WIP: Contract grading as an alternative grading structure and assessment approach for a process-oriented, first-year course

Erica J Marti

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 First-Year Engineering Experience
Location: East Lansing, Michigan
Publication Date: July 31, 2022
Start Date: July 31, 2022
End Date: August 2, 2022
Conference Session: Technical Session M1
Tagged Topics: Diversity and Works In Progress
Page Count: 4
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--42253
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/42253
Download Count: 207

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Erica J Marti University of Nevada - Las Vegas orcid.org/0000-0003-1773-4599

visit author page

Erica Marti completed her PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). She holds a Master of Science in Engineering and Master of Education from UNLV and a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Prior to graduate studies, Erica joined Teach for America and taught high school chemistry in Las Vegas. While her primary research involves water and wastewater, she has strong interests in engineering education research, teacher professional development, and secondary STEM education. In 2021, Erica received the ASEE Pacific Southwest Early Career Teaching Award and two awards at UNLV for mentoring undergraduate and graduate students. She also received the Peter J. Bosscher Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award in 2019 from Engineers Without Borders and was recognized as a Nevada Woman in STEM by Senator Jackie Rosen.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This Work in Progress paper will describe the application and outcomes of using contract grading in a first-year engineering seminar. Contract grading has been touted in literature for many benefits, including reducing grade anxiety, allowing students to take more ownership for their grade, and increasing motivation and commitment. In addition, contract grading is associated with building equity and inclusion. Contract grading has been used more often in writing courses and is notably promoted by Asao Inoue. In examining existing literature, there are very few examples of contract grading in engineering courses, especially with the United States. However, contract grading is especially applicable in process-oriented courses, and it may increase student accountability since they know the requirements at the onset of the class. In addition, contract grading systems where students can repeat an assignment that falls below a threshold (i.e. mastery learning) may be advantageous for students in multiple ways. For example, repeating an assignment is one approach to reduce the grade penalty for students who come in less prepared than their peers. This paper focuses on 1) the structure of contract grading used in a first-year engineering seminar, 2) aspects of metacognitive learning in resubmitting assignments to meet the contract requirements, 3) challenges and lessons learned from first-time implementation, and 4) student survey feedback. The seminar course used contract grading as both a grading structure and a form of assessment. Required assessments had criteria-based rubrics indicating what was need to achieve correct/incorrect or excellent/adequate/insufficient levels. If students received incorrect or insufficient, the assignment did not count toward meeting contract requirements. However, students could revise and resubmit the assignment along with a reflection meant to increase metacognition. As this was the first course where students experienced contract grading and the instructor’s first attempt with this approach, there were challenges on both ends. Lessons learned are provided to help other instructors wishing to convert from a traditional grading system to contract grading. Student feedback from this Fall 2021 civil engineering lab course will be presented and discussed with focus on perception of control over one’s grade, motivation, metacognition and learning outcomes.

Citation
Format

Marti, E. J. (2022, July), WIP: Contract grading as an alternative grading structure and assessment approach for a process-oriented, first-year course Paper presented at 2022 First-Year Engineering Experience, East Lansing, Michigan. 10.18260/1-2--42253

TY - CPAPER
AB - This Work in Progress paper will describe the application and outcomes of using contract grading in a first-year engineering seminar. Contract grading has been touted in literature for many benefits, including reducing grade anxiety, allowing students to take more ownership for their grade, and increasing motivation and commitment. In addition, contract grading is associated with building equity and inclusion.
Contract grading has been used more often in writing courses and is notably promoted by Asao Inoue. In examining existing literature, there are very few examples of contract grading in engineering courses, especially with the United States. However, contract grading is especially applicable in process-oriented courses, and it may increase student accountability since they know the requirements at the onset of the class. In addition, contract grading systems where students can repeat an assignment that falls below a threshold (i.e. mastery learning) may be advantageous for students in multiple ways. For example, repeating an assignment is one approach to reduce the grade penalty for students who come in less prepared than their peers.
This paper focuses on 1) the structure of contract grading used in a first-year engineering seminar, 2) aspects of metacognitive learning in resubmitting assignments to meet the contract requirements, 3) challenges and lessons learned from first-time implementation, and 4) student survey feedback.
The seminar course used contract grading as both a grading structure and a form of assessment. Required assessments had criteria-based rubrics indicating what was need to achieve correct/incorrect or excellent/adequate/insufficient levels. If students received incorrect or insufficient, the assignment did not count toward meeting contract requirements. However, students could revise and resubmit the assignment along with a reflection meant to increase metacognition.
As this was the first course where students experienced contract grading and the instructor’s first attempt with this approach, there were challenges on both ends. Lessons learned are provided to help other instructors wishing to convert from a traditional grading system to contract grading. Student feedback from this Fall 2021 civil engineering lab course will be presented and discussed with focus on perception of control over one’s grade, motivation, metacognition and learning outcomes.
AU - Erica J Marti
CY - East Lansing, Michigan
DA - 2022/07/31
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - WIP: Contract grading as an alternative grading structure and assessment approach for a process-oriented, first-year course
UR - https://peer.asee.org/42253
DO - 10.18260/1-2--42253
ER -