CS471: Computer Science Pedagogy - Rubrics and Contract Grading
Activity Goals
The goals of this activity are:- To design rubrics that measure individual learning goals across a spectrum
- To employ contract grading that enables students to start at multiple entry points for growth
Supplemental Reading
Feel free to visit these resources for supplemental background reading material.- A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching
- Techniques for Using Specifications Grading in Computer Science
The Activity
Directions
Consider the activity models and answer the questions provided. First reflect on these questions on your own briefly, before discussing and comparing your thoughts with your group. Appoint one member of your group to discuss your findings with the class, and the rest of the group should help that member prepare their response. Answer each question individually from the activity, and compare with your group to prepare for our whole-class discussion. After class, think about the questions in the reflective prompt and respond to those individually in your notebook. Report out on areas of disagreement or items for which you and your group identified alternative approaches. Write down and report out questions you encountered along the way for group discussion.Guiding Questions
- What is the benefit of using a rubric to evaluate student work?
- Should a rubric be shared with students prior to completing an assessment? Why or why not?
- How might it be beneficial to evaluate students using the same rubric multiple times during the year?
- How might contract grading improve communication of expectations?
- How can Bloom's Taxonomy influence the criteria, classifications, and/or descriptions within a rubric?
- Design a rubric, and a grading contract, for a class activity on binary number encodings.
Rubrics
Rubrics are a valuable tool for assessing student work. They provide clear criteria and performance levels for evaluating assignments, projects, or exams. Rubrics not only make grading more transparent and consistent but also offer students a better understanding of what is expected of them.
Research has shown that rubrics can lead to improved student performance and engagement. Elbow and Danielewicz (reference 1) conducted a study where they implemented a rubric-based grading approach in a writing course. They found that students who received detailed rubrics and ongoing feedback demonstrated enhanced critical thinking and higher quality work. Rubrics allowed for a more holistic evaluation, promoting a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
By utilizing rubrics, educators can provide specific feedback on strengths and areas of improvement, facilitating student learning and growth. Rubrics can also aid instructors in identifying trends or patterns in student performance, allowing for targeted instructional adjustments.
Rubric Design
When creating rubrics for computer science classrooms, teachers should follow several best practices:
-
Align criteria to learning objectives and standards. The rubric criteria should directly connect to the skills and knowledge students are expected to demonstrate based on academic standards and lesson objectives. For a coding project, criteria may include functionality, code quality, documentation, etc.
-
Limit the number of criteria. Aim for 3-5 criteria that focus on the most essential skills and knowledge. Too many criteria can overwhelmed students and make the rubric difficult to use efficiently. Prioritize the most important elements.
-
Use clear classifications and descriptions. The levels of achievement, often labeled things like “exemplary” or “needs improvement,” should have clear, descriptive definitions. Avoid overly broad terms and subjective language. Use concrete details like “code includes comments for every function” or “program crashes during execution.”
-
Consider starting with 3 classification levels. Beginner-friendly rubrics often have 3 rating levels like “meets expectations,” “approaches expectations” and “below expectations.” This simplicity provides clear distinction. More advanced rubrics may require 4 levels.
-
Adjust rubric and expectations to students’ skill levels. While holding students to high standards, make sure the rubric criteria and rating scales match the capabilities of the class. For beginning coders, a rubric may weigh process and effort more heavily than polished functionality.
-
Involve students in rubric creation when possible. Asking students to contribute to rubrics can help them better understand expectations. Have them help define what quality work looks like.
Example
| Criteria | Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Needs Improvement | Unsatisfactory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code Structure | Clear and well-organized code with proper indentation; no nesting issues. | Minor deficiencies in indentation; one nesting issue. | Code structure shows minor deficiencies; two nesting issues. | Code structure needs significant improvement; three nesting issues. | Code is incoherent or completely lacking structure; four or more nesting issues. |
| Functionality | Program meets all requirements; produces correct output for all test cases. | Meets most requirements; fails 1 test case. | Meets most requirements; fails 2-3 test cases. | Program fails to meet several requirements; fails 4-5 test cases. | Program does not run or fails more than 5 test cases. |
| Documentation | Comprehensive and well-documented code; all functions documented. | Adequate documentation; 90% of functions documented. | Adequate documentation; 75% of functions documented. | Documentation is incomplete; 50% of functions documented. | Documentation is unclear or less than 50% documented. |
The rubric enables you to assess student work across each rubric criterion, calculate a score within a range dictated by each level of attainment, and an opportunity to provide directed feedback as to why each level was selected.
Contract Grading
Contract grading is an approach that involves students and instructors agreeing upon specific learning outcomes and expectations at the beginning of a course. This collaborative process empowers students to take ownership of their learning journey and actively participate in their assessment.
In a study conducted by Elbow and Danielewicz, a unilateral grading contract was implemented, allowing students to set their expectations and define their desired grades. The contract outlined the required work and performance levels for each grade category. This method not only motivated students but also encouraged self-reflection and goal setting.
Contract grading provides a more holistic evaluation of student learning by emphasizing effort, growth, and mastery of learning objectives. It shifts the focus from grades as a means of motivation to learning as the primary goal. However, implementing contract grading requires careful planning, clear communication, and ongoing support to ensure students have a comprehensive understanding of the expectations and assessment criteria.
Design Considerations
Compared to traditional point-based grading, contract grading can reduce student stress and support learning by focusing on task completion rather than chasing points. Implementing contract grading successfully in computer science involves the following key principles:
-
Collaborate with students. Involve students in developing contract grading specs as much as possible to increase engagement and ownership.
-
Connect contract items to learning goals. Each contract requirement should directly relate to course objectives and help build essential skills. Avoid busy work.
-
Be clear and specific. Provide detailed expectations and due dates for each contract item. Remove ambiguity about what students need to do to earn their targeted grade.
-
Scaffold major assignments. Break down large coding projects into smaller milestones with multiple check-ins that support incremental development.
-
Offer flexibility and choice. Where possible, give students options between assignment topics or let them customize projects to their interests.
-
Focus on learning and improvement. The contract should encourage growth by allowing resubmission of some assignments and emphasizing the iterative coding process.
-
Design tiered grade targets. Offer multiple grade tiers (A, B, C) with clear differentiation in contract requirements, not just pass/fail options.
-
Regularly review and revise. Seek ongoing student feedback and adjust contract specs to improve clarity, relevance, rigor and support.
Example
| Criteria | A (Excellent) | B (Good) | C (Satisfactory) | D (Needs Improvement) | F (Unsatisfactory) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teamwork | All team members contribute equally; effective communication throughout. | Minor communication issues; mostly equal contribution. | Unequal contribution; some communication problems. | Significant imbalances in contribution; poor communication. | No collaboration or communication among team members. |
| Presentation | Clear, engaging, and professional; all key points covered. | Minor issues in clarity or engagement; one key point missed. | Lacks enthusiasm or clarity; two key points missed. | Disorganized and unprofessional; three key points missed. | Incomplete or incoherent; four or more key points missed. |
| Documentation | Comprehensive, well-organized; all functions documented. | Minor omissions; 90% of functions documented. | Lacks detail or organization; 75% of functions documented. | Incomplete documentation; 50% of functions documented. | No or unclear documentation; less than 50% documented. |
| Code Quality | Proper structure, efficiency, readability; no errors. | Minor deficiencies; less than 3 minor errors. | Significant room for improvement; less than 5 minor errors. | Poor structure and readability; more than 5 errors. | Incoherent, incorrect, or completely lacking; unrunnable code. |
| Innovation | Highly innovative solution; creative use of technology. | Some creative elements; minor innovation. | Standard solution; limited innovation. | Lack of innovation or creativity; follows existing solutions. | No innovation or creativity; copies existing solutions. |