Target Based Grading v1.0: 2019-2020

In this blog post, I will detail why and how I implemented a target based grading system in geometry this past year.  I will share my thoughts and reflections about what went well, what didn't, and what changes I'm contemplating for next year.

I've been meaning to write this blog post for many months.  I gave a presentation at the SD STEM ED conference in February about this topic, and there was a high level of interest about it.  Thanks to being stuck at home for the past seven weeks, I've found a bit of time to write this post.

I typically blog as a vehicle for self reflection.  When I have a lot going on in my brain, I find the process of writing something semi-coherent helps me organize my thoughts and think more deeply about things.

That said, I am very interested in hearing feedback about my target-based grading system as I begin to prepare for next year and target based grading v2.0.  Please do not hesitate to comment, question, or push back on this post.  I welcome the discussion around the topic of grading.

(Note: S/O to my colleague Jarrod for joining me on this journey.  We continue to work in tandem and mirror each other day by day and are both better for it.  A majority of this process was "we" instead of "I".)


Part I.  WHY

My decision to implement a target based grading system was influenced by a number of factors.

• I've always been intrigued by standards based grading, dating back to somewhere around 2014.  I implemented a standards based grading system as part of my Master's action research during the 2014-15 school year.  I didn't love the grading system I used for the action research, so I stopped using it after one year.  But I was still intrigued by standards based grading.
• In my school district, the K-3 elementary buildings began using standards based report cards in about 2016-17.  I enjoyed seeing my children's standards based report cards compared to a traditional report card and continued to be intrigued.
• In 2017-18, my district began to implement what we are calling "mass customized learning (MCL)" in the K-3 buildings.  In 2018-19, MCL began in the Intermediate (4-5) building.  In 2019-20, MCL began in the Middle School (6th grade class).  It is scheduled to arrive at my high school in 2022-23.  MCL is centered on students demonstrating mastery of learning targets, which are written in student-friendly "I can..." statements.  One of the components of MCL is assessing (and reporting) student growth on the learning targets.  In other words, MCL and target based grading go hand in hand.
• I read Jo Boaler's Mathematical Mindsets and was convinced that traditional grading and assessing has some negative consequences.  Boaler talks about assessment for learning and gives some advice on grading.  The target based grading system that I hoped to implement followed many of Boaler's guidelines.
• One recommendation that Boaler makes is to not include homework as part of a student's grade.  She makes a convincing argument that grading homework is an inequitable practice.
• In past years, I have graded homework a number of different ways.  Some years, I would have students do a self-check and report their score.  Other years, I would collect and grade the homework on completion and/or accuracy.  Either way, homework has been graded and counted between 15-25% of the student's grade.  Recently, I grew tired of students copying answers or being dishonest when they self-graded.  It wasn't all students each year, but a growing percentage of students.  I was ready to completely remove the homework component from a student's grade.
• In 2018-19, I participated in a leadership cohort (called SDMath/Sci) through the South Dakota DOE.  It was some of the best professional development I have ever been a part of.  We learned about a leadership theory by Simon Sinek centered on "Finding Your WHY".  Equity was a major component of the training.  Echoing Boaler's claims about equity, the cohort opened my eyes to some of the systemic structures that are a part of our educational system.  Traditional grading practices were something we discussed.  I had found my WHY: a target based system would create a more equitable way of assessing the students in my classroom. 

Part II.  Setup

Target Based Grading vs. Standards Based Grading
I mentioned earlier that I didn't love the standards based grading system that I had implemented for my action research.  At the time, South Dakota had adopted the Common Core State Standards.  I felt that certain standards were too broad to accurately assess student understanding.

Take Standard F.IF.C.7.B for instance:

Graphing square roots functions, cube root functions, and piece-wise defined functions (including absolute value functions) were all topics I covered in Algebra 2.  I claim that there are potentially students who have full understanding of graphing square root and cube root functions, but who struggle to graph piecewise functions.  And vice-versa.  In a standards based grading system, what sort of grade should those students get?  If I'm using a 4.0 scale, would that student earn a 2.0?  A 2.5?  Would those scores truly reflect what the student understands?

That ambiguity helped me decide that I wanted a target based grading system, where I assess students on each learning target.  So last summer I created the complete list of learning targets that I wanted to assess for geometry.  [Geometry Learning Targets]
Note: I am already in the process of tweaking this list for next year.  I realized that I needed to combine some targets together, especially in the surface area / volume unit.  I also plan to re-sequence a few of the targets.


Learning Target Quizzes
Each learning target was assessed on an in-class QUIZ.  Each quiz had between two and five learning targets on it.  The quizzes were designed to be completed within one 50-minute class period.

Example: This is Quiz #5, which assess learning targets 16-19.

A couple of things are worth noting as you glance through the quiz.

• Students are scored on a 0.0 to 3.0 scale.  A score of 0.0 is given if a student does not complete the questions for that target or demonstrates absolutely no understanding of the target.
• Students cannot earn a score of 0.5.  I don't have any good reason why that score wasn't allowed other than I felt that if a student gave full effort and demonstrated some level of understanding, a minimum score of 1.0 was valid.
• The difference between scores of 1.5 vs. 2.0 vs. 2.5 varied by learning target.  Some learning targets had only one question to answer (see target 19 above), while others had up to five questions to answer.  
• A score of 3.0 demonstrated quiz mastery.

Retake Policy & Process

If a student earned less than a 3.0 on any target target, they were expected to retake the part of the quiz aligned to the target.  

There was the process to completing a quiz retake.

1. Error analysis & reflection: For each target needing re-assessing, students completed a Quiz Correction Form (see below).
2. Practice & study: Students were encouraged to review the practice problems and previous quiz before retaking.
3. Retake: Students could come into my classroom any time throughout the day to retake, even if I had other class in session.

Students stapled their quiz to the quiz correction form(s) and turned them into me.  I would check to make sure students had correctly completed the problems on the quiz correction form.  If they did so, I would use a rubber stamp to "stamp" their correction form, indicating that they had earned the opportunity to retake that learning target assessment.  "Stamped" forms were returned to students to be able to review and study from.  If there were errors made on the quiz correction form, I would return the form back to the student for revision.

When a student completed a retake of any learning target, the new score replaced the old score.  It rarely happened, but students could earn a lower score on their retake.

If a student did not yet earn a score of 3.0 after retaking the assessment once, then a second retake was available.  Before the second retake, I would have a one-on-one help session with the student instead of repeating the quiz correction form process.  The help sessions were typically fairly brief (between 3-10 minutes) and took place whenever there was enough free time to have one (before or after school, during my planning periods, or even between class periods).  

Quizzes were graded and returned to students the next day.  Students then typically had 10 calendar days to complete the quiz retake process.  I know that some standard-based grading systems call for students to be able to retake / improve their scores for as long as needed (or at least until the end of the semester or grading period).  I struggle to see the benefit of that theory for mathematics classes.  So much of mathematics builds on prior knowledge in a logical & sequential manner.  I need my students to gain understanding of the learning targets in a timely manner so that they will possess the prior knowledge needed for the next set of learning targets.  Therefore, I set a retake deadline for each set of learning targets.


Enrichment Tasks
After a student earned a 3.0 to demonstrate quiz mastery, they had an opportunity to earn a 4.0 and enrich their understanding.  For each learning target, I created an enrichment task.  Enrichment tasks were intended to deepen understanding and extend thinking.  Enrichment tasks were released (via Google Classroom) to all students on the day of the quiz.  Students could work on the enrichment tasks individually or with partners / in small groups; each student had to turn in their own copy of the task for credit.  Enrichment tasks followed the same deadline as the quiz retake.

Examples of the enrichment tasks for learning targets 16-19:

More things worth noting about the enrichment tasks:

• Students could earn scores of "Not Yet", 3.5, and 4.0.  (Recall: in order to submit an enrichment task, students must have first earned a 3.0 on the quiz.)
• Enrichment tasks were not a one-and-done deal.  If a student submitted work that wasn't correct, I would give feedback and allow students to fix their mistakes.  There were many occasions where a student earned a score of "Not Yet" or 3.5, I gave feedback, and they made revisions and ultimately earned a 4.0.
• The content on the tasks varied in nature, depending on the learning target.  Sometimes the enrichment task would include a problem or two that involved a little tougher algebra (see learning target 16 - solving a quadratic equation and considering extraneous solutions).  Other times the task might be to research some deeper idea that we simply don't cover in our regular instruction (see learning target 17 - considering spherical geometry).  

Grade Conversion:
In an ideal target based grading system, I wouldn't have to report traditional A-B-C-D-F grades.  Unfortunately, my district requires me to because we need to report things like GPA and class rank.  Boooooo!

I needed to create a way to convert the target based scores into traditional grades.

Before I forget, here is the grading scale for my school.

As you can see, semester grades were calculated by a weighted average of the quarter grades (40% each) and the semester final tasks (20%).

Quarter grades were calculated by a weighted average of the learning target assessments (80%) and miscellaneous tasks (20%).

Learning Target Assessments (80% of quarter grade):
Each quarter, all of the learning target scores were averaged to create an "Average Target Score".  The Average Target Score was then converted using this conversion chart.

Notice:

• Students needed an average score of 2.0 or higher to earn a passing grade in the "Learning Target Assessments" category.
• An average score of 3.0 earned a student a B+ in the "Learning Target Assessments" category.  In order to earn an A in the category, some enrichment tasks needed to be completed.

I used a Google Sheets Gradebook that automatically averaged and converted the score to a letter grade.  I also had to record scores in Infinite Campus.  I wasn't a fan of having to manage two separate gradebooks, but I survived.

Miscellanous Tasks (20% of Quarter Grade):

I did a lot of thinking about the types of assessments that I have used in past years and how they would fit into a target based grading system.  I wasn't ready to completely remove the variety of assessments that have been a staple in my classroom, so I decided to create a separate category and maintain the ability to assess students in a variety of ways.  The learning target average score counted as 80% of the quarter grade, while the "miscellaneous tasks" counted as 20% of the quarter grade.

One of my biggest concerns about implementing target based grading was that the assessments would become "silos" - too focused on one particular target.  I want students to see and understand the connections between the learning targets.

Some examples of assessments that went into this category included:

• In class group tasks
• Every couple of weeks, I have students work in pairs during class to solve review problems.  A majority of the problems relate to the geometric concepts and topics that we have learned about up to that point.  Some of the problems review middle school and algebra 1 topics; others focus on probability and statistics.  I pull a lot of questions from ACT reviews to expose students to those types of questions.  I also include problems that connect multiple learning targets together and/or include different solution methods.

• Choice Assignments
• To help try to increase student engagement in my high school, all teachers were asked to implement assignments where students had a choice of options.
• Desmos activities
• From time to time, I will assess a Desmos activity.  Typically, these activities are completed in class as part of the lesson for the day.  I will assess them when I want to ensure that students who were absent during class complete the activity.
• Projects
• Each quarter, students complete at least one project.  Some projects are in groups, others are individual.
• Reflection tasks
• I had students reflect on their learning with the help of Flipgrid.

• I also had students write an email each week to reflect on their learning.  The email went to their parents / guardians and to me.  Students would have to answer a series of prompts that helped guide their reflection.  See an example of my prompts here.

One thing that I removed from class this year was "Parent Tests".  In the past, I would send a multiple choice assessment home each unit for parents / guardians to complete.  The questions would relate to the concepts we were learning about in class.  There was a process that needed to be completed and students would earn extra credit if they completed the tasks and returned the paper.

I've learned that awarding extra credit - especially in way that involves a student's situation at home -  is an inequitable practice.  I have decided to not award any extra credit from this point forward.  I am in the process of researching ways to include parents / guardians in the learning process again.

Part III.  Implementation Details

I want to highlight and comment on a couple of things I learned during this first year of implementation.

I made three sets of each quiz.  Each set was intended to be equally difficult.  Students had the opportunity to take the quiz earlier that the designated quiz day.  Students taking the quiz early were given Set #1.  Set #2 was given to every student who took the quiz on the quiz day.  Set #3 was given to students who wanted to retake.  If a student needed a second retake, they would then take the quiz that they hadn't yet taken.


On the day following a quiz day, students would have "WIN" (what I need) time.  Students would get their graded quizzes back and do the following:

1. Write their reflection email (see above).
2. Begin the quiz correction process if they scored less than a 3.0.
3. Work on enrichment tasks if all scores were 3.0.

Some students would also use that time to work on quiz retakes from previous quizzes, assuming the retake deadline had not passed.

I would meet individually with each student to check in with how they were doing during this time.

Some students used the WIN time very effectively.  Students were able to ask questions of each other.  A lot of peer helping took place.

As the year went along, more and more students started abusing their time during WIN days.  I would see students working on assignments from other classes.  Others would treat the time as a social hangout.  I need to improve my classroom management a bit on those days moving forward.


Each class had its own tray on my desk for students to turning their work in.  This helped manage the steady flow of papers that were turned in each day.

Each student had their own hanging folder in a basket at the front of my room.  I would put all papers (graded quizzes, quiz correction forms, notes from class they missed, etc) in their basket.  It was their job to empty their basket as they entered the room each day.  Being able to "hand back" papers at any time was a huge time saver.

Speaking of grading papers... it was a daily job.  Each day, there was always something turned into the trays.  I felt the responsibility to grade papers and update grades every night.  If it was a quiz day, students needed their quizzes returned the following day for WIN time.  If it wasn't, students needed daily feedback on quiz correction forms and quiz retakes.  The process of retaking depended on it.

That said, in past years I would find myself grading every night as well - often times homework.  I felt much more motivated to grade quizzes, retakes, and quiz retake forms versus homework.  At minimum, I knew that the quizzes and quiz retakes were authentic evidence of what the students had learned.  I dreaded grading homework knowing that a certain percentage of students had copied their answers from someone else and learned nothing along the way.


One grading note:
I did have a few students average between a 1.75 and 2.00 on their target based assessments, which converted to a 64% in the learning target assessment (80%) category of the gradebook.  Their grade on the miscellaneous tasks (20%) was fairly good, so those students did pass the semester when the weighted grades were calculated.


Communication to parents / guardians about the grading system was important.  There were some parents who asked for clarity on the grading system at the start of the year.  I included a detailed explanation in one of my newsletters. 

I started the year with a quiz over the prerequisite skills.  The quiz didn't count towards the student's grade but I scored the quiz using the target based system.  It served as a good example for students to see how they were going to be assessed.


Part IV.  Reflection / Next Steps

I felt the target based system was effective in helping develop growth mindsets in students.  I liked that students didn't get their graded quizzes back and immediately saw a score / total points or a percentage.  Instead, they saw scores for each target.  In the case where a student didn't do very well on one or more targets on a quiz, it was still easy to shine positive light on the targets they did do well on.

I had to train myself to not be frustrated when students struggled on the first attempt on the quiz.  I had to remember that this was their first attempt at each quiz and that they did have the opportunity to retake.  I needed to focus on the final scores after the retake deadline had passed.  After all, those were the final scores that students were earning.

Opponents of a target based grading system have a worthy argument centered around that previous paragraph.  What's stopping a student from not studying / preparing at all for the first quiz when they know they always have an opportunity to retake?  What type of bad habits and lack of work ethic / preparation does that develop?

My counter to that argument lies in my belief that if we teach students to be mindful of their learner agency and the 16 Habits of Mind, students will begin to make make the correct decision when it comes to preparation and work ethic.  Yes, I believe that the mathematics I teach in geometry is important for students to have future success.  But teaching students to be lifelong learners and to possess a growth mindset and self confidence is more important. 


In the future, one long term change that I'm interested in looking into would be the idea of "mastery" learning.  A student would need to demonstrate mastery on each standard before they would be allowed to move on.  In other words, a student must earn a 3.0 on each learning target (or group of targets on a given quiz) before they move forward.  A big change in the structure of our class schedule would need to take place in order for this type of change to be implemented.  It is something our district is looking into pursuing and would help fight against students doing the bare minimum to pass.


I do welcome all feedback and discourse around this system in an effort to improve for future years.  I hope to convince my colleagues that target based grading is something we should be doing throughout our entire department.