Grading and Documentation of Learning

Activities to be Evaluated in Each Course

Generally speaking, students will be evaluated in the following activities in most WISR courses:

• Their assignments for each course module.

• Their collaboration with other students, including their posts and replies on the Online Forum.

• Their participation in the action-research lab.

• Their annotated bibliography of the main readings for the course.

• Their main term paper for the course.

• Their written self-assessment of what they learned in relation to the major course outcomes, the intended learning outcomes, and to two of the degree program outcomes. [For details about goals and outcomes, go to: WISR's Mission and Degree Program Learning Outcomes and Measures]

• Their written self-assessment of the highlights of what they did, learned and accomplished in the course.

• The "End of Course" oral exam, conducted by the faculty member with whom they worked most closely.

The emphasis on each student being engaged in assessing their own learning, and in critically reflecting on the significance of what they have learned is seen in most of the above activities. In this regard, student engagement in evaluation is integrated throughout the learning activities in each course. In addition, faculty meet regularly with students, and come to understand and appreciate each student's particular purposes and interests, strengths, and challenges, as well as how these evolve and change over time. This leads to a consideration of Faculty Activities in Evaluating Student Learning.

Faculty Evaluation of Student Learning in Each Course

WISR faculty evaluate student performance in each of the above activities. Specifically, they do the following:

• Note that the student has met the minimum expectations for each assignment in the course. If a student has not met the minimum expectations, the faculty member gives the student specific guidance on what they need to do to meet standards, and the faculty member provides the student with instruction and support needed to be successful. All courses are pass/no pass. Students may work on a particular course as long as is necessary, in order to pass. Rarely, do students fail to make the necessary improvements after the first-round of feedback (except in the case of theses and dissertations, which are much more complex and challenging, and often involve three or more revisions and rounds of improvement). The formative evaluation provided by WISR faculty is designed to help students earn the necessary "summative evaluation" to pass the course. WISR expectations of all students are that a "passing grade" is equivalent to no less than a "B" for our graduate students based on the extensive experience of WISR faculty who in most every case have taught in conventional academic institutions. 

• Faculty also provide students with feedback on both: areas in which they recommend that the student should work to make improvements, areas/qualities where their work is especially strong, and topics which the student might consider exploring further in future courses. These are examples of "formative evaluation."

• In addition, faculty provide students with evaluative feedback on their progress in successfully achieving the various required degree program outcomes. 

The supervising faculty member, and the Chair of the IRB, Dr. Brian Gerrard (brian.gerrard@wisr.edu ) must approve of the student's action-research lab activities, and help the students to design and pursue activities that will contribute to their addressing the goals and expected outcomes of this course, and beyond this course, contribute to their studies in the doctoral program. Specifically, this action-research lab should lead to further questions, and perhaps to added refinements and re-definitions of how the student conceptualizes their area(s) of concern.

In addition, the Chair of WISR's IRB (Institutional Research Board) will determine whether or not the student's action-research lab activities must be approved by WISR's Institutional Review Board on Research and Ethics. Policies and Procedures for IRB and Ethics in Research are available through this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3NNHkdL2MzFYKQHl48l6qVLsjUkPnOV6mNCOvvI_DE/ 

FORM TO BE USED BY FACULTY MEMBERS TO ASSESS EACH STUDENT'S COURSE RESEARCH PROJECT WITH REGARD TO ETHICAL STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE CAN BE ACCESSED AND DOWNLOADED AT:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/153Bu0jmZslmPzIF1cx3uFW6y5nPI9JjPykb-vuF4Mx8/ 

FORM TO BE USED BY WISR'S INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BOARD (IRB) CAN BE ACCESSED AND DOWNLOADED AT: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lWkDLm8ewIlvuxjNdrJFHDQ34IyJ6x90

Whenever a student successfully completes a course, in order to assign credit, provide feedback to the student, and document the faculty member's detailed evaluative assessment of the student's performance in the course, the faculty member fills out the form that consolidates several assessment forms, "WISR Course Grading Forms."  That form is placed in the student's official academic file--as an electronic file and as a hard copy, signed by the faculty member.

In evaluating student performance on each assignment (e.g., course module write-ups, course term paper and participation in action-research lab, online forum posts, student written self-assessments, and discussions with student and oral exam), faculty will use the rubrics contained within the above "WISR Course Grading Forms" as guidelines. The rubrics are also meant to serve as a basis to facilitate faculty-student discussion, and to give faculty a framework to use in identifying student strengths and in giving students feedback on areas in which they can improve. Students are encouraged to ask questions of faculty regarding the feedback they receive, and also to suggest to faculty further criteria which they believe will be help for them, for faculty to use in evaluating their work and their learning.

Evaluation of Student Progress through the Degree Program

In addition to the evaluations received at the end of each course, each student's overall progress in their degree program is reviewed by a committee of two faculty.  For MS students in Education and Community Leadership, there is one review about midway through their studies. For MFT students, there is a review about 25% of the way through their studies to assess their readiness to participate in the supervised practicum required by WISR and by the BBS, and then another review about 50 to 60 percent of the way through their studies.  For doctoral students, there is a review about halfway through the completion of their pre-dissertation coursework, and then again, as an oral exam on their knowledge in the field and their area(s) of specialization and on their dissertation proposal, at the completion of their pre-dissertation studies. 

All students have a Graduation Review Board at the end of their studies, upon completion of their thesis or dissertation. The Review Board consists of three WISR faculty members, for the EdD program, and two WISR faculty for the MS and MFT programs, and there is also one outside expert on the Graduation Review Board in the student's area of specialization.

Official Policies and Practices on Grading and Awarding Credit

To learn about WISR's official policies and practices on Grading and Awarding Credit, including the assessment of student progress, go to WISR's Catalog.   If you have any questions, or have difficulty finding the relevant information in writing, you should contact a member of the faculty, or WISR's Chief Academic Officer (CAO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Topics covered:

ACADEMIC POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

GRADING AND AWARDING ACADEMIC CREDIT, AND ACADEMIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

WISR’s Methods For Evaluating Student Achievement

Grading And Evaluations Of Student Learning By Faculty At WISR

Faculty Feedback on Drafts of Student Papers and Theses

Awarding and Assigning Credit for Courses at WISR

Evidence Used in Awarding Academic Credit

Academic Papers

Professional Work And Community Work

End-Of-Course Self Assessments Written And Submitted By Students

Multimedia Products

Creative, Artistic Works

Participation In WISR Projects And Seminars

Faculty Observation of Student Performance in Doing Required and Recommended Course Assignments

Student’s End of Course Self-Assessment

WISR’s Policy on Academic Honesty and Integrity

FACULTY REVIEW OF STUDENT PROGRESS

Satisfactory Academic Progress, Attendance, Warnings, Probation, Dismissals, and Appeals

Satisfactory Student Progress and Faculty Review of Progress

Reviews of Each Student’s Progress

EXPECTATIONS FOR COLLABORATION AT WISR

Overview

Purpose of Collaboration

Reporting Possible Violations:

Online Forums

Prompts To Aid You In Making Posts To The Online Forum:

Suggestions For Writing Replies To Posts By Others:

Some Requirements For Writing Posts Or Replies:

Have Fun, Learn Together, And Practice Uninhibited Writing:

ADDITIONAL EXPECTATIONS FOR COLLABORATION

STUDENT SERVICES AND OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION. 

COMPLAINT AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

Sexual Assault Victim Information (This also appears in Student Services)

Challenges and Opportunities in Grading and Documentation of Learning

• Learning Portfolios--evidence of academic performance and learning, student-determined uses, and springboards for further learning

Part of the process of documenting student learning at WISR is to keep two official files--a hard copy file and an electronic file--of each student's submitted work, for each course. This includes annotated bibliographies, self-assessments, papers, faculty evaluations of student performance, and any other writing or multimedia work submitted by the student. There are at least three ways that these files can be used: 1) to serve as "products" of student learning that document whether or not students have met WISR's academic standards ("summative evaluation"--see the section on Rationale); 2) to be used by the student in creating, and later, further developing, their own personal "ePortfolio"--a way for the student to demonstrate to others (e.g., potential employers, community colleagues) their accomplishments and capabilities; and 3) as a "heuristic" device, as a way to stimulate the student, and anyone working with the student, to reflect on what they have done and to think about next steps in their learning and action. The first use emphasizes WISR's role as an institution of  "certification" or degree-granting. The third use emphasizes WISR's role as an institution of learning, and the use in the second role is determined by the student, and may be used to support their own further learning as well as to provide "legitimacy" and validating evidence for what they have learned and accomplished.

In these ways, the learning portfolio is at the center of the challenge of, what we at WISR refer to as, "Learning-Certification Contradictions"--the contradictory purposes of academic institutions to both grant credit (offer degrees) and promote learning. Specifically, the emphasis on the credit-granting and degree-granting process sometimes results in students and faculty paying attention to the demands of certification, rather than only focusing on learning. At WISR, faculty try to consciously confront the tensions between learning and certification, in our approaches to working with students and evaluating student learning. Being mindful of this tension, and some of the contradictions involved, does not completely remove the problem, but it does enable students and faculty to put as much attention as possible on the pursuit of learning and the role of valuable, formative evaluation. To some extent, at least, when self-directing and motivated students pursue a degree, they also engage in more attentive learning than they might otherwise do. One of WISR's co-founders, John Bilorusky, first became aware of these contradictions, as well as some approaches to addressing the contradictions, when he, and a faculty colleague initiated an innovative individualized learning program in the College of Community Services at the University of Cincinnati in 1972. They wrote about these insights in several publications, and one such article is available here, with the permission of the University of Alabama Press.[Bilorusky, J. & Butler, H. (1975) Beyond contract curricula to improvisational learning. In N. E. Berte (Ed.), Individualizing education through contract learning (pp. 144-172).  Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.]

• Evaluating and Disclosing the Contributions of Collaboration--opportunities for enhanced learning with transparency

Furthermore, collaboration among students is strongly encouraged at WISR--this can take the form of informal dialogue and mutual support, or even involve two or more students working together on the same action-research project or paper. In encouraging such collaboration, we do require that students be completely transparent in their self-assessments regarding the ways in which, and the extent to which, collaboration with other students has aided their studies and helped them in completing their assignments. Rather than seeing collaboration as a "challenge" to effective grading or evaluation of student work, we see it as an "opportunity" for enhanced learning, so long as there is transparency. For example, two students may write a paper collaboratively, and when this is the case, it is required that each student describe in detail what their distinctive contributions were to the collaboration, and what the distinctive contributions were of the student(s) with whom they collaborated.  This transparency about collaboration is the distinction between creative work together (as is sometimes done by those scientists who jointly receive a Nobel Prize) and "cheating" by simply relying on the efforts of others. WISR encourages collaboration, and requires integrity, honesty and full disclosure when the collaboration is substantial and important in contributing to the student's performance and work. Indeed, two students, Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey, did their entire doctoral studies in collaboration with one another about 10 years ago. The quality and quantity of their work were at least three times as substantial as most, other outstanding doctoral work. This has since been demonstrated in a number of ways, including the pivotal role their doctoral dissertation played, when submitted as key historical evidence, before the US Supreme Court, and resulting in a unanimous ruling by the court in favor of the Omaha people in a dispute with a local town in Nebraska. Their collaboration enhanced what they each learned and accomplished, and they disclosed the details of each of their contributions in every course and the dissertation throughout their studies. [For more, go to: Collaboration at WISR]