Self-Grading: Explained

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

Is self-grading effective, and worth it? All signs point to “yes.” Some research findings appear at the end of this post.

Along with the minimum 50, self-grading is another high-leverage practice often found in an ungrading approach that keeps the focus on learning. In practice, though, self-grading is often misunderstood. If anyone hears about students giving themselves a grade and imagines a kid with their head on the desk all quarter who suddenly pops up and says “I get an A,” that’s dead wrong. With a solid self-grading practice that maximizes teacher prep time and empowers students to evaluate their learning, this student would lack evidence to make such a claim. And that’s one focus of this post (i.e., making a claim). Let’s first start with what teachers have been doing—historically—to make a claim about students’ grades so we can explain self-grading…

Continue reading →

Minimum 50 & The “Something For Nothing” Myth

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

One common objection to using the more contemporary 50-100 scale (i.e., 50 being the lowest score possible) is that students who in the past have had scores of zeros, 20s, and 40s in a 0-100 system now “get something for nothing.” This argument fails to account for the lack of understanding and knowledge that a 50 represents when it’s the lowest score. That is, the lowest grades—whatever they are—don’t reflect much learning under any system. Whether a student in one system has a grade of 40 because grades are averaged, or in another system has a 60 because they aren’t, the student isn’t walking away with much understanding and knowledge either way. One difference between these systems is being denied other learning experiences, either by having to retake a course, or having certain doors closed for their future. Let’s look into this…

Continue reading →

Latin & CI Criticism: Challenging Work & Higher-Order Thinking

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

A frequent complaint of comprehension-based Latin teaching is that students aren’t challenged enough. Critics point to Bloom’s “understanding” level, assuming that everything stops there, imagining students hanging out in the lower-order thinking levels. Given that assumption, the critic’s takeaway is that “CI Latin” is unchallenging, and lacks higher-order thinking.

Untrue.

What is true is that comprehension-based Latin teaching prioritizes understanding as step zero. Under such an approach, nothing is done without first understanding the Latin in front of all students. One immediate implication is that Latin texts must be level-appropriate for beginners in the first years of a new language. And that level is quite low. Therefore, it is true that these texts are at a much, much, much lower level than the kinds of texts traditionally used in Latin classrooms, but that’s just text level. This says nothing about thinking level. Do these truths mean that students do NOT engage in higher-order thinking with these lower level texts? Are students NOT challenged when reading and discussing in class?

Continue reading →

Crazy vs. Calm: Reverse Questions

/ magisterp / 5 Comments

Reducing listening activities and doubling-down on reading last year had amazing results, even for a year with the lowest interest in the language I had ever seen. We read novellas, embedded readings from MovieTalk clips, tiered versions of various existing texts, and Type ‘n Talk (Write & Discuss) class texts. Overall, instead of what I’m gonna call crazy content creation (CRAY-CC), I had a lot of success with all that calm content creation (CALM-CC). The former is something like 110% energy-filled classes with a massive focus on interaction. The latter isn’t. Both are different approaches to comprehension-based teaching prioritizing input. The former has a far greater emphasis on communicative language teaching, which isn’t necessarily sine qua non as some make it out to be. While I truly believe this applies to all languages, it is especially the case for Latin.

Of course, I don’t disparage anyone doing the former, though I do recommend that language teachers do what they can so new teachers see CRAY-CC as just ONE approach to providing input. In other words, it would benefit anyone new to the field if experienced comprehension-based language teachers presented and shared the non-negotiables and principles of CI more than specific CRAY-CC activities, methods, etc.). For me, CRAY-CC was trending when I started teaching. Granted, I did learn most of my strategies and techniques from all that, but it would have been nice to be presented with other options that fit my speed, style, mood, etc., and especially that of my students. Luckily, I became more responsive to their reluctance, and adapted. In the end after 9 years of focusing on CRAZY-CC, I finally settled on CALM-CC classes for my 10th year. The reading development truly was magical. We generated class texts based on what were were discussing, learning, and reading, and it was all more than enough content. No order-at-cafe/taberna role plays, and no paired speaking activities that lacked a purpose, either.

Granted, that doesn’t mean I ditched speaking Latin altogether, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend that. At this point, I would recommend a kind of speaking Latin in the classroom that looks different, though, such as communicating with students (fully accepting their English responses), and just skipping on the kind of listening demands that seemed to require 100% silence on their end—ultimately leading to classroom management disasters—that so often accompany CRAY-CC. For a CALM-CC approach, many greetings, instructions, and daily interactions can be done in simple Latin, and have value. Then there’s questioning.

Questioning IN LATIN can be tricky given issues with asking questions when reading a text, which I found became more of a problem when reading ramped up. But let’s say I wanted to ask more questions IN LATIN, and let’s say you do, too. Assuming you had a classic Classical background with approximately 0% speaking Latin, maybe you recently went to a conventiculum, and now you want to speak more Latin in the classroom. That’s a great idea, though not everything you learned and experienced can be applied to your students who have an uncia of the prior knowledge you do. Just as well, here’s an activity inspired by a graduate student who recently presented a selection of Virgil (in English) during a mini lesson, asking yes/no, either/or, and “do you think that” questions that reminded me of what I used to ask IN LATIN as early as the first weeks of school. I call it Reverse Questioning…

Continue reading →

Grading: An Ableist Practice

/ magisterp / 1 Comment

I haven’t really seen grading presented as an ableist practice, but after attending a workshop at UMass, I can see how framing it that way illustrates the problems of grading in a thought-provoking way. Why ableist? Here’s an analogy: I’m certainly not *able* to contend with the top archers in the nation, but no one is forcing me to, either. It’s a choice. My lack of ability doesn’t close any doors. I just won’t win a medal. Yet elementary and secondary school is not an option for kids. Placing grading obstacles in the way of their learning and future learning is a bit like disallowing me to go to my local archery range until I were to place among the top athletes in the nation. So, consider these common characteristics of graded assignments as we unpack each one through an ableist perspective:

  • single standard of achievement
  • don’t acknowledge growth
  • require specific patterns of logical thought
  • require fast work on deadlines
  • only valid in written form
  • require fast, dense reading
  • require screen time
Continue reading →

Points: The Harvard Way

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

I’ve shared that I’m taking the first of four courses towards Harvard’s Instructional Leadership Certificate. I really do find the course almost entirely helpful, which is a big endorsement from someone who’s been mostly disappointed by gen ed PD, and I would still recommend it.

Then there’s the points…

As I’ve revisited the problem with points, I also just experienced it firsthand as a student. In the course, there were optional message board activities each week with various point values for posting, replying, and/or “liking,” etc. There was a suggested minimum to “earn” over the six weeks, and a weekly maximum. But some points carried over to the next week. Not all. There was a maximum carry over limit beyond the maximum. As you see, this was not a straightforward system.

Now, I hadn’t been paying attention to the points, or perhaps better expressed, I actively tried to AVOID looking at those points. In short, when there was something to add to a topic and there were a couple replies between me and another participant, the weekly point maximum was met. Since I spent a lot of time posting and replying, I maxed out points each week.

Well, the Week 4 module didn’t really speak to me, so I did my OPTIONAL post, and didn’t really go back to look at what the other participants had to say. No biggie, right? Especially since I was nearing that six-week maximum at the end of the fourth week. What I find absolutely frustrating, though, is that I received an automated email “reminder to participate” at some point late in the week. That was just…insulting. I felt like replying “FU, bro. I’ve almost reached the limit, and these are friggin’ OPTIONAL?!” Oh, and I got another notification the following week, and a final notification after I completed the coursework. This only increased my frustration considering I had already overshot the maximum. Thanks, Harvard.

So, while the point (heh) of the message board was to encourage discussion and further learning, I was being told that I wasn’t doing it the way someone wanted me to do it. Makes me wonder how many teachers are trying to control their students in similar ways.

Are Points Really THAT Bad?! Yup.

/ magisterp / 2 Comments

It’s been a couple years since I first read Grading for Equity, attended its 3-day workshop, and wrote a series of posts the in winter of 2022 on grading practices that scholars have shown to be inequitable. One perplexing thing, though, is that I do find myself around teachers who implement those inequitable practices daily, yet by all observable accounts still have high levels of equity! I’m not suggesting that the scholars are wrong. I’m also not suggesting that teachers should continue using those practices. Instead, I want to revisit why points are so bad, and then consider what else is at play in the classroom that might keep things equitable (to a limited extent). Oh, and this post doesn’t get into ANYTHING about dealing with points from a teacher bookkeeping perspective, which is enough of a hassle on its own. Even the teacher who somehow hasn’t heard of the word “equity” would benefit from ditching points altogether.

Continue reading →

The Leveled A/B Routine

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

I’m taking the first of four courses towards Harvard’s Instructional Leadership Certificate. It’s relatively affordable. Plus…it’s pretty good! Although my own interests have moved towards grading and working with educators, teaching a second language is my anchor. No doubt I’ll be working with second language teachers in the future as well, so here’s one managing routine from the Harvard course that somehow flew under my radar all these years…

Continue reading →

PPP, Averaging & Zeros: Guskey On Grading

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

There are three broad categories of grading criteria that have the potential to unite all teachers in the effort to grade more equitably, effectively, and efficiently. Bold claim—I know—yet I’m confident there’s something for everyone. In fact, I’m dying to hear what could be missing, so leave a comment if you think of a fourth “p” or something that doesn’t fall under one of the others. Guskey’s three categories were lurking in a 1996 article (“Reporting On Student Learning…”). He opens with a quote that sounded like it could’ve been written by a contemporary scholar, yet on the next page reveals that it was from 1933! Confirming my own experience with reading studies dating back to the early 1900s, Guskey saw consistent findings 60 years before his article, which now is approaching 30 years old. We’re talking about nearly a century of consensus on some things. One of those things is that everything teachers grade can fall under the following three broad categories of criteria:

Product – Grading what students know and can do at a certain time
Process – Grading how students get there
Progress – Grading how much students gain

These categories support my use of—and advocation for—grading process, and I’ve had an interest in grading progress, or what I’ve been calling “growth.” I’ve avoided grading product entirely. Why? My experience has been that learner differences seem far too amplified in a second language class for us to grade language ability in that way. In addition, recent discussions about grading performance & competency (i.e., product) do suggest there’s litte reason to do so. Regardless, we don’t have to go ahead and nix grading product altogether, especially if that’s what most teachers need to hold onto to get on board. Therefore, let’s look into how grading any one, or all three categories of product, process, or progress could unite teachers in a common pursuit of equitable, effective, and efficient grading (or ungrading)…

Continue reading →