Opinions on allowing test retakes (admissions, scores, exams, course)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the test covered multiple standards (which I would guess it does), then we would grade each standard separately. One grade would not be assigned to the entire test. We would then reassess the standards for which the student did not show mastery.
We aren't doing standards but rather problem types. Students get just the problems they got wrong and the same problem type. Usually just the numbers are changed. I just graded some retakes that have me really wondering about this process. On two of the problems, the numbers were reversed. Problem 9 came before problem 8 reading left to right. They were problem types that students confuse. I had multiple students who were supposed to do one do the other by mistake but they did it the way the one they were supposed to do was done not the way that problem would be done. This tells me they just memorized the steps to do that problem rather than understanding the problem type. Fortunately, since the work is wrong for the problem they did, they didn't get credit.
I guess my problem with this is that I just don't feel they are really learning it. The better students are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's to get A's while the bottom is just falling off. I do think the upper kids are learning more but I think the bottom may be actually learning less. They are unmotivated the first time and overwhelmed the second time because the time frame is so short between the first take and the second. It's short because it's supposed to be relearning time not learning it for the first time time.
If someone is thinking of doing this, it really needs to be system wide. When we switched to standards based grading (K-6), we had to look at assessing in a totally different way.
Quarterly grades are not averages. They reflect what the student can demonstrate at the time the grade is given.
There is no such thing as extra credit.
We don't grade homework.
There are no deadlines by which a student needs to master material. We grade on a 1-4 scale. In general it's 1= seldom demonstrates, 2 = sometimes demonstrates, 3 = usually demonstrates, 4 = consistently demonstrates understanding of the standard. We also consider how much support was needed in demonstrating understanding. NT= Not Taught, NA = Not Assessed. If a student receives a 1 or 2 for a standard in the first quarter, then that student can't receive a NT or NA during the next quarter. It has to be taught and reassessed. So it's possible that some students receive NT or NA while others receive grades.
We no longer have one grade per subject. Every subject is broken down on the progress report. For example, students do not receive a grade for "Math". Instead, under Mathematics they may receive grades for:
Represents numbers accurately and demonstrates and understanding of number relationships
Computes numbers with fluency and makes reasonable estimates
Measures with accuracy and makes reasonable estimates of measurements
Analyzes characteristics and properties of geometric figures and demonstrates and understanding of spatial relationships
Uses data to describe, interpret and predict events
Represents situations and mathematical relationships using algebraic symbols
We use many short assessments. Unit tests are disappearing. Unit tests typically cover more than one standard as units cover more than one standard. If a traditional unit test is given, then one grade isn't given for the test as a whole. The teacher or team has to figure out which standards (or more specifically which benchmarks or indicators) are covered by each question and then assign grades to each one.
If I am understanding you correctly, I think this a good system and similar to one I have rolled around in my head for quite a while.
I never experienced this in elementary, middle school or college....only in high school.
There were a handful of H.S. classes where certain professors would allow you to obtain partial credit on a retake. Basically, if you have 10 questions and get six correct, that would obviously mean you missed four. On the retake, you could go back, and if you got all of the previously missed questions correct, you'd get half the points back.
Our physics teacher used this grading style on exams. She was near retirement and had little enthusiasm. We'd watch old science lessons from college professors in the '70's at least twice per week. Obviously, most students failed her exams because her tests matched up poorly with her lesson plan and what was in the textbook. The kids that succeeded without retakes had previously failed AP Physics. She was the worst teacher I ever had. Students that were considerably smarter and harder working than I was, struggled to get B-'s.
Here you usually get grades ranging from 1 (basically an A) to 5 (F).
In Maths we had four big exams per year and a 5-10mins test at the beginning of each session. We were only allowed to retake one of the big exams when more than 50% of the class failed, which happened maybe once or twice a year.
We usually had to do some homework and at the beginning of the next class our professor checked with those small 5-10mins tests whether we understood everything or not.
He only asked for basic concepts and problems. They were graded with a "+", "~" or "–", with which you could improve your score from the big exams. Your overall grade could become worse, though, when you didn't study and got a "–".
After those tests he answered our questions and would continue with some more advanced problems.
Grade inflation isn't really a thing here, though. About half of the students from my age group had to leave high school because they underperformed. A "C" isn't considered a bad grade here. It's average.
At university we are allowed to retake exams as often as we like, but are only allowed to fail four times in a row. After four tries you aren't allowed to study the same subject for 50 years. Since university is "free" and there are no entrance exams like the SAT, most exams are basically aimed towards kicking students out. 40-70% of all students taking an exam will fail. You'll easily be part of the top 20% when you get a "B-/C+" average.
I guess my problem with this is that I just don't feel they are really learning it. The better students are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's to get A's while the bottom is just falling off. I do think the upper kids are learning more but I think the bottom may be actually learning less.
In this case, at least as an elementary teacher, I am expected to enrich and extend the lessons for the first group you mentioned while remediating the other group.
In this case, at least as an elementary teacher, I am expected to enrich and extend the lessons for the first group you mentioned while remediating the other group.
My problem is the lack of motivation in the latter group. Retakes seem to demotivate the already unmotivated. While they do help the top get better grades, I really don't see the point other than to get better grades. I consider 85% mastery so I see no reason to offer retakes to bump B's to A's which is all we're doing. We do, occasionally, have a student who gets a C or D come back and score above 85% with the retake and that does feel good but I swear I'm failing more kids now.
There is one good thing about the retakes and that is the review day after the test now matters to the students. Before it was a done deal and most didn't even pay attention to the correct answers or bother to figure out what they got wrong. Now they care. However, I do not see this as helping the kids who need it the most. Many of them scored so poorly on the first test that they have to pretty much retake the entire test only now they only have a week to learn the material they never learned in the first place. There is a HUGE difference in having to learn 4 or 5 problem types to get an A and having to learn 10 just to pass because you only got 4-5 the first time (we usually have 20 question tests).
I agree in theory that when a student learns is not as important as that they learned but I feel like I'm just handing out A's like candy while the bottom of the class falls off. The only good thing from my point of view is parents have stopped yelling at me over their child's grade. The burden has been placed on the child where it belongs.
On the bright side, we're going to have about 20% of the class make valedictorian next year! (first graduating class to come up through retakes for full credit and their GPA's rock....well those at the top rock...those at the bottom are worse.)
I don't have the power to change this so I'm trying to figure out how to make it work for the bottom. I think it's dumb to just hand out A's because B's are not bad grades (if it were up to me a retake would be capped at 85%) it's not a problem to get up in arms over. Eventually colleges will figure out that A's mean nothing in my school. But how do I make this work for the bottom. How do I motivate them enough to learn enough to pass the tests? I keep telling them to know what they know well and then do the rest on the retake but they're not hearing me. All of my bottom students are capable of learning 50% of the material at a time but they are not seeing the opportunity. They just keep complaining that if we gave homework points their grades would be better.
I'm finding the theory and practice to be entirely different.
FTR, I teach high school so I see my students 30 at a time for 50 minutes. It is very difficult to remediate one group and teach another. We do have a review day after the test where I go around to individual students and try to help them but that's really all the remediation I do. I do give them additional work and there is time in class to ask questions but they don't do it and don't ask questions. They seem to think that because they've seen a test almost identical to the retake test (usually we just change the numbers on the problems) that they will just magically do better but it doesn't happen.
I guess a better question than whether or not retakes should be allowed is how to I make this work? I don't like failing students. I don't like handing out A's like candy either but I'm stuck with that.
FTR, I teach high school so I see my students 30 at a time for 50 minutes. It is very difficult to remediate one group and teach another.
Exactly. BINGO. You got it. Even in elementary a teacher has the students for 50 minutes or so of a subject. I don't have one class all day and even if I did, blocks of time are set aside for each subject. It's difficult, yet this is what we are expected to do.
For example, for one class of reading I plan 2-3 guided reading groups a day in addition to planning and monitoring lessons and activities for the others. We also all have a half hour block of time during our school day for which we have to plan for and meet with remediation groups and provide enrichment opportunities.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 11-22-2014 at 07:34 AM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
My problem is the lack of motivation in the latter group. Retakes seem to demotivate the already unmotivated. While they do help the top get better grades, I really don't see the point other than to get better grades. I consider 85% mastery so I see no reason to offer retakes to bump B's to A's which is all we're doing. We do, occasionally, have a student who gets a C or D come back and score above 85% with the retake and that does feel good but I swear I'm failing more kids now.
There is one good thing about the retakes and that is the review day after the test now matters to the students. Before it was a done deal and most didn't even pay attention to the correct answers or bother to figure out what they got wrong. Now they care. However, I do not see this as helping the kids who need it the most. Many of them scored so poorly on the first test that they have to pretty much retake the entire test only now they only have a week to learn the material they never learned in the first place. There is a HUGE difference in having to learn 4 or 5 problem types to get an A and having to learn 10 just to pass because you only got 4-5 the first time (we usually have 20 question tests).
I agree in theory that when a student learns is not as important as that they learned but I feel like I'm just handing out A's like candy while the bottom of the class falls off. The only good thing from my point of view is parents have stopped yelling at me over their child's grade. The burden has been placed on the child where it belongs.
On the bright side, we're going to have about 20% of the class make valedictorian next year! (first graduating class to come up through retakes for full credit and their GPA's rock....well those at the top rock...those at the bottom are worse.)
I don't have the power to change this so I'm trying to figure out how to make it work for the bottom. I think it's dumb to just hand out A's because B's are not bad grades (if it were up to me a retake would be capped at 85%) it's not a problem to get up in arms over. Eventually colleges will figure out that A's mean nothing in my school. But how do I make this work for the bottom. How do I motivate them enough to learn enough to pass the tests? I keep telling them to know what they know well and then do the rest on the retake but they're not hearing me. All of my bottom students are capable of learning 50% of the material at a time but they are not seeing the opportunity. They just keep complaining that if we gave homework points their grades would be better.
I'm finding the theory and practice to be entirely different.
FTR, I teach high school so I see my students 30 at a time for 50 minutes. It is very difficult to remediate one group and teach another. We do have a review day after the test where I go around to individual students and try to help them but that's really all the remediation I do. I do give them additional work and there is time in class to ask questions but they don't do it and don't ask questions. They seem to think that because they've seen a test almost identical to the retake test (usually we just change the numbers on the problems) that they will just magically do better but it doesn't happen.
I guess a better question than whether or not retakes should be allowed is how to I make this work? I don't like failing students. I don't like handing out A's like candy either but I'm stuck with that.
I wouldn't reteach and reassess a student who earned a B/85%. If a student is getting 3s, we don't retract and reassess.
We are comparing two different things here. Our reassessing (not a retake), doesn't happen the next day unless it is a simple fix. Often it takes a lot of reteaching before the student shows consistent understanding.
As far as students being unmotivated, I think we all have those and they can be frustrating.
FTR, I teach high school so I see my students 30 at a time for 50 minutes. It is very difficult to remediate one group and teach another.
Exactly. BINGO. You got it. Even in elementary a teacher has the students for 50 minutes or so of a subject. I don't have one class all day and even if I did, blocks of time are set aside for each subject. It's difficult, yet this is what we are expected to do.
For example, for one class of reading I plan 2-3 guided reading groups a day in addition to planning and monitoring lessons and activities for the others. We also all have a half hour block of time during our school day for which we have to plan for and meet with remediation groups and provide enrichment opportunities.
Sometimes I think our job description should be "Doing the impossible". This is a snowball rolling down a mountain side. Group A is ready to go on, group B gets remediated but misses the material that group A has learned. Some of group B learn the material that was remediated but some don't so now we have group C being remediated AGAIN on the original material while group B gets remediated on the second set of material and group A moves on to the next set of material. Remediation in the classroom insures that the struggling group just gets farther and farther behind. They can't keep up if they are catching up.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 11-22-2014 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
Sometimes I think our job description should be "Doing the impossible". This is a snowball rolling down a mountain side. Group A is ready to go on, group B gets remediated but misses the material that group A has learned. Some of group B learn the material that was remediated but some don't so now we have group C being remediated AGAIN on the original material while group B gets remediated on the second set of material and group A moves on to the next set of material. Remediation in the classroom insures that the struggling group just gets farther and farther behind. They can't keep up if they are catching up.
Which is why we NEED to go back to ability grouping/tracking. It might hurt some students' (or parents') feelings, but everyone gets an opportunity to learn at a reasonable pace for them. It's either that or they need to reduce the student:teacher ratios.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a snowball rolling down a mountain side. Group A is ready to go on, group B gets remediated but misses the material that group A has learned. Some of group B learn the material that was remediated but some don't so now we have group C being remediated AGAIN on the original material while group B gets remediated on the second set of material and group A moves on to the next set of material. Remediation in the classroom insures that the struggling group just gets farther and farther behind. They can't keep up if they are catching up.
