Archive for the ‘CO552’ Category

Wed 1/11: SBG 2.01

January 12, 2012 Leave a comment

Yesterday I issued a minor patch to my new SBG rubric for programming. My students were complaining about how it was impossible to get a 4.0 through computer work, and I knew deep down that the system was flawed and antithetical in some way. So I decided to modify the rubric to allow 4.0 work on labs if the students completed a “challenge exercise” for that standard that I established ahead of time. As I told my students, I was going to make these challenges very hard, probably as hard as I could think of. I want the students to really feel like they had to sweat to earn that extra point. This will still end up being less work for me, as now I only need to think of a bonus challenge for each standard that I grade. So far on my first lab project, two of the three students in my class have elected to do the challenge. We’ll see how their efforts turn out.

Categories: CO552, sbar

Fri 1/6: Wrestling with SBG

January 6, 2012 4 comments

I’m a big fan of standards-based grading. In fact, since I switched to it midway through the first semester of last year, I can’t imagine going back. Escaping the shackles of a point-grubbing culture and refocusing my assessment on standards performance has really changed the way I teach — for the better, I hope.

But the implementation is still a work in progress. This year I decided to switch from a 1-10 scale to Marzano’s 1-4 scale, as detailed in his book. I even went to the trouble of creating a differentiated rubric that listed Level-2 skills and Level-3 skills. It was a lot of work and I’m not sure that it improved things very much.

The problem is Level-4. One of the reasons why I wanted to move away from points-based grading was to reduce grade inflation in my class. I wanted to make it really hard to get a top score. But the problem I encountered was, especially with take-home programming assignments, it was too easy for students to produce “perfect” work that satisfied all the requirements of an assignment.

Does a working program equal a 4.0? I don’t think that it should. In my mind, students need to go above and beyond the basic expectations to earn a 4.0. But it’s a bit like that old paradox: once you define what constitutes a 4.0, then that becomes the new literal benchmark that students will strive for. Marzano says that a 3.0 is “proficient”, so shouldn’t a 4.0 require students to exceed expectations.

Last semester I tried requiring my students to write me a narrative argument for why their work should earn a 4.0 if they felt they had exceeded the basic requirements of the assignment. That didn’t really work, because their explanations were really just facile restatements of the 3.0 proficiency standards.

Maybe my standards just need to be reworked so that I establish a new top tier. I can’t really figure out how to do that, but maybe other people in CS who are using SBG can help me with that. In the meantime, I am using a new rubric in my AP-level class:




Concept can be implemented on paper.


Concept can be implemented with no logical errors


Concept can be implemented with no runtime errors


Concept can be implemented with no syntax errors

In other words, to get a 4.0 you need to be able to do this stuff correctly on a test. I think this sort of fragmented rubric would get an angry letter from Mr. Marzano. But it’s the best way I can think now to reduce the “soft bump” that students get from doing their work at home with the benefit of compilers and other resources.

What do you think?



Categories: CO552, compsci, programming, sbar