Grading for Equity week 5: Practices that are Mathematically Accurate continued (Chapter 8) #Grade4EqChat

This week the Grading for Equity Twitter chat will be digging deeper into chapter 8: Practices that are Mathematically Accurate (continued). Here are the original questions (the twitter versions will be edited somewhat for space):

1. Do give students a grade “bump” when they have shown improvement or growth over a term? By allowing (and encouraging) students to demonstrate growth over time through improved performance, and recording that most recent performance, do we still need to include a bump, or does the improved score itself recognize and reward growth?
2. How easy should it be for a student to be able to calculate her own grade? Does the traditional “average” method allow for this? Would standards-based-grading allow for this? 
3. In physics & science, we necessarily do a lot of group work (e.g. labs, presentations, etc.) What is your current strategy for group grades? Does it align with the Grading for Equity pillars? If not, how could you make it do so? 
4. Think of an example in the professional workplace in which group work (or more likely, called “collaboration”) is expected. What is the rationale, and how is the effectiveness of that collaboration determined? How could we apply this to grading? 
5. What are your main takeaways from the past two chapters on mathematically accurate grading practices? What changes so far, if any, will you make to your grading system? 

Last week's chat is archived here. You can access all the past chats from the resources section. See you tonight!