Averageless: Setting better standards
While the benefits of a gradeless classroom are attractive—with feedback and discussion replacing numbers and reflection and growth supplanting grubbing for grades—we all know that norms and expectations can cause anxiety and distract from effective implementation. In my experience, we can allay some of that initial fear and hesitation and reclaim those all-important first weeks of class, all while maintaining a focus on learning and improvement inherent to the gradeless approach.
After navigating these waters a few times, I made a simple but effective change: I started referring to these courses as averageless instead of gradeless. Classes conducted in this manner still receive formative feedback, evaluate progress relative to explicit standards, and determine final grades based on demonstrable student understanding.
Case Study: Introduction to Electrical Engineering
In this elective high school course, students apply their understanding of basic electronics from the prerequisite course, Electronics, to the creation of more complex systems involving the Arduino microcontroller. Students use principles learned in Electronics to design and assemble the hardware, but the meat of the course is learning how to program the Arduino to respond to sensor input with appropriate servo, LCD, LED, and other output.
The course usually has a theme, such as “How robots overcome obstacles” or “Engaging games.” At the beginning of the term, we discuss the theme, theorize about the skills they may need, and go over course standards. There are generally 10-12 standards, relating to different types of hardware (servos, LCDs, sensors) or software (loops, arrays, debugging, comments, indentation). Over the course of the term, I combine group mini-lessons, individual coaching, and short formative challenges (e.g.“Write a loop that will display all of the odd numbers from 1-100 and their sum”), to help them students towards their goals.
Recently, a student wanted to build a robot that could detect a fall and inflate an airbag to cushion its fall. The student identified mini-tasks such as creating an LCD display of accelerometer readings, setting up a relay to activate a valve, and investigating continuous-rotation servos. After these mini-goals were met, the student had the skills and confidence to tackle the larger project. The student gained experience in “chunking” a large task, seeking out direction and coaching, and demonstrating agency and commitment in pursuit of a goal. During that iteration of the course, I did zero direct instruction on coding, but all of the students were able to build those skills and achieve their goals.
Although the class isn’t technically gradeless—I provide grades along with feedback on smaller tasks—I make it clear that their final grade is in no way an average of these individual grades. Their final grade comes as the result of a conversation with me, where they present evidence of their understanding of the standards and propose a letter grade, in consultation with a rubric describing ‘A’ work, ‘B’ work, and so on (see below).
My explanation of the goals of my averageless courses take into account the fact that, while broad understanding is valuable (and ‘A’ work will show some competence in each area), a student who has excelled in one area will likely be able to replicate those same efforts and strategies in other areas in the future. Additionally, students may be drawn by their interests and goals into totally different areas of concentration, and this system provides them the opportunity and incentive to do that, while not pre-judging which skills will be most important or interesting to students.
I want the course to look different for each student, balancing having a common set of core understandings while valuing the ‘deep dive.’
By actively encouraging and supporting unique interests, I instantly become a resource, mentor, and partner in the learning process—rather than a gatekeeper or adversary. And even though averageless courses leverage the grade-based vernacular that students are familiar with, there is still the opportunity for students to find success via different paths.
For this reason, I set up conferences relatively early in the term to do a ‘trial run’ of our individual end-of-course meetings. Students can then be sure of the quality and quantity of evidence needed and get an idea of whether their current pace of work is adequate to the task. This formal feedback—a type of ‘midterm grade,’ if you will—is helpful for students, keeps parents in the loop, and answers any remaining questions about the process.
As with the other grades, this one is not averaged in any way; it is a snapshot of current achievement, and students have ample time to adjust to expectations if adjustments are needed. By the end of these course, we almost always agree on a final grade. If anything, students tend to rate themselves more harshly than I do, given their previous experience with traditionally graded courses.
The “averageless” approach has resulted in greater student engagement, more varied final projects, and fewer fretful students, parents, and administrators. It has made buy-in less of a leap of faith, paving the way for student success.
Conferencing Rubric
Letter grades describe student achievement towards mastering the course's learning objectives, with the following rough descriptions:
A: The student has mastered the course skills and content; he or she can apply the skills in context and make connections between them; work is documented completely and communicatively in the portfolio; all work is complete.
B: The student has broad command of the course material and has some smaller gaps in understanding or achievement or one larger area in need of work; work is documented in the portfolio, with varying levels of depth and clarity of communication; all work is complete
C: The student has not met several standards, with larger gaps and little ability to apply the ideas in context to design solutions and analyze situations; there may be incomplete projects or portfolio documentation
D: The student has done little to demonstrate mastery of course material, with only superficial understanding; several projects or a large one are incomplete
F: Next to no progress, documentation, or completed products. Student has not participated in the course in a significant way
* Intermediate grade levels (A-, B+, etc.) can be used to describe work relative to these broader categories.
Josh Gates is the Director of Innovation, a physics and engineering teacher, and an advocate for active learning at The Tatnall School in Wilmington, DE. You can follow his work at joshuagatesdesign.com.