Inside Higher Ed featured an article today on the strategies used by University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) to deal with failure in gateway courses like developmental math. There were a number of similarities with our situation, including university focus on access rather than exclusivity (demonstrated by a high acceptance rate for applicants). According to the article, UTEP has determined that their current structure for developmental ed isn’t working well, so they’re exploring new strategies to improve student success.
Highlighted efforts include increased interaction with high schools, six-hour refresher sessions held immediately prior to placement exams, and free access to ALEKS (computer-based math exercises that the Math Department at UAF uses for many courses). Their goal is to divert students from enrolling unnecessarily in developmental courses. Among other motivations (like decreased funding), one rationale seems to be that the stigma of developmental placement negatively impacts student success.
This is particularly interesting to me in light of our recent decision to create an open courseware version of developmental math—with the stated goal of providing student practice and avoiding the stigma that might be associated with failure in a a credit-bearing course.
A month ago (can it really be that long???) I posted an idea for pre-grading sheets. I’ve now used the technique for two different project assignments and am ready to share my reflections on this method.
Did it save me time?
This was my original intent. I can confidently report that it has helped to streamline my grading on large projects. It’s not foolproof and I still have to spot check for common problems (your pre-grading sheet says you used spell check, so why do I see 23 spelling errors when I run a spell check?), but it definitely helps me to locate problems more quickly. As a side benefit, it quickly clues me in to places where students misunderstood vocabulary or tasks associated with the assignment. For example, I found that some students couldn’t tell me what leading they used for body text because they either didn’t understand the term leading, or because they didn’t know how to identify it in the software application. I would never have discovered that by looking at their completed projects.
Did it improve the quality of their projects?
Absolutely! As Heidi commented on my earlier post, I created some pieces of the pre-grading sheet as a guideline. For example, I included a checklist of the required elements of the project and asked them to check off all the things they included. While I’ve always listed the required elements of project assignments, the act of checking items off on the pre-grading sheet seemed to help students be more thorough. It also provided a subtle reminder (or hint) about aesthetic qualities that I consider important.
Did it help students think more critically about their own work?
I believe it did. Further, it was enlightening to find out what they thought they did well on, what they would do differently next time, and what they felt they had learned while completing the project. This provided another feedback loop for me—to discover what I’m communicating effectively (or not so effectively, as the case may be).
Continuing evolution
The pre-grading sheets have been successful, and I’ll definitely continue using them. One of the things that made project grading difficult and time-consuming for me in the past was the belief that I needed to provide aesthetic feedback on all student assignments. I’ve switched my tactic a bit on that as well. I now show students’ completed projects on screen during class time. This gives an opportunity for classmates—as well as me—to critique the design verbally. I can then focus my written feedback on technical skill. I believe this has improved the quality of feedback as well as my efficiency in grading.