Grading Systems, Technology, and Equity

Todd Zakrajsek from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and ITLC presented on May 19th on “Game Changing Teaching Tips: Best Free Ed Tech Tools to Engage Students” as part of the Lilly Conference online 2021. Zakrajsek gave the audience a task and put them in break out rooms with access to a Padlet. The task was to find ed tech tools that were less than $100/year for a specific task the group decides on. Hypothes.is was mentioned, as well as Flipgrid. Zakrajsek described how he limits the length of videos to make it reasonable to review and includes challenges such as going to find something on campus. The discussion was really great because they mentioned technology costs and what to consider during a trial or pilot period before investing. To me it was interesting to see several popular tools. Dotstorming was mentioned several times. I haven’t used it and need to look into it instead of a paid Padlet. The next session was one I really wanted to view.

Josh Eyler from University of Mississippi gave a talk with a long and descriptive title “The Call is Coming From Inside the House: How Grades Can Undermine Learning and Jeopardize Our Students’ Wellbeing.” Eyler mentioned this talk came from ideas from a book he is working on and started with an individual reflection and then small group discussion using the following prompts:

• What grading model(s) do you use in your classes?
• How are you grading models tied to your beliefs about learning?
• To what degree are your grading models connected to your beliefs about the expectations of colleagues in your discipline and/or traditional ideas about education?

The last question was tough for me! I have considered lately the first two questions, and I have not thought about the connection of grading models to different beliefs. Eyler gave people a couple of minutes for individual reflection before opening the rooms. I appreciate how calmly he paused and did not rush the individual reflection time. The breakout rooms lasted for about seven minutes before Eyler requested thoughts to be shared. Eyer listened to contributions and shared that there are pressures from institutions at different levels (K-12, higher education, graduate school) to retain grading systems. Eyler shared a quote by Alfie Kohn from the book Punished by Rewards (1993) to introduce the effect of grades on motivation. A study by Butler and Nisan entitled “Effects of No Feedback, Task-Related Comments, and Grades on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance suggests that taking grades out of the equation helps learners focus on learning. Eyler went on to say that “grades encourage a performance-avoidance approach to academic work” and “encourages an approach to not be the worst.” Thus, rewards are the motivator and grades seem to set up the obstacles hindering intrinsic motivation to learn and take risks. Eyler was careful to mention that just because there is intrinsic motivation does not result in success without supporting learning experience design. Eyler warned that “environments where grades are prioritized see more cases of cheating” citing Anderman and Koenka (2017). Interestingly, Eyler mentioned that in environments that de-emphasize grades, there is less incentive to cheat. Another realm that Eyler stressed is that “grades magnify the inequities inherent in educational systems” because, for example, resources have been disproportionally been allocated to communities to cause opportunity gaps. Eyler explained that the opportunity gap terminology is now used to avoid the deficiency-based “achievement gap” terminology used previously.

Eyler presented data from Kate Michaels and Jocelyn Milner that highlight DFW rates and inequities in introductory courses. Eyler then stated on a slide title “grades contribute to the well-documented and ongoing mental health crisis in pre-teens, teens, and young adults” citing several references… including one written in 1993. Eyler showed data from several Pew Research Center studies on mental health. A 2019 survey on social and demographic trends among teens mentioned “get good grades” as a source of anxiety and depression. Eyler talked about how during the pandemic these issues are amplified. Eyler was careful about stating that he does not say we need to abandon standards, and rather he says that:

​Eyler stressed that we should consider progressive grading models and practices to help students focus on learning instead of grades. Eyler shared a graph with more liberating and less liberating on the y-axis and fewer logistics and more logistics on the x-axis. Ungrading and specs/mastery/standards grading are on the top right of the graph. Contract grading and portfolios are on the top left. Traditional grading practices are on the lower side of the y-axis. Eyler mentioned that portfolios, that I have been using, have less logistics but can be less liberating because they are graded by the instructor. I have to think about that. He also mentioned that specs/mastery/standards grading and ungrading have more logistics and are more liberating.

Zakrajsek asked what we should do if we are bound by a system that uses traditional grading. Eyler responded to this and several questions. One concern was how to do this at scale, and mentioned Maria Gallardo-Williams and colleagues and their conversations and approaches for doing this in chemistry courses. Another interesting question was that a progressive grade model can increase cognitive load, and Eyler recommended starting by phasing in progressive grading approaches. Eyler also recommended being transparent and checking in with students. Zakrajsek also mentioned that Eyler writes fantastic blog posts that are well-researched. Connecting back to educational technology, Eyler used Prezi to present!