Students Reach Beyond Expectations with Cafeteria Style Grading

Students Reach beyond Expectations with Cafeteria Style Grading

Dr. Anne Arendt, author and key contact

Utah Valley University

Dr. Angela Trego, PE, co-author

Utah Valley University

Jonathan Allred, M.Ed., co-author

Utah Valley University

Biography of each author:

Dr. Anne Arendt is an assistant professor at Utah Valley University in Technology Management. Prior to this she worked in distance education, web and application development for a period of ten years. She has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in English from University of Minnesota, a Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) from the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, a Master of Science (M.S.) in Educational Change and Technology Innovation from Walden University, and a Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) from Utah State University with an emphasis in higher education.

Dr. Angela Trego, PE, currently works at Utah Valley University as a faculty member in Technology Management. She is also a consultant providing expertise in accident reconstruction and teaching engineering technical short courses. She has worked at Varian Medical Systems, ATK, Becton Dickinson and The Boeing Company. Dr. Trego has two patents and is the author of over 50 publications and presentations. She graduated from Brigham Young University with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. She is an associate fellow member of AIAA. Angela is actively engaged in mentoring, Expanding Your Horizons, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and on the executive board of directors for Women Tech Council.

Jonathan Allred, M.Ed., is an adjunct instructor at Utah Valley University in Technology Management and Engineering and Graphic Design Technology. He is also employed as a project manager for Cloward H2O, a world renowned water engineering firm. He received his Master of Education (M.Ed.) in Instructional Technology andLearningSciences from Utah State University with an emphasis in distance education. He has aBachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Technology Management, an Associate of Science (A.S.) and an Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) in Drafting from Utah Valley University.

Structured Abstract

Purpose

This study shows that cafeteria style grading actually provides a course structure which encourages students to go beyond expectations.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

These instructors found that half the students overall obtain an A grade and 9% of all students actually go above and beyond the requirements of an A grade by at least 5%. Actually, about 4% of students complete more than is required by an additional 10% or more.

Originality/Value

Cafeteria style grading is a little researched methodology for student assessment. Our research shows that cafeteria style grading actually provides a course structure which encourages students to go beyond expectations.

Keywords

Cafeteria style grading, alternative grading methods, assessment

Article Classification

Research Paper

Funding Source

There was no funding source for this research, either internal or external.

Introduction

Three instructors offered a total of thirteen sections of a general education science class called “Fundamentals of Technology”from January 2012 to December 2013 using a cafeteria-style grading method. This means students get to choose to do those assignments, quizzes or tests that appeal to their own learning interests or styles and do not need to complete all the assignments to get an A grade. Rather, they complete those assignments desired in order to earn the applicable points. There are over twice as many points possible in this course than are required for an A, giving ample freedom to choose assignments. Once an assignment's due date has passed, that assignment is no longer an option to complete, meaning that students cannot simply wait until the end of the term and turn in a myriad of assignments in hopes of earning enough points for a passing grade. Some types of assignments available to students include but are not limited to: construction of models or prototypes, interviews of community members, open book multiple choice questions, the creation of teaching modules, short academic papers, and recorded group discussion. These instructors found that half the students overall obtain an A grade and 9% of all students actually go above and beyond the requirements of an A grade by at least 5%. Actually, about 4% of students complete more than is required by an additional 10% or more. One might assume this is because students did not know when they achieved an A, but this is not the case. Instructors notify the student as soon as they obtain an A grade. One might also assume students simply completed one additional assignment, but this is also not the case. The average assignment value is 1.77% of all the points possible, meaning they would need to complete over three additional assignments to achieve 5% beyondA level, which again 9% of all students did. This study shows that cafeteria style grading actually provides a course structure which encourages students to go beyond expectations.

Literature Review

Student Engagement

According to David Goslin (2003), only perhaps 20 to 25 percent of students are engaged in learning most of the time. He asserts increasing this engagement in learning is key to increasing academic achievement and therefore productivity in the U.S. educational system. To start, think about the interpretation of engagement as offered by Elizabeth Barkley who tackles the meaning of student engagement, in the college classroom, in her book Student Engagement Techniques. Barkley (2010) summarizes, “student engagement is a process and a product that is experienced on a continuum and results from the synergistic interaction between motivation and active learning” (8).

Now, look at the definition used by Bowen (2005) in the article Engaged Learning: Are We All on the Same Page?, “Educators think of engagement in four related but different ways. The most fundamental is student engagement with the learning process: just getting students actively involved. The second is student engagement with the object of study. Here the emphasis is on stimulation of students’ learning by direct experience of something new. Another is student engagement with contexts of the subject of study. This gives emphasis to the importance of context as it may affect and be affected by the students’ primary subject. When social and civic contexts are considered, this inevitably raises ethical issues. Finally, there is student engagement with the human condition, especially in its social, cultural, and civic dimensions” (1). These same four conceptualizations of engaged learning are held by Wehlburg (2006) who wrote Meaningful Course Revision: Enhancing Academic Engagement Using Student Learning Data as well (6).

These statements by Bowen (2005) & Wehlburg (2006) coincide with the viewpoint of the National Survey of Student Engagement (2013) which states student engagement "represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning".

In the book To Want to Learn, Kytle (2003) describes ten considerations for better learning. He states that learning needs: (1) purposes, (2) individualization, (3) predicaments, (4) mentors, (5) small spaces, human places, (6) process before academic content, (7) reflective experience outside of class, (8) reflective experience in class, (9) feedback, and (10) theory (2004). It is through these considerations that educators may be able to better spark or grow the desire to learn in students. This is important if one believes that learning requires engagement on the part of the learner, as Goslin believes (15).

For some students, there may be a belief on their part that they may not be able to succeed in the learning endeavor at hand and cannot control the outcome. In this case, simply helping the students understand they can indeed succeed may lead to engagement on their part (Goslin, 2003, 26). For others it may have to do more with teaching students how to better be responsible for their own learning experiences. As North Central Regional Educational Laboratory(n.d.) describes, “Successful, engaged learners are responsible for their own learning. These students are self-regulated and able to define their own learning goals and evaluate their own achievement. They are also energized by their learning; their joy of learning leads to a lifelong passion for solving problems, understanding, and taking the next step in their thinking" (1). This statement incorporates not only motivation to learn in the present, but a motivation toward self-directed and lifelong learning.

Student engagement and educational success is related to their actions and energetic contribution. In the view of Morgan and Saxton (1994), engaging students in relation to participation means that "students are in the active mode: not only taking in, absorbing and being acted upon but working energetically, acting upon their initiatives, acting upon others, asking questions and understanding they have the right to contribute their ideas, experiences and feelings about the content and procedures of the lesson" (7).

Hands-on or applied learning is also related to engagement in education. When students are actively engaged in the material by discussing it or applying it, they learn the material better (Wehlberg, 2006). This may involve doing hands on work, working with mentors or persons in the field, or other types of student interaction or active learning. As Gordon and Crabtree (2006) note, “Though active learning and positive, appropriate feedback are essential components, the most powerful factor in building engagement is identifying and fully deploying talents in the classroom. And not only students’ talents--the talents of everyone involved in education must be leveraged, from students, teachers, and principals to parents and community leaders” (82). If educators are able to embrace and enhance student’s already existing talents much progress can be made toward successful active and applied learning. “For many students, the most important discoveries may be the realization of where their greatest talents lie and where the flow of experiences occur” (Gordon & Crabtree, 2006, 83).

As viewed by some, commitment and engagement have a potentially paired relationship with one another (Shulman, 2002; Gordon & Crabtree, 2006). Some methods of encouraging student commitment in the classroom is to have them involved in course decision making early on such as in defining assignments, due dates, or point values (Barkley, 2010, 85). In this way the student is directly involved in the process and course curriculum, adding to potential perceived commitment. According to Blankstein, Cole & Houston (2007), there are six principles that lead to engagement: connection, relevance, empowerment, opportunities for success, quick and accurate feedback, and recognition and celebration (23).

Gordon & Crabtree (2006) believe that promoting engagement is not just a desired outcome of education--it is essential to the process itself (72). This is a view held by others (Goslin, 2003; Blankstein, Cole and Houston, 2007; Shulman, 2002). As Goslin (2003) accurately points out, learning requires engagement on the part of the learner which includes an investment of energy or effort (15).

Cafeteria style teaching and grading is a style which utilizes many of the above methodologies by providing various types of learning styles which students can choose. Giving students the freedom to learn in those modes which they are most comfortable with encourages learning in any form resulting in an increased desire from the student to learn and an increased number of competencies learned – thus an increase in learning objectives satisfied.

Cafeteria Style Grading

Cafeteria-style grading falls under the instructional theory of differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is a “pedagogical instrument to facilitate the learning process” and “an innovative way of thinking about teaching and learning” (Subban, 2006, 937/940). Willis and Mann stated, “It is a teaching philosophy based on the premise that teachers should adapt their instruction to student differences” (2000, 1). Differentiated instruction can be achieved by allowing students to learn in different ways through diverse content, process, or products of the curriculum (Willis and Mann, 2000). Differentiated instruction caters to the needs of different students with various learning styles (Huebner, 2010; Painter, 2009; Subban, 2006) “by providing entry points, learning tasks, and outcomes tailored to students’ learning needs” (Watts-Taffe, Laster, Broach, Marinak, McDonald Connor, & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012, 304). Course components which take into account student differences and interests enhance student motivation to learn and encourages them to remain active in the course (Dotger and Causton-Theoharis, 2010; Subban, 2006). Differentiated instruction can create an equitable learning environment where students are excited to share what they have learned with their classmates (Dotger and Causton-Theoharis, 2010; Painter, 2009).

Cafeteria Style Grading offers students the chance to tailor a course to their interests and learning styles. Research shows that “choice provides students opportunities to try different modalities for experiencing an idea or expressing what they know” (Dotger and Causton-Theoharis, 2010, 19). Research conducted by Goodwin and Gilbert identified that students who chose optional course components showed an increased desire to select course components that “involved ongoing active participation in the course” (2001, 491). Students from this same study reported that by having a choice in their course components they had more of an incentive to take the time to complete the course work. Students in another study spoke positively about being able to choose their own topics as products of the curriculum (Painter, 2009). Painter noted that students would give up recess and other personal time to go work on their individual projects which would demonstrate their understanding of the material learned in class (2009). It was noted in the research that students who lack intellectual maturity might select the assignments which require the least work and not rise to the challenge of taking responsibility for their learning which this type of instruction offers to students (Goodwin and Gilbert, 2001).

The literature suggested a few ways to maximize the benefits from this type of instruction. This type of instruction is effective if the teacher includes specific requirements, which align with learning outcomes that must be met for the assignment to be complete (Dotger and Causton-Theoharis, 2010). The teacher should also track the progress of each student to verify that true learning is reflected in the students’ assignments (Willis and Mann, 2000). Each of these suggestions can be seen in the methods used below.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Three instructors named Dr. Anne Arendt, Dr. Angela Trego, PE, and Jonathan Allred, M.Ed., offered a total of thirteen 12-week sections of Fundamentals of Technology from January 2012 to December 2013 using a cafeteria-style grading method. Over 400 students were involved in these courses: [table 1]

In cafeteria-style grading the student chooses assignments that appeal to their own learning interests or styles and do not need to complete all the assignments to get an A grade. Rather, they complete those assignments desired in order to earn the applicable points. In each course there were approximately 59 different assignment options as listed in Appendix A. The total point value was a minimum of 781, while only 376 points were needed for an A: [table 2]

While some students completed a greater variety of assignments than others, one overall tendency was for students to complete all of the online quizzes and exams. These exams were open book and unlimited time. A benefit of students pursuing this route was that the full curriculums was covered. One concern with this style of grading had been that students could complete all their assignments in the first segment of the term, thus not gaining actual experience with the full curriculum content or learning objectives. There was no single assignment that all students did; although students did seem to show preferences as can be seen below: [table 3]

Once an assignment, quiz or test due date passed, that assessment was no longer an option to complete, meaning that students couldnot simply wait until the end of the term and turn in a myriad of assignments in hopes of earning enough points for a passing grade. They were encouraged from the start of the term to complete assignments early. While assignments, quizzes or tests closed after the due date, all were available as of the first day of the term. This made it plausible for some students to actually complete the course early if they desired, which about 5 to 10% did.

One important element for this course style to be successful is to clearly communicate to the students what a cafeteria style course is and how it differs from traditional courses. All three instructors employ similar communication methods. First, the course outline explains what a cafeteria style course is and how grading works. Second, a quiz is required to obtain access to course content which has a question discussing the cafeteria style. Third, notification is sent to the students during the first two weeks of class reiterating what a cafeteria style course is and that not every assignment needs to be completed. Typically one or two students per semester will email the instructor for clarification, especially regarding the optional final and the points based grading system. Fourth, at mid-term another email is sent again communicating the cafeteria style grading and how the system is points based rather than percentage based. Finally, as noted above, once a student does have enough points for an A grade they are notified of their grade.