<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>assessment on CS-Ed Podcast Home Page</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/tags/assessment/</link><description>Recent content in assessment on CS-Ed Podcast Home Page</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://csedpodcast.org/tags/assessment/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>S3xE2: Alternative grading, how?</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season3_episode2/</link><pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season3_episode2/</guid><description>In part two of our episode series with Kevin Lin and Brett Wortzman from the University of Washington, we dig into the details of how they implement their alternative grading systems. Brett outlines their ESNU system that stands for exemplary, satisfactory, not yet and unaccessible, as well as the components of his grading system for his large CS1 course, and Kevin talks about his version from his CS2 and other data structures courses.</description></item><item><title>S3xE1: Alternative grading, why?</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season3_episode1/</link><pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season3_episode1/</guid><description>In a two-part episode series, we talk with Kevin Lin and Brett Wortzman from the University of Washington about alternative grading practices. In this episode, we focus on the purposes and goals of grading and discuss different types of grading systems. We dig into the philosophy of Kevin and Brett’s grading approach, how it can work in very large courses, and how to get buy-in from students on an unfamiliar system.</description></item><item><title>S2xE4: Grading for Equity with Joe Feldman</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season2_episode4/</link><pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season2_episode4/</guid><description>Joining us today is Joe Feldman, author of Grading for Equity and the CEO of Crescendo Education Group. We discuss the historical overview of grading and why now is a good time to rethink our grading process to make it more equitable. We got concrete by discussing our host’s, Kristin Stephens-Martinez’s, syllabus for her class and changes she was considering after reading Grading for Equity. One significant point Joe made is that grades should only convey the student’s level of mastery, not their behavior.</description></item><item><title>S2xE1: Supporting Students of Color with Manuel Pérez-Quiñones</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season2_episode1/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season2_episode1/</guid><description>In this episode, we talk with Manuel Pérez-Quiñones, a Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Our topic is supporting students of color. We discussed why this support matters and the differences between professors versus students and equality versus equity. We also discussed how he changed his grading practices for his remote class. He even shared about changing his syllabus to specification grading, which he reflects on in his blog now that the semester is over.</description></item><item><title>S1xE2: Designing Exams with Dan Garcia</title><link>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season1_episode2/</link><pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://csedpodcast.org/blog/season1_episode2/</guid><description>In this episode, we talk with Dan Garcia, a teaching professor at UC Berkeley in the EECS Department. He was selected as an ACM Distinguished Educator in 2012 and ACM Distinguished Speaker in 2019. He has won all four of his department’s computer science teaching awards.
Our conversation focused on designing exams, which he boiled down to his five-finger rule: (1) material coverage, (2) reasonable time, (3) range of difficulty, (4) variety of question types, and (5) ease of grading.</description></item></channel></rss>