skip to main content
10.1145/3626252.3630953acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Best Paper

Transforming Grading Practices in the Computing Education Community

Published:07 March 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

It is often the case that computer science classrooms use traditional grading practices where points are allocated to assignments, mistakes result in point deductions, and assignment scores are combined using some form of weighted averaging to determine grades. Unfortunately, traditional grading practices have been shown to reduce achievement, discourage students, and suppress effort to such an extent that some common elements of traditional grading practices have been termed toxic. Using grades to reward or punish student behavior does not encourage learning and instead increases anxiety and stress. These toxic elements are present throughout computing education and computer science classrooms in the form of late penalties, lack of credit for code that doesn't compile or pass certain unit tests, among others. These types of metrics, that evaluate behavior are often influenced by implicit bias, factors outside of the classrooms (e.g., part-time employment), and family life situations (e.g., students who are caregivers). Often, students in these situations are disproportionately from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and predominantly students of color. Through this paper, we will present a case for adoption of equitable grading practices and a call for additional support in classroom and teaching technologies as well as support from administrations both at the department and university level. By adopting a community of practice approach, we argue that we can support new faculty making these changes, which would be more equitable and inclusive. Further, these practices have been shown to better support student learning and can help increase student learning gains and retention.

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., and Hanson, D. L. 2009. Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers' views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 46, 10, 1090--1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Association for Computing Machinery CC2020 Task Force. 2020. Computing Curricula 2020: Paradigms for Global Computing Education. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/curricula-recommendations/cc2020.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackboard. 2021. Educational Technology Services | Blackboard | North America. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.blackboard.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanton, M. L. and Stylianou, D. A. 2009. Interpreting a Community of Practice Perspective in Discipline-Specific Professional Development in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education 34, 2 (2009/06/01), 79--92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008--9094--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bowen, J. A. 2012. Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. John Wiley & Sons. San Francisco, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Canvas, P. 2020. Introduction to the Learning Mastery Gradebook. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1881551/pages/introduction-to-the-learning-mastery-gradebook?module_item_id=22916901Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, L. and Keown, P. 2006. Communities of practice and professional development. International Journal of Lifelong Education 25, 2, 139--156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370500510793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. CodeGrade. 2020. CodeGrade. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.codegrade.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. CodeWorkout. (2021). CodeWorkout. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://codeworkout.cs.vt.edu/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, T. A. 2011. Effects of standards-based report cards on student learning Ph.D. Dissertation. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. https://www.proquest.com/docview/926432787Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Docker. 2021. Empowering App Development for Developers. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.docker.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dueck, M. 2014. Grading smarter, not harder: Assessment strategies that motivate kids and help them learn. ASCD, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. S. 2007. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, S. H. 2004. Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '04) ACM, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, 26--30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/971300.971312Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Edwards, S. H. 2019. Web-CAT: the Web-based Center for Automated Testing - Web-CAT. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from http://web-cat.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, J., Ditton, J., Trninic, D., Swanson, H., Sullivan, S., & Mano, C. 2020. Syntax exercises in CS1. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '20), Virtual Event, New Zealand. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406259Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Edwards, S. H. and Murali, K. P. 2017. CodeWorkout: Short Programming Exercises with Built-in Data Collection. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '17) ACM, Bologna, Italy, 188--193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3059055.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Feldman, J., 2019. Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gradescope. 2020. Gradescope. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.gradescope.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Great School Partnership. 2020. Research Supporting Proficiency-Based Learning: Grading + Reporting. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/proficiency-based-learning/research-evidence/research-supporting-ten-principles-grading-reporting/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., and Tuttle, R. 2009. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International 46, 1, 3--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Guskey, T. R. 2000. Grading policies that work against standards - and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 620, 20--29. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008462003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. INGInious. 2021. UCL-INGI/INGInious. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://github.com/UCL-INGI/INGIniousGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Instructure. 2021a. Higher Education LMS | Canvas for Colleges & Universities. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.instructure.com/product/higher-education/canvas-lmsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Instructure. 2021b. How do I use the Learning Mastery Gradebook to view outcome results in a course? Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Instructor-Guide/How-do-I-use-the-Learning-Mastery-Gradebook-to-view-outcome/ta-p/775Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Leinonen, A., Nygren, H., Pirttinen, N., Hellas, A., and Leinonen, J. 2019. Exploring the Applicability of Simple Syntax Writing Practice for Learning Programming. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). Minneapolis, MN, USA, ACM, 84--90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287378Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lotter, C., Yow, J. A., & Peters, T. T. 2014. BUILDING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE AROUND INQUIRY INSTRUCTION THROUGH A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12, 1 (2014/02/01), 1--23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012--9391--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mak, B. and Pun, S.-H. 2015. Cultivating a teacher community of practice for sustainable professional development: beyond planned efforts. Teachers and Teaching 21, 1 (2015/01/02), 4--21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.928120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Mirsky, G. M. 2018. Effectiveness of specifications grading in teaching technical writing to computer science students. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 34, 1 (October 2018), 104--110. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3280489.3280505Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Moodle. 2021a. Competencies - MoodleDocs. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://docs.moodle.org/311/en/CompetenciesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Moodle. (2021b). Moodle - Open-source learning platform | Moodle.org. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://moodle.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nilson, L. B. 2015. Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing, LLC, Sterling, VA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Pintrich, P. R. and De Groot, E. V. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational Psychology 82, 1, 33--40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Pope, L., Parker, H. B., and Ultsch, S. 2020. Assessment of Specifications Grading in an Undergraduate Dietetics Course. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 52, 4, 439--446. https://www.jneb.org/article/S1499--4046(19)30959--5/fulltextGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Prasad, P. V. 2020. Using Revision and Specifications Grading to Develop Students' Mathematical Habits of Mind. PRIMUS, 30:8--10, 908--925, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2019.1709589Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Rapaport, W. J. 2011. A triage theory of grading: The good, the bad, and the middling. Teaching Philosophy 34, 4, 347--372. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil201134447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Rapaport, W. J. 2012. HOW I GRADE. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Reeves, D. B. 2008. Leading to Change / Effective Grading Practices. ACSD. Retrieved 1 August 2023 from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/effective-grading-practicesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanft, K. R. , Drawert, B., and Whitley, A. 2021. Modified specifications grading in computer science: preliminary assessment and experience across five undergraduate courses. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 36, 5, 34--46. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3447307.3447310Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. 1998. Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Shoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., and Fi, C. 2003. Teacher Variables That Relate to Student Achievement When Using a Standards-Based Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME 34, 3 (01 May. 2003), 228--261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3003477Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. 2016. What Does the Reesearch Say about Standards-Based Grading? A Research Primer. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590391Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Wenger-Trayner, E. and Wenger-Trayner, B. 2015. Communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its issues. https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Wenger, E. McDermott, R. A., and Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Winne, P. H. 1997. Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of educational Psychology 89, 3, 397--410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrinch, and M. Zeidner Eds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 13--39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890--2/50031--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Transforming Grading Practices in the Computing Education Community

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)226
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)110

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader