My wife is an English professor and although I'm a bit biased, she's an impressive teacher and I'm very happy to be her partner.  In the last couple of years she came across a book, Specifications Grading by Linda Nilson, and our dinner conversations shifted to her new hope for how to motivate and assess her students.  (We both enjoy these pedagogical dinner discussions--it's just one thing among many that makes our marriage so incredible.) Specs grading is a type of Standards Based Grading (SBG) and I have been interested in trying SBG for a long time.  It seems to take me awhile to think about new ways of conducting my classes before I commit to the change, but conversations with her and the positive effects on her students made me even more interested to try SBG next year.  

In addition to having a like-minded spouse, I have also been learning about how to employ modeling teaching techniques in my physics classes--many modelers use some form of SBG in their classes.  Also, issues of equity in education are something that comes up quite frequently in my work as a Einstein Fellow in Congressman Raúl Grijalva's office on Capitol Hill. With those things in mind, when I heard Joe Feldman speak about his book Grading for Equity on a Harvard EdCast podcast, I knew I had to give his book a look.

In his book, Grading for Equity: What it is, Why it matters, and How it can transform schools and classrooms, Joe Feldman argues that grading is a challenging topic to discuss with teachers.  Teachers' ideas of grading are wrapped up in our ideas about how learning occurs, motivation of students, self-direction, and control.  Traditional grading practices (TG or TGP), for many teachers (myself included) often mean using a 0-100 grading scale with letter grades, grading homework and classwork for correctness, not accepting late work (or accepting it with a large reduction in credit), and one-chance summative quizzes and tests.  Feldman argues that these TGPs are problematic for multiple reasons.  I won't go over them all, but I would like to briefly discuss those that stood out to me.

With TG, mistakes are viewed by many students as "...unwanted, unhelpful, and deserving of penalty."  Teachers using TGPs often judge students in all stages of learning including classwork and homework. This incentivizes students to hide their misunderstandings and weaknesses and can lead them to academic dishonesty / cheating.  This is something I've personally observed in my classes and is a widespread concern among many teaching colleagues.

Tied up with TGPs is the idea that "points" can be used to motivate students to perform.  Feldman says, "Teachers use "points" in grading based on the traditional belief that points motivate students to learn and behave, even though "one of the sturdiest findings in social science" is that extrinsic motivation for learning is ineffective and even harmful."  Extrinsic motivation might work for repetitive and simple tasks, but it does not work well for conceptual understanding, flexible problem solving, or improving students long term interest and desire to learn.  Feldman also argues that these TG point systems can also result in students that are more dependent on the teacher and therefore less independent learners.  He also discusses the influence of conscious and unconscious teacher biases that can cause them to wrongly think that "motivating" students with points-based-consequences is the only effective measure they have with certain underrepresented groups.  (This is particularly troubling and I highly suggest you read chapter 3 and follow his references.)

​TG also hides or provides misleading information.  In TG, a student's academic and behavioral performance over the course of a marking period are reduced to a single letter grade calculated via averaging all the student's scores. That single letter grade confuses and hides a student's true understanding of course topics and is affected by everything from a zeroes for missing assignments and homework scores that are due to a particular student's home environment and responsibilities outside of the school day.  The mathematics of calculating the grade are inappropriate and problematic as well. (more on this in Part 2).  

Teachers already know this. As the author writes, "Faced with the constraints of using a single letter to report student performance, teachers are forced to make creative adjustments and adaptations, making grades idiosyncratic, and, therefore, unreliable."  The letter grades are subject to teacher bias--even if that bias is unconscious and unintentional.  Feldman goes on to say, "The variance and unreliability of single-letter grades frustrate students, weaken the schools' professional community of teachers, and challenge the integrity of our schools."

Lastly, I was particularly intrigued by Feldman's analysis of TGPs in light of Carol Dweck's work on Mindset. I was introduced to Dweck's work in graduate school at the University of Akron and my thoughts on teaching have been affected by it ever since.  (I expect you are already familiar with the basic tenets of fixed vs. growth mindsets as they are now common terms in educational circles, but if not, follow the link to learn more.)  Feldman says that although many schools espouse Dweck's "growth mindset" ideals and communicate this to students by stating so in written and oral communications (bulletin boards, posters, course expectation sheets, emails, etc.), TGPs "...often communicate a dis-empowering "fixed mindset" framework for learning, add stress and uncertainty, and can result in students engaging in compensating behaviors."  TGPs frame grades as "performance goals," that is a goal focused on external judgement and evaluation. This can lead to students being motivated only to take on and complete tasks seen as relatively easy and to avoid chancing failure in order to avoid appearing unable or not smart enough.

So then what to do instead?  I'll write about the more equitable grading practices Feldman recommends (some SBG and some not) in my next post.

It feels odd to be writing a blog post on this topic during the CoVid19 pandemic.  There are so many other things to think and worry about, but like all teachers I still want the best for my students.  So in a time when most every teacher is thinking about how to keep their students engaged and stay connected with their students, I'm going to take a moment to think and write about some goals that aren't even easily met in more "normal" times much less in the midst of the crisis in which we now find ourselves.  (Pedagogical Escapism?)

Thanks to my time as an Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow I came across a book written by Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine, In Search of Deeper Learning: The Quest to Remake the American High School.  You can find an interview with the authors on an episode of the Harvard EdCast podcast. I spent about three plane trips reading the book and tagging pages with tiny ripped up post-it notes.  I tagged pages that resonated with me about how efforts in various schools were either succeeding or falling short in their deeper learning efforts.  

Before I go on, it's necessary and useful to describe what we mean by deeper learning.  In a 2015 report for the Deeper Learning Research Series, the Mehta and Fine say:
      "There is no consensus on exactly how to define deeper learning. One prominent definition argues that deeper learning results when learners are able to develop significant understanding of core academic content, exhibit critical thinking and problem-solving, collaborate, communicate, direct their own learning, and possess an academic mindset (Hewlett Foundation n.d.). Our research has led us to emphasize a related approach that suggests that deeper learning often emerges at the intersection of mastery, identity, and creativity." 

TLDR: "Deeper learning is the understanding of not just the surface features of a subject or discipline, but the underlying structures or ideas."
      (Harvard Gazette Interview with Jal Mehta in August of 2019.)

​Mehta and Fine visited dozens of American high schools and observed and interviewed students and teachers in each.  In their book they take a deep dive into the workings of four representative high schools which they dub:

1. Dewey High - an all project based learning "progressive" school
2. ​No Excuses High - a charter school with an emphasis on college prep and AP
3. ​IB High - An all International Baccalaureate program (incld. exc. ed. kiddos)​
4. Comprehensive High - a traditional comprehensive high school

​
Their observations and interviews both in classroom settings and after school co-curricular programs led them to the following list of common conditions present where they observed deeper learning:​

• ​students are active producers rather than passive participants
• learning by doing rather than by transmission
• clear purposes & external audiences rather than simply working to please the teacher
• multi-age grouping rather than age-graded classrooms
• integration of students with different skill levels rather than tracking
• learning through apprenticeship rather than didactic instruction

​
Great!  Now how do I design my courses so those conditions are present?  The last section of the book on Deeper Teaching doesn't give specifics but does give goals and options.  The authors state that there are multiple valid strategies to foster deeper learning both in and out of the classroom.  As I read this section however I was struck by a quote from a math teacher they called Mr. Martin:  "Our purpose is not to get them into college; our purpose is to give students power.  The idea is to help students become mathematicians, which means they have to do what real mathematicians do - discover, innovate, and meet a real intellectual need."  Mr. Martin emphasized building mathematical identities rather than covering mathematical content.  You can replace math and mathematical in his quote with whatever other field you like and get an idea of a goal of deeper learning.

I've been investigating Physics Modeling Instruction over the past few months as well and I see so much in common with what Mehta, Fine, and Mr. Martin are arguing for.  After reading In Search of Deeper Learning, it seemed to me that at least a few of the teachers they interviewed and quoted were science modelers and I was even more determined to take a class from the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA).  In January this year I began the online course, Introduction to Modeling Teaching which runs through April--more on that in a future post.  I am really looking forward to returning to teaching in August and working with students (hopefully face-to-face) to build their physics identities and empowering them to thrive.

This week we celebrate our nation’s public schools, our students, and the teachers and other professionals that work to help students learn and develop character.
Our nation’s public schools are where most of our children are educated. More than 50 million children attend public schools—that means 9 out of every 10 kids attend a public school. Public schools open their doors to every child and commit to educate every child— regardless of ability, race, wealth, language, or country of origin.

Public schools are accountable to all of us and so often serve to strengthen bonds between people and help to build and sustain communities. They have served and continue to serve as the bedrock of our nation’s social and economic well-being. Supporting public schools means supporting our democracy and our future workforce.

There has never been a more important time than now to speak out about the value of public education. The president’s proposed education budget cuts billions of dollars from K-12 education. Kentucky would lose more than 34 million dollars and the cuts would particularly impact students who are English learners, from migrant families, experiencing homelessness, and from rural areas. We should all reject the these proposed cuts and instead strengthen our public schools.

Because public schools support us as a diverse and interconnected nation, we owe it to them to make sure they have the funding they need to be successful. We need to continue to fund repairs and improvements to school infrastructure. We should help every family rest assured that their children have a free breakfast and lunch to support their learning. And, we need to support and pay teachers like the professionals they are.

Communities are stronger and schools are better when we work together to support public education. That’s why I support Public Schools Week.

http://lovepubliceducation.org/
#PublicSchoolProud
#PSW20

This post is meant to accompany two presentations I'm giving today about what I've learned so far as an Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow in Washington, D.C.  This week I spoke to Mr. Jenkin's U.S. History class, the 3rd District Board Members of the Kentucky Education Association, and spoke to the South Warren High School faculty about the Question Formulation Technique. Please reach out to me if you have questions. 

Lessons from the District...(Prezi for U.S. History with Mr. Jenkins)

Presentation on the Question Formulation Technique for South Warren High School Faculty on Wednesday, February 19, 2020. 
​ 
Other QFT Materials (Google Drive Folder)

So a couple of years ago my school administration and faculty decided to make questions a focus for improvement.  We were to examine what types of questions we asked of our students and also those asked by students.  My first question was "What does Google have to say about questions in the classroom?"  After some searching, I ran across the Right Question Institute and their Question Formulation Technique (QFT).  Thankfully for me, the website had a video example of the technique being used in a high school physics class and after watching it while home on a snow day, I immediately began planning to use it in my classroom the next day!  The QFT is a simple process to help students engage in divergent thinking by brainstorming questions about a topic, meta-cognitive thinking by reflecting on the questions and what they have learned already, and convergent thinking by discussing and agreeing on priority questions that they want to investigate and learn more about.  

As an Albert Einstein Fellow (AEF) these past five months I've had the opportunity to gain more practice with the QFT.  In October and November I took a course from the Harvard Graduate School of Education on the QFT and in December I introduced my fellow AEFs to the method at one of our First Friday professional development sessions.  In January I presented on the QFT at the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) Winter Meeting in Orlando.  This was my first time presenting at a conference and I was a little worried that no one would attend my session since it was opposite the talk of Keynote speaker Dr. James Gates of Brown University.  Despite my worries, the QFT room was filled to capacity with physics teachers eager to learn how to get their students to ask their own questions!

February provides another opportunity for me to present the QFT to the faculty of South Warren High School.  I look forward to the presentation and to reconnecting with colleagues and friends who I've been missing while "on assignment" in Washington, D.C.  If you're a teacher or teacher leader I certainly recommend checking out the QFT.