Written by Timothy Payne
Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of grading . . . the thrill of excelling . . . and the agony of failing . . . the human drama of academic competition . . . This is the wide world of grading!
The topic of grading is certainly wide, especially when one considers the wide variety of reforms being tried and tested in today’s American educational system. With the variety of grading initiatives being researched, perhaps the most important question is, “What grading method can have the most effective impact on WELS schools?” Making a slow shift towards standards-based grading can have a positive effect for WELS schools.
In today’s world the word “tradition” can leave a sour taste in people’s mouths, especially when it is applied to education. Marzano and Heflebower (2011) explain the traditional grading system: “In the traditional system, students acquire points for various activities, assignments, and behaviors, which accrue throughout a grading period. The teacher adds up the points and assigns a letter grade” (p.34). A benefit of the traditional grading system is that the average person understands it. Everyone knows that A’s and B’s are preferable to D’s and F’s.
Some educators might use the colloquialism, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The problem is, the traditional or conventional system may very well be broken. Brookhart (2011) asserts that traditional grading practices were developed to sort out students into learners and non-learners, not to support learning for all (p.10). Potts (2010) agrees: “The goal in classrooms should be learning and retention, not the acquisition of meaningless letters or numbers” (p.29). The problem is, seeing a letter on a paper or report card does not tell a student how to improve or what he did not understand about the lesson. Additionally, teachers have been known to assign grades based on student behavior and participation, not solely on academic achievement. All of these issues lead to the question, “How do schools move from grading what students earn to what they learn?” (paraphrased from Brookhart, 2011, p.12).
Standards-based grading is just what it sounds like: grading based on how well students show understanding of pre-set learning standards. A bonus of this system is that letter grades can still be used in conjunction with a listing of the standards to show achievement. Effort and behavior are still reported, but are separate from the academic achievements.
If schools want complete separation from letter grades to eliminate confusion, they can replace letters with graphs or simple numbers. For example, Rundquist (2011) uses a four-point scale: 1. Doesn’t meet expectations; 2. Approaches expectations; 3. Meets expectations; 4. Exceeds expectations (p.70). For grading English papers, Potts (2010) reports that writing assignments can simply be marked as Accept or Revise.
Since average scores of assessments will not be used for letter grades, alternative assessments will need to be created to show proficiency for the standards. Much preliminary work is required in this grading system to prepare authentic assessments. One of the important advantages of the system is that less time is spent grading and much more time is allocated to giving students real feedback to inform their learning. Scriffiny (2008) gives limited homework so that her time is not consumed by correcting problems but in giving effective feedback (p.73).
Some standards-based systems move into the mastery grading realm where students are allowed to retake assessments until they meet or master the standard (Lalley & Gentile, 2009; Scriffiny, 2008). Additionally, students may be expected to do extra work to earn the highest marks even if the standard is met.
Finally, an important part of 21st-century learning is the ability to measure the quality of one’s own work. The adult marketplace will require students to self-regulate quality. The revision process of standards-based learning demands quality work from students before they move on the next standard.
Unfortunately, some studies (Cox, 2011) have shown that moving toward standards-based grading has been slow, even with the research-based advantages. For schools to make the change practical, they need to implement changes slowly. The first step is to reach a collective consensus on the purpose of grading. This all starts with discussions at faculty meetings or perhaps a risk-taking teacher with the support of the school administration. A simple, slow step could be to try standards-based grading for one class—math for example. Many WELS schools do not have the time or staffing resources to create standards, objectives, and assessments for all classes in one year, but taking a small step may make all the difference in moving from a traditional grading system to a standards-based grading system.
Tim Payne is the principal and 7-8 grade teacher at St. Paul’s Ev. Lutheran School in Bangor WI. He is also an MLC graduate student.
References
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Starting the Conversation about Grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.
Cox, K. (2011). Putting classroom grading on the table: A reform in progress. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 67-87.
Gordon, M. E., & Fay, C. H. (2010). The Effects of Grading and Teaching Practices on Students’ Perceptions of Grading Fairness. College Teaching, 58(3), 93-98. doi:10.1080/87567550903418586
Lalley, J. P., & Gentile, J. (2009). Classroom Assessment and Grading to Assure Mastery. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 28-35.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that Show What Students Know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Potts, G. (2010). A Simple Alternative to Grading. Inquiry, 15(1), 29-42.
Rundquist, A. (2012). Standards-based grading with voice: Listening for students’ understanding. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413(1), 69-72. doi:10.1063/1.3679996
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven Reasons for Standards-Based Grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.
After teaching two-place subtraction, a ten problem test was given. Alice did all ten problems correctly and, as required, showed her work on all problems. The teacher put an “A” (in red ink!) on her paper. Johnny (who could read) made multiple errors, showing no grasp of either place value or subtraction facts. He got an “F.” Did Alice, Johnny, and their parents find those letter grades “meaningless”? I think not.
By the way, Rufus had three wrong answers on the same test, but had made the same fact error in each case. He received a “B,” possibly according to a scoring rubric or by the subjective decision of a wise teacher.
Brookhart apparently suggests moving from “grading what students earn to what they learn.” That has a cute ring to it, but that’s about all. In the example noted earlier, Alice had clearly learned a great deal and Johnny had not; thus the A and the F. What’s not to like?
To eliminate confusion we are urged to replace letter grades with graphs or numbers. So now Alice gets a 4 (or a long bar on a graph) and Johnny gets a 1 (or a short bar). Now I’m confused!
Had the teacher given Rufus a D- (three wrong out of ten, or 70%), both Rufus and his parents would have received misinformation. The problem, however, is not with letter grades, but rather with the failure of the teacher to analyze what Rufus had done. Such analysis is a necessary first step in pointing Rufus toward improvement.
“Potts (2010) reports that writing assignments can simply be marked as Accept or Revise.” How does this differ from a former “Pass/Fail” fad? New lipstick on an old pig does not cover the stench.
Over forty-five years of teaching I gave out thousands of letter grades, on papers and on report cards. They were always assigned based on a standard. I don’t understand how they could not be! May I suggest that the real issue is not the use of letter grades but whether or not the standard is clearly communicated to the student and his/her parents.
Long ago a wise man said, “Be not the first by whom the new are tried, nor yet the last to cast the old aside.” Let’s not cast letter grades aside until we have something better, not just something different.
This topic is massive and goes to the very philosophical underpinnings of teaching and learning. I have been studying and implementing SBG for a number of years and it has totally transformed my instruction and assessment procedures. It is more precise and provides useful data that the “regular” way cannot dream to achieve. Traditional grading doesn’t make sense, is not reliable or valid, has been shown to inhibit learning and motivation, but yet it goes largely unchallenged. I have no doubts that SBG is the future, but it is going to take a long time for the point/percentage system to die.
This concept is really interesting to me. I’m trying to use the 1-4 system for my confirmation class, but I find that they still divide into “good students” and “bad students.” Sometimes I just wonder if I’m watering it down. So here is my question, for which some of the pro teachers probably have answers: Is there no complex advocate for traditional grading (none is cited)? Here’s my theory: It would seem that the extra practice, feedback, and opportunity in retakes is what solves the problem, not the evaluating system itself.
Submitted by Seth Bode through Facebook.
Thanks for a good post. In some ways, I see little difference between the standards based grading system described, and my idea of a well executed tradition system.
The article states, “One of the important advantages of the system is that less time is spent grading and much more time is allocated to giving students real feedback to inform their learning. Scriffiny (2008) gives limited homework so that her time is not consumed by correcting problems but in giving effective feedback (p.73).”
Please explain how less time is needed for grading in a standards based system versus a tradition system. Less homework could be given with any system. For the teacher to give effective feedback, students still must demonstrate what they do and do not comprehend and fully understand.