I've been doing SBG for a few years now but for me it only makes a difference in my grade book. Each year I have less than a handful of students who come in to retake any part of their test. It's more of an organizational tool for me than it is for the students. I don't know how to change this.
In reference to my last post on interventions, I'm thinking test corrections may be a better way for students to earn credit. I was reading through some of my old posts and found this link from @crstn85's blog. I like what she does a lot and I plan to use her idea and template.
There are some questions I'd like to pose to you. I've read about two different methods.
- Test corrections earn back half of the points missed.
- Test corrections raise their grade to a 70% which is passing but not proficient.
- What if corrections are not correct? It seems like it would be easier to determine a grade using method 1. Or should I not accept them until they are correct?
- Are test corrections a way to show student learning? I'm working off this paragraph from an earlier blog post from a conference with Randy and Sue Pippen:
"Their policy on grading was to make it count. Don't punish them for practicing. If I collect, then they should have the opportunity to correct. They pointed out that the United States culture has taught kids as long as it's done, I'm done. Work is not done until it's correctly done. They did mention that they thought homework was important (which I am agreeing with less and less) but that it should be recorded and reported, not graded. They hit upon the fact that we all have students in our class who cannot do math. How did they get there? They have been passed along on their inflated grades thanks to homework completion and participation points. These types of grades are not informative. " Would test corrections inflate grades too?
- Would more students participate in this method rather than retakes? I like the idea of correcting our tests together as a class the first time so they know how the process works. But maybe if I would have done that with retakes, I would have had more participation. I like that this method can be done outside of class without me but then again they could just copy someone's test that got the problems correct. I could avoid that by keeping all the tests but that requires more of my space and time.
- Would this method motivate students to do work correctly the first time? I'm thinking if I required test corrections from students who did not pass, it might help them try harder the first time since I'm sure they will hate writing explanations. On the other hand, they might try less because they know they have a second chance. But the second chance is for only half the points.
- How would test corrections increase learning? One way is being able to analyze your own work and identify errors. A second way is being able to communicate those errors in writing. A third way would be redoing the problem a second time. But if they still redo it incorrectly, will that have more of a negative impact?