your students.
• Create opportunities for students to build their skills as students.
• Demystify grading and assignment expectations.

• Examine the language and tone used. Is it positive and encouraging? Be mindful of student insecurities and fear.
• Let students know that you are there for them as a partner.

Culturally Responsive Assessment

Do our assessments foster trust in educational institutions?

Do our assessments measure competence?

Do our assessments inform us if a student “understands” a concept?

Do our assessments help move students toward competence?

Do our assessments offer hope?

​

Equity-Minded Assessment Practices

National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment

https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/equity/

Provides a call for culturally responsive assessment practices

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (January 2020)

SBG in Calculus I at Hartnell

In our version of SBG, we use a simple grading schema. Each exam assessment of a Learning Target (Outcome) is assessed as:

• Met - correct process, with little or no mistakes.
• Hold students to high expectations, because we believe that they are capable.
• Almost - shows competence/understanding of material, with minor mistakes.
• Allow room for mistakes – The student corrects the assessment for a “Met”
• Holds students accountable, while avoiding punitive language.
• Not Met - has not made significant progress, or has major mistakes.
• This outcome requires reassessment.
• We show students that we believe 100% of students can learn.
• We give students the opportunity to review and relearn, then reassess.

The Learning Targets

There are 22 Content Learning Targets (LTs). Students must earn “Met”

three times to “pass” an LT. This is done in a scaffolded series of steps.

• Low stakes: Take notes from a video - Preview Activity for this LT.
• Medium: Online quiz - 2 attempts per problem, 4 attempts for entire quiz
• This is really a camouflaged homework set.
• Students can earn more attempts by completing associated homework
• High Stakes: In-class, timed assessments.
• “Minute quiz” (example: Average rate of change)
• Exam, typical/traditional.
• NEW: Interview Assessments for 3 learning outcomes.
• Students are given several problems ahead of time.
• Present work on the board
• Discussion and immediate feedback.

Active Learning

• Textbook: “Active Calculus” by Matt Boelkins.
• Class time is spent in active learning
• Community building activities.
• Work through textbook Activities.
• Student presentations of solutions. (Can start with “poster session” type of presentation)
• Exam preparation.
• Video lectures are available online, with comprehension checks.
• We have 25 total Learning Targets.
• 2 are “prerequisite” skills (Equations of Lines and Trig functions)
• 20 are Calculus content.
• 3 are “Success In STEM” Outcomes, covering soft skills. (more later)

Active Learning & Soft Skills

• Active Learning can be scary! We are asking students to be vulnerable.
• Set class norms at the beginning of class - 1st day community building activity.
• Coach students on the importance of productive struggle. (Growth Mindset)
• Teach students how to work in groups.
• Be aware of group dynamics, who is talking and who is not.
• Can assign group roles and rotate.
• “Success In STEM” Outcomes, assign value to “soft skills”
• “Utilizing Resources Effectively” - Learn to check your grade, manage your time, come to office hours or visit the tutoring center X times, use campus resources and services.
• “Reflection and Metacognition” - Complete Canvas readings and discussions on metacognition with topics such as Imposter Syndrome, Self-Care, Microaggressions, How to become an Independent Learner, etc.
• “Effective Failure” - Re-attempting or correcting 5 LTs from in-class exams.

Extending SBG to Precalculus

The CELL grant was extended so that both colleges (CSUMB and Hartnell) could implement SBG into precalculus and, eventually, other courses. In Fall 2024 both campuses focused on precalculus.

• At CSUMB a group of 4 instructors redesigned our precalculus course under an SBG grading system.
• Due to AB1 705, precalculus at Hartnell will be offered as a co-requisite lab, which is still under development.

Transition to SBG in Calculus/Precalculus

at CSUMB

Both Calculus and Precalculus at CSUMB has undergone several major revisions in the last 7 years due to CSU system-wide changes, COVID, coming back from COVID, and now SBG. It is using active learning using the Active Calculus and Precalculus textbooks. Until SBG the grading system was points based. Precalculus grades were calculated using the following items and weights:

• Quizzes/Exams (55%)
• Online Homework (15%)
• Reading and Video Assignments (15%)
• Reading was assessed through reading quizzes, reading checks, and metacognitive tasks
• Participation Assignments (15%)
• Participation was assessed through self-evaluations, attendance, class activity completion.

SBG model in Precalculus at CSUMB

• Our new SBG system has 21 learning targets(LTs) which are assessed through quizzes and exams.
• From the points based system we kept the online homework and videos.
• In our new system a student’s grade is calculated as follows:

​

Assessment of Learning Targets

(CSUMB SBG)

In our version of SBG:

• Assessments of learning targets were graded on a met/not met scale.
• Students only needed to meet a LT once during a semester.
• Students usually have a first assessment of a LT on a quiz.
• Reattempts on LTs occur on all following exams (e.g. LT 1 was first assessed on quiz 1, then students have reattempts on Exams 1-4 and the Final).
• Later learning targets had fewer re-attempts due to number of exams left.

SBG Pilots in Precalculus at CSUMB

We piloted 2 sections (about 72 students) of precalculus under our SBG new model. Here are a couple of takeaways:

• Students responded positively to the new system and felt that reattempts decreased pressure.
• Some students did not take advantage of all attempts.
• Students who did online homework and videos typically passed.
• New grading system had less moving parts, but more grading.

In summary

If nothing else, we hope to illustrate a few truths…

• There are many flavors of SBG to choose from and you don’t have to pick just one. We are continually learning and revising, just like our students.
• Active Learning is a strong framework upon which to build your alternative grading system.
• Metacognitive activities help to lay the foundation upon which the whole structure is built.

What are we learning from our data so far?

• We started SBG in Calculus I in Spring 2022 and piloted in Precalculus in Spring 2024.
• Our data is showing improvement on GPA for all groups from previous years, improved persistence and reduction in gap between different groups
• We are sharing our Calculus I data so far here as Precalculus data is not ready yet ( we just piloted in Spring 2024)
• Our data is also showing mix outcomes for our targeted population that we are trying to understand better.

Improved GPA

Recent Pattern (Female. vs. Male)

• Note F20-S22 is Covid time
• Both groups improved GPA with SBG
• The GPA gap is reducing

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Source: CSU Student Success Dashboard

Improved GPA

Recent Pattern (First Gen. vs. Not)

​

• Improved GPA for both groups from Covid semesters
• The GPA gap is reducing with SBG

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Source: CSU Student Success Dashboard

Improved GPA

Recent Pattern (URM vs. Non-URM)

• Regarding the URM Gap seen in the CSU Dashboard, URM students had lower HS GPA than non-URM students. After accounting for the confounding using multiple regression, the gap was not shown in our SBG results.
• Our data shows significant reduction of the gap like in S23.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Source: CSU Student Success Dashboard

SBG Data Analysis (Calculus I Canvas Data)

Questions of interest (Canvas data for Calculus I students at CSUMB):

• Do students attempt a LT as soon as possible? (diligence)
• Do students meet a LT at the first attempt? (performance)
• If students do not meet a LT at the first attempt, do they eventually meet? (resilience)
• Do students meet a LT by the end of semester regardless of the number of attempts?

​

​

​

​

​

SBG Results (Calculus I)

Do students attempt a LT as soon as possible? (diligence)

HS GPA ↑^***

URM ↑^*

​

​

​

​

SBG Results (Calculus I)

Do students meet LT in the first attempt? (performance)

HS GPA ↑^***

MQ Cat ↓^**

Male ↑^**

​

​

*** means a very strong statistical significance, p < 0.00

​

** means a strong statistical significance, p < 0.01

​

* means statistical significance, p < 0.05

SBG Results (Calculus I)

If students do not meet a LT at the first attempt, do they eventually meet? (resilience)

HS GPA ↑^**

S24 ↑^*

​

​

​

​

** means a strong statistical significance, p < 0.01

​

* means statistical significance, p < 0.05

SBG Results (Calculus I)

HS GPA ↑^***

MQ Cat ↓^●

Male ↑^●

S24 ↑^**

​

*** means a very strong statistical significance, p < 0.00

​

** means a strong statistical significance, p < 0.01

​

​

SBG Results for Calculus I (Summary)

• HS GPA is the strongest predictor in all aspects.
• Male students have a higher success rate at the first attempt than females.
• When compared to Fall 23, the re-attempt success rate was higher in Spring 24, and the overall rate of meeting a LT is significantly higher in Spring 24.
• Earlier LTs were attempted and met more than later LTs. → Considering a new grading system which imposes higher weights on later LTs.

Shared Goodies

Canvas courses: Hartnell College Canvas course for Calculus I

CSUMB: Canvas Course for Calculus I, Canvas Course for Precalculus

Syllabi: Hartnell Calculus I Syllabus ( an editable version of the syllabus - please make your own copy first!) CSUMB Calculus I Syllabus and CSUMB Precalculus Syllabus

Learning Targets: Hartnell Calculus I learning outcomes

CSUMB Calculus I learning targets and CSUMB Precalculus Learning targets

Assessments - Reach out to Lipika at ldeka@csumb.edu or

Jennifer at jmoorhouse@hartnell.edu

Works Cited

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2020, January). A new decade for assessment: Embedding equity into assessment praxis (Occasional Paper No. 42). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.

Long Beach City College Cultural Curriculum Audit

ESCALA Educational Services, CTL-HSI course

Questions

Thank you for your time!

Please reach out to us for any questions

Hartnell: Jennifer Moorhouse at jmoorhouse@hartnell.edu

Senorina Vazquez at svazquez@hartnell.edu

CSUMB: Lipika Deka at ldeka@csumb.edu

Jeff Wand at jwand@csumb.edu

Disciplinary Applications #2: Math

What’s next?

Now until 4:30 Break (offline)

Next Parallel session

4:30 - 5:30 6A - Round-Table: Equitable Grading in Post-Secondary Class

6B - Education Research #1

6C - Workshop: Upgrading the Unessay

6D - Round-Table: Implementing Ungrading