which shows that something else exists or is true” (Evidence, n.d.). This is the same way we look at grading student performance. We must examine the available body of facts and information to determine whether it proves student learning.
When curriculum teams make collaborative decisions about student evidence that demonstrate learning growth, we support more equitable learning environments across different classrooms. When these same teams calibrate and interpret evidence based on agreed-upon expectations, we guarantee accurate and consistent feedback across these classrooms. These two changes can remedy the often random, subjective, and arbitrary elements used to determine grades in traditional grading systems.
In order to implement evidence-based grading in their classrooms, teachers should focus on the elements we discuss in the following sections.
Curriculum Focuses on Proficiency-Based, Student-Friendly Learning Targets
Students should have access to a thoughtfully considered, well-designed, high-quality curriculum. While it is important that the curriculum has meaningful and relevant standards, it is just as important that it is written with student-friendly learning targets that challenge students daily. Students must be able to state what teachers are asking them to know, understand, and do. However, even clear learning targets are not enough. For those targets to be meaningful and useful learning tools, they must be scaled for proficiency expectations—in other words, we must be able to describe what proficiency looks like in terms of mastery and needs improvement.
In an evidence-based grading model, proficiency-based learning targets describe expectations for learning. They unpack standards for learning into specific, well-described statements of learning that make sense to students. In an evidence-based grading model, these descriptions then become a tool for learning; they state what students must learn and define what it means to reach or exceed learning proficiency. A well-written learning target makes sense to the student, and it clearly states performance expectations. Nothing is hidden about what a student must learn. We encourage teachers to use these learning targets as tools for growth and reflection. They help state the gradation of learning that a student must attain (Gobble et al., 2016).
Learning should be placed on a continuum of proficiency, not viewed as a scaffolded progression. Consider table which highlights the differences between a scaffolded learning progression and a proficiency-based gradation. Scaffolded learning identifies different skills students should learn in sequence, but it does not state an expectation for learning. However, proficiency-based gradation states what skills students are developing and how well they are meeting expectations.
Table I.1: Scaffolded Learning Progression Versus Proficiency-Based Gradation
| Scaffolded Learning Progression | Proficiency-Based Gradation |
| The student can identify vocabulary terms. | The student can appropriately explain vocabulary terms in a written analysis using simple stated details from class. |
| The student can define vocabulary terms. | The student can accurately explain vocabulary terms in a written format using simple stated details from class. |
| The student can explain vocabulary terms. | The student can accurately explain vocabulary terms in a written format using complex stated details from class. |
| The student can analyze vocabulary terms. | The student can accurately explain vocabulary terms in a written format using creative and unique details. |
A scaffolded learning process for students includes different skills: identify, define, explain, and analyze. A well-written learning target offers a gradation of learning within one directed skill—in this case, the ability to explain. The learning verb is fixed in proficiency-based gradations for learning; the verb does not change, but the degree to which the student is successful does.
In an evidence-based grading model, we know that the proficiency expectation is the most critical component of being able to classify student performance and ultimately give a grade. In Proficiency-Based Assessment (Gobble et al., 2016), we offer the following example of how a proficiency-based learning target is used for evidence-based grading. This example is a proficiency-based expectation for a unit of study on World War I:
If we develop a gradation of learning and proficiency for our World War I target, it may look something like the following.
4—Using unique examples and opinions, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
3—Using examples from class, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
2—Using given definitions and terms, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
1—Using a text, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis. (pp. 19–20, emphasis added)
This particular proficiency scale pertains to a written analysis of WWI’s causes and breaks down the expectations for learning. A learning gradation like this positions proficiency as a 3, which helps both the teacher and student develop a better picture of the student’s growth and achievement in relation to a stated level of proficiency. Proficiency-based learning targets clarify the differences in student growth, providing students with clear descriptions of a learning destination: proficiency or mastery. This articulates how students are performing and where they have room for growth. A curriculum that supports evidence-based grading provides proficiency-based learning targets that clearly outline the intended competency or learning progression for students.
Instruction Focuses on Teacher and Student Reactions to Student-Produced Evidence
Teachers tend to intentionally plan traditional instructional sequences, deliver them in scaffolded segments, and verify their efficacy with either a formative or summative assessment. Evidence-based instruction is much different. It demands evidence. So, teachers must work with students to see the evidence of learning before they plan what direction the instruction takes from that point forward. In evidence-based grading, the sequence looks more like this: (1) observe and collect evidence of learning through formative assessment, (2) intentionally react by deploying instruction and engagement strategies, and (3) reflect on the state of learning and the potential for growth.
As we know from experience, traditional instructional techniques often promote shallow retention of material and can actually slow down the learning process for students. Figure I.1 shows the traditional instructional sequence: each small circle represents an instance of teaching and assessing a small component of what teachers ultimately expect of the student. The teacher moves deliberately from one small component to another before ultimately teaching and assessing students on the learning target. The larger circle at the end of the line represents this assessment.
Source: Gobble et al., 2016.
Figure I.1: Traditional sequence of instruction and assessment.
Evidence-based instruction focuses on the student’s reaction instead of the teacher’s delivery, so teachers must direct the lesson while learning is happening and determine the direction to take based on student-produced evidence, as figure I.2 (page 8) illustrates. The small dots in figure I.2 represent
