The expected distribution of grades will be negatively skewed because assignments will be designed, adapted, and modified to enable all students to be successful. Grades will be criterion referenced because expert consensus believes it “is the most effective way of structuring a learning system that is designed to improve teaching and learning” (McMillan, 2014, p. 353). This approach conforms to the nationwide trend of school districts adopting standards-based grading systems (p. 353). It also lends itself to modification to fit the measurable annual goals of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
The hands-on, project-based nature of visual arts classes lend themselves most readily to performance-type assessment “because the emphasis is on what students do, skills are … directly assessed, and there are [many] opportunities to observe the process students use to arrive at [a finished art piece]” (McMillan, 2014, p. 213). Thus performance-type assessment will be the primary method used to determine the grades. However, with the objective of encouraging students’ development across all the cognitive domains outlined by Bloom’s taxonomy, both objective-type as well as essay-type assessments may occasionally be used.
Different assessments will be weighted to provide good content-related evidence for validity. Assessments that “(a) correspond most closely to the learning goals and target, … (b) reflect instructional time, (c) are most reliable, and (d) are most current” (McMillan, 2014, p. 366), will receive the most weight to reflect as accurately as possible the relative value of each topic (p. 368). Different assessments will be combined, with the help of a software-based system, using the weighted categories method. This method is advantageous because it is more flexible and less cumbersome and restrictive than the total points method (pp. 368¬70).
For the purpose of maintaining appropriate validity and reasonable inferences about performance, grades will be determined primarily by measuring students’ performance of objective criteria on major assessments (McMillan, 2014, p. 365). However, particularly for struggling students and students with special needs, a consideration may be made for effort depending on individual circumstances. Opportunities should be given for students to demonstrate improvement if there is a change in their health condition or physical status, a change in their life circumstances, if they have limited language proficiency, or if they lack prerequisite skills (R. Janke, lecture, March 27, 2014). In these situations effort and improvement are subjective areas to be graded separately, then weighted and combined with other criteria to determine the final grade.
Since hands-on, project-based performance assessments are the primary method of determining grades in the visual arts, participation is measured indirectly using objective criteria. The levels of completion of these criteria infer the amount of students’ participation. To grade participation separately is unnecessary and redundant.
Late submission of assignments should minimally affect students’ grades at the primary and intermediate levels, perhaps by deducting a few points depending on the circumstances. This is not far afield from the pragmatic policy of Sue Magnone, 4th and 5th grade art teacher at Olmsted Falls Intermediate School with nearly thirty years’ experience. “I don’t penalize [students] at this level for late work, I just want them to turn it in,” she said (personal interview, April 23, 2014). However, at the middle and high school levels, where students are taught accountability, students without legitimate documented excuses should generally “face a sliding scale of depreciated grades depending on how late they were turning in the work” (Diamond, 2009).
Grading adjustments for students of varying abilities and skills that do not have an IEP may be made using two approaches. One approach for borderline cases is for the teacher to place greater weight on effort, while taking care not to allow this type of qualitative consideration to become the major portion of the student’s grade (McMillan, 2014, p. 357). Another is to allow for exemptions from certain assignments in more difficult cases, so that an uncompleted assignment is not calculated in the student’s final grade. Ms. Magnone often takes these approaches to adjustment for non-IEP students at the intermediate level such as those facing emotional, behavior, motor, language, and domestic difficulties (personal interview, April 23, 2014). These approaches to grading adjustment prevent the overly harsh penalization of students whose performance is affected by circumstances beyond their control but do not have an IEP.
Extra credit assignments will rarely be used, since they can be perceived as discriminatory. Indeed, as extra credit is often assigned as homework, students who complete it are those already performing well who do not need it. Students who are less likely to complete extra credit, especially as homework, are those who may be experiencing a difficult home life (R. Janke, lecture, March 27, 2014). If at the teacher’s discretion extra credit is assigned, it would be a meaningful activity adjunct to a project-based performance assessment completed during class time.
In the event of an act of plagiarism, a student should first be given the option to redo the assignment before it affects the student’s grade. This makes sense because “lowering grades may not be appropriate discipline if there is an extreme negative impact on the grade” (McMillan, 2014, p. 372). If the student refused to redo the work than the student would necessarily receive a “0” or failing grade for that particular assignment, which would be calculated in the final grade.
Acts of cheating should be handled similarly to cases of plagiarism: the student should first be given the option to “retest.” This is an appropriate response for the same reason as outlined in the explanation of extra credit above. And, similar to an act of plagiarism, if the student refused to retest than the student would necessarily receive a “0” or failing grade for that particular test, which would be calculated in the final grade.
Diamond, Laura. (2009). “Should students get credit for late work?” AJC. Retrieved from http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2009/05/14/should-students-get-credit-for-late-work/
Janke, Robert. (2014, March). Development of grading system, interpreting assessment data, value added assessment, planning for instruction. Lecture conducted from Baldwin Wallace University, Berea, OH
Magnone, Sue. (2014, April). Interview by Michael Kodysz
McMillan, James H. (2014). Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practices for Effective Standards-Based Instruction (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.