A followup question. Has anyone used SBSG with Canvas's Mastery Gradebook features? I plan to explore it, but if anyone here has feedback on the experience, or knows where someone has written up tips, suggestions, or pitfalls, I'd love to hear your opinions.

Hello! I have been using SBG in my mathematics courses for a few years and greatly enjoy watching students grow as they master standards.

I have a questions about the origination of the assessment systems. I only know of two common systems, the EMRF/EMRN and JMA systems. I know that EMRF originated in a paper by Stutzman and Race. Does anyone know of a paper where JMA was introduced? Or even other grading systems?

I have a questions about the origination of the assessment systems. I only know of two common systems, the EMRF/EMRN and JMA systems. I know that EMRF originated in a paper by Stutzman and Race. Does anyone know of a paper where JMA was introduced? Or even other grading systems?

Introducing myself... I teach computer science at Brooklyn College (part of the City University of New York). I've been using Team-Based Learning in my intermediate programming courses, which has dramatically improved the classroom experience. But I've not been so happy with the "usual" approach to grading in TBL--it's been difficult to measure individual mastery. So when I saw +Drew Lewis's poster at this year's TBL conference, on using SBG with TBL in calculus, I got very excited, and not just because of the proliferation of three-letter acronyms.

In the fall, I'm going to be teaching a second-semester course on programming in Java (not introductory, but not quite Data Structures either), and I want to figure out how/whether to incorporate SBG. I'm here to learn about experiences of people who have used SBG in programming courses and/or in combination with TBL.

In the fall, I'm going to be teaching a second-semester course on programming in Java (not introductory, but not quite Data Structures either), and I want to figure out how/whether to incorporate SBG. I'm here to learn about experiences of people who have used SBG in programming courses and/or in combination with TBL.

Post has attachment

Here's the syllabus for my metalogic class for Fall 2017. Sample language from syllabi posted here were really useful, as was Robert Talbert's EMRN rubic.

I'm posting this to pay it forward. I don't really spend much time on Google+ so please email me if you have questions. This particular repository of information has been really useful to me, so thanks all!

I'm posting this to pay it forward. I don't really spend much time on Google+ so please email me if you have questions. This particular repository of information has been really useful to me, so thanks all!

Dear all, I am looking for advice for my 25-student Honors Calc 2 course this fall '17.

I started reading Linda Nilson's Specifications Grading book and many blogs/ course syllabi written by math teachers including those of you in this group in January '17, but not ready to go full-SBSG. I am thinking of only lightly implementing SBSG and only for weekly quizzes. Students would only get to re-take a quiz once or possibly twice and within a week of getting their marked quizzes back. They would start the semester with fewer tokens than there are quizzes, so not every quiz can be re-attempted.

I am considering having a three-scale or four-scale score. For example, a beginner/intermediate/advanced scale or 1-4 scale. This is explained in my rough syllabus here: https://egunawan.github.io/fall17/syllabus

I would like to encourage students to correct their work (done with help from me or their peers) - here are a few ideas:

a. If students receive a score of '3', they can change it to a '4' by submitting an explanation and a correct work.

b. Otherwise, students can earn credit by re-taking the quiz at the cost of a token. But they must show me a correct correction + explanation of what they did wrong before they can reattempt the quiz.

c. Give a small amount of credit back for submitting a correction + explanation (even if they do not wish to reattempt the quiz). I am including this because I have seen students not caring to re-take quizzes in the past, which may not be an issue with honors program students.

d. In order to make it easier for myself during my first semester in a new university and my first time teaching Calc II, I don't want to have students take standards during midterms. So I will probably grade the tests using points-system (possibly on that same 1-4 scale, but each point counts as partial credit, so even a score of '1' would count). But I do want them to submit corrections for problems they don't get full credit on. So I am thinking of giving students small extra credit if they submit correction + explanation. For example, 10% of what each problem is worth.

Has anyone done a similar thing - do a light version of SBSG like this?

(Also, in case anyone has done this before, I am thinking of starting the semester with sequences and series - I am using Stewart and will supplement with the Active Calculus book).

Thank you for reading!

I started reading Linda Nilson's Specifications Grading book and many blogs/ course syllabi written by math teachers including those of you in this group in January '17, but not ready to go full-SBSG. I am thinking of only lightly implementing SBSG and only for weekly quizzes. Students would only get to re-take a quiz once or possibly twice and within a week of getting their marked quizzes back. They would start the semester with fewer tokens than there are quizzes, so not every quiz can be re-attempted.

I am considering having a three-scale or four-scale score. For example, a beginner/intermediate/advanced scale or 1-4 scale. This is explained in my rough syllabus here: https://egunawan.github.io/fall17/syllabus

I would like to encourage students to correct their work (done with help from me or their peers) - here are a few ideas:

a. If students receive a score of '3', they can change it to a '4' by submitting an explanation and a correct work.

b. Otherwise, students can earn credit by re-taking the quiz at the cost of a token. But they must show me a correct correction + explanation of what they did wrong before they can reattempt the quiz.

c. Give a small amount of credit back for submitting a correction + explanation (even if they do not wish to reattempt the quiz). I am including this because I have seen students not caring to re-take quizzes in the past, which may not be an issue with honors program students.

d. In order to make it easier for myself during my first semester in a new university and my first time teaching Calc II, I don't want to have students take standards during midterms. So I will probably grade the tests using points-system (possibly on that same 1-4 scale, but each point counts as partial credit, so even a score of '1' would count). But I do want them to submit corrections for problems they don't get full credit on. So I am thinking of giving students small extra credit if they submit correction + explanation. For example, 10% of what each problem is worth.

Has anyone done a similar thing - do a light version of SBSG like this?

(Also, in case anyone has done this before, I am thinking of starting the semester with sequences and series - I am using Stewart and will supplement with the Active Calculus book).

Thank you for reading!

So I've got myself in a pickle. I've adopted the "You can't revise something you didn't originally attempt policy" (I use EMRF) for revising exam assessment, even to the point of not allowing it for multipart problems. Calc I problem, identify the zeros, critical points, inflection points, intervals where pos/neg, intervals where incr/decr, intervals where concave up/down. An E required getting all 6 parts correct. An M required 3 exactly correct and 2 others not necessarily correct, but with a lot of good work. R was two correct with a third partially correct. My thinking was students would work all parts and I would mark based on what they accomplished. Well, several students only answered three parts (usually correct or mostly correct). So, it's an R. But they didn't even attempt the other parts (the intervals in all cases). So, even though I told them the could revise it, they didn't do enough work to actually have anything to revise. One student has (rightfully) called me out on it. So, I'm kinda stuck. Any suggestions?

Inspired by/based on +Kate Owens' awesome SBSG FAQ she posted last week, I made up my own that I will use with my Discrete Structures classes this semester. It's a bit different than Kate's because my syllabus covers some of the details. I'll try to post that syllabus later.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XbMyrKxVaDmRki1bVYOxCGHs5AKSA1JVkoNSSWluMek/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XbMyrKxVaDmRki1bVYOxCGHs5AKSA1JVkoNSSWluMek/edit?usp=sharing

Post has attachment

Wanted to share this with the group -- it's an updated graphic for the EMRF rubric that we've discussed here on the group several times, except "F" has been replaced with "N" as per +Kate Owens' modifications. Please use freely.

Hi everyone. I'm so glad to have found this group. I tried SBSG after reading Linda Nilson's book last summer. I teach humanities and other things in the Honors College at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. I posted a comment about this issue elsewhere, but I want to bring it up here: In the humanities, when pushing students to do analytical essays where there is no one right answer and where we want to assess quality and originality of ideas not just quality of expression or mastery of course ideas (great as those things are!), I'd be interested to hear anyone's suggestions for setting a clear specification on what "exceeds expectations" looks like for assignments like these.

Post has attachment

New post on ProfHacker this morning about specs grading. I left a comment alerting readers to the existence of this community and therefore to the existence of other people who are using SBSG. Hopefully connections will be made.

Wait while more posts are being loaded