Frequent low-stakes assessment that gives students digestible feedback and instructors an overview of common problems with content comprehension.
Weekly or almost weekly.
On a regular basis, so it’s part of the routine course rhythm, there is a short assessment item. This should take no more than 15 minutes or so, to avoid eating up too much class time. A few short-answer or multiple choice items is enough. Grading is simple, often a 1-5 or even 0-3 scale: Good (3), Close but not quite (2), Wrong/Inadequate (1), Blank (0). All of these items together are a small part of the course grade—10-15% or so.
These assessments can also take the form of progress reports, if there’s an extended project in the course.
➢https://www.scipublications.com/journal/index.php/ojer/article/view/273
➢https://kpcrossacademy.org/8-benefits-of-frequent-quizzing-and-testing-in-your-college-class/
Personally, I always give at least 1 point on a multi-point item if the student submitted anything other than a blank-- It’s always in your interest to at least try.
As instructor, you want something you can grade quickly and give feedback to students immediately—ideally by starting the next class session with an overview of most common mistakes or issues, and any good news as well, if people did well on a potentially tough question.
These do need to be graded and worth something, because if they’re worth 0 points, students won’t take them seriously. But the stakes are low enough, no one should be panicking if one went poorly. It’s a chance to identify errors or misunderstandings before The Big Test.
In larger classes, on any given class day, someone’s car won’t start, someone’s got a sick child, someone got called in to work. For larger classes, I’ve dropped the low 2, or even 3, and done without make-up quizzes (students will ask about it if they miss class, for whatever reason. Rather than continually scheduling make-ups for 10-minute quizzes, I can tell the student they’ve used up a bit of their safety margin but haven’t necessarily damaged their course grade.)
I teach several project-based classes. For those, students do a weekly check-in, due on Canvas 11:59 Sunday night, consisting of 4 questions:
Grading consists of “Did they answer it?” There aren’t particular milestones or deliverables as part of this report, just a chance for the student to engage in some metacognition and see how they’re doing. I can often answer student’s questions or give them some suggestions on dealing with a problem using Canvas feedback, and if there are several students with similar questions in a particular area, or there seem to be common misconceptions, we can start the week’s classes with a discussion of them.
There’s also the question of online quizzes with Canvas. Generally, these are too small and low-stakes to bother with proctoring software (which is intrusive and not particularly effective). The advantage of Canvas quizzes is that they’re machine-graded, so summary results are available at once. If there are concerns about people doing their own work on Canvas, a mix of online and in-class quizzes can be given. The main thing is that they should be short—less intimidating for the student, less grading effort for us.
Burns, M. A., Johnson, V. N., Grasman, K., Habibi, S., Smith, K. A., Kaehr, A., Lacar, M. F., & Yam, B. (2023). Pedagogically grounded techniques and technologies for enhancing student learning. Advances in engineering education, 11(3), 77–107. https://doi.org/10.18260/3-1-1153-36049
Day, I. N. Z., van Blankenstein, F. M., Westenberg, M., & Admiraal, W. (2018). A review of the characteristics of intermediate assessment and their relationship with student grades. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 908–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1417974
Justin J. Donato, & Thomas C. Marsh. (2023). Specifications grading is an effective approach to teaching biochemistry. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00236-22
Nevid, J. S., & Mahon, K. (2009). Mastery quizzing as a signaling device to cue attention to lecture material. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802529152