User:Randomname45738/sandbox

4/12 Draft

-Student reaction.

- A study conducted during the 1974-75 school year by James J. Polczynski on 280 students at a Midwest state university found that contract grading raised students instrumentality levels. The study also found that students opinion of their grade and the importance they place on their grade did not change. The largest change that the study found was that students felt a stronger assurance that a particular performance would match the grade they received better under the grading contract system then a traditional grading method. Moreover students also reported that they felt they had more control over their grade in the course which in turn increased their level of motivation to participate in the course.

-Advantages or to go into our case study section

- It is important to note that according to a study done in 2001 by William Yarber of Purdue University found that the knowledge attainted from courses using grading contract systems is equal to the knowledge attainted from traditional grading systems. Additionally the study found that the attitudes of students toward learning where the same in courses that used the grading contract system and the traditional grading method.

Implementation edit

- First a teacher presents the grading contract to this class then the class if often given time to read over the contract. Next, if the teacher choses to do so, the teacher will negotiate the terms of the contract. This means that the number of missed or late assignments to achieve a certain grade will be negotiated. There may or may not be a grace period to allow changes in the contract. Ultimately, all final decisions are left to the teacher. At the end of the contract students will earn the grade that matches the terms of the contract.

Mark, while I like this section, it should be linked to sources. You could look at Asao Inoue's books. Cathygaborusf (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal contributions

- Came up with the idea that we should crate an origin section for the Wiki

- I wrote most of the below sandbox

- Helped brainstorm the idea to change the definition area


 * What needs to get done to improve your page?
 * Introduction paragraph. This is what turns up when you google Grading contract
 * Work through the notes people have added on the page. (how?) (clarification needed) Do you feel like you need clarification from me? Cathygaborusf (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Add an origin section. The article specifies 1993 but we have sources from earlier. Great idea Cathygaborusf (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite sources for Overview and Implementation sections
 * Who is going to do each thing? Could be one person, could be a pair, could be the whole group.
 * Research: everyone
 * Drafting: everyone, will split people up into different groups when we find out exactly what parts of the doc we are going to target.
 * Communications with Cathy: Mark
 * etc: Justin
 * Time-keeper: Angel
 * How are you going to do it? BE VERY SPECIFIC
 * Delete material from existing Wikipedia entry?
 * Definition/ first line. The thing that shows up when you google Contract grading.
 * Reorganize material on an existing Wikipedia entry?
 * Create a new tab with Origin of Contract Grading, beneath the “Labor-based contract grading” section.
 * Engage in more research?
 * We have multiple sources with so much information we won't be able to get through all of it. We will add as much as we can. This is a good problem to have! Cathygaborusf (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Add material to an existing Wikipedia entry?
 * One of the big focuses will be the origin of contract grading.
 * Cite a source from “Overview” tab
 * Expand and cite sources for “Implementation” tab. This tab essentially shows how contract grading is used today.
 * All of the above?