Educational Leadership_Effective Grading Practices_Five Obstacles to Grading Reform

8/10/2019 Educational Leadership_Effective Grading Practices_Five Obstacles to Grading Reform

1/6

6/25/2014 Educational Leadership:Effective Grading Practices:Five Obstacles to Grading Reform

http://www.ascd.org /publications/educational-leadership/nov11/vol69/num03/Five-Obstacles-to-Grading-Reform.aspx 1/6

CONFERENCECOUNTDOWN

Dallas, Tex.June 27-29,2014

0 0WEEKS

0 1DAYS

1 8HOURS

4 7MINUTES

0 1SECONDS

SEARCH ASCD GO

2014 ASCD Confere nceon Teaching Excel lenc e

June 27 29, 2014Dallas, Tex.

Expl ore ways to makeexcel lent teachin g the reali ty inevery classroom .

More

Tweets abo ut "@ASCD"

Permissions

ASCD respects intellectualproperty rights and adheres tothe laws governing them.Learn more about our permissi ons policy and submityour request online.

Policies and Requests

Translations Rights

Books in Translation

Home Curr ent Iss ue Arc hives Buy Contact

Print This Page

Online Store

ASCD's Top 5 Books

1. The Core Six:Essential Strategies for

Achieving Excellence withthe Common Core

2. Engaging Students withPoverty inMind: Practical

3. Essential Questions:Opening Doorsto Student Understanding

4. Better Learning ThroughStructured Teaching

5. Teaching withPoverty inMind: What Being Poor Does to Kids' Brains and What SchoolsCan Do About It

Shop

About ASCD Books & Publications Educational Leader ship Conferences Professional Development Programs Topics

SHARE

November 2011 | Volume 69 | Number 3 Effective Grading Practices Pages 16-21

Five Obstacles to Grading R eformThomas R. Guskey

Education leaders must recognize obstacles to grading reform that arerooted in traditionand then meet them head on.

Education im pr ovement effo rts over the past two decades have foc usedprimarily on articulating standards for student learning, refining the way weasses s students' proficiency on those s tandards, and tying results toaccountability. The one element still unaligned with these reforms is gradingand reporting. Student report car ds today lo ok mu ch like they looked acentury ago, listing a single grade for each subject area or course.

Educators seeking to reform grading must combat five long-held traditionsthat stand as formidable obstacles to change. Although these traditionsstem largely from mis understandings about the goals of education and the

purposes of grading, they remain ingrained in the social fabric of our society.

Obstacle 1: Grades should provide the basis for differentiating students.

This is one of our oldest traditions in grading. It comes from the belief that grades should serve todifferentiate students on the basis of demonstrated talent. Students who show superior talent receivehigh grades, whereas those who display less er talent receive lower grades.

Although seemi ngly innocent, the impl ications of this bel ief are significant and troubling. Those who enter the profession of education mus t answer one basic, philosophical ques tion: Is m y purpose to select talent or develop it? The answer must be one or the other because there's no in-between.

If your purpose as an educator is to select talent, then you must work to maximize the differences amongstudents. In other words, on any measure of learning, you must try to achieve the greatest possiblevariation in students' scores. If students' scores on any measure of learning are clustered closely

together, discriminating among them becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible. Unfortunately for students, the best means of maximizing differences in learning is poor teaching. Nothing does it better.

Asses sm ents als o play a role. Ass ess ments us ed for selection purpos es, such as college entranceexaminations like the ACT and SAT, are designed to be instructionally insensitive (Popham, 2007). Thatis, if a particular concept is taught well and, as a result, most students answer an as sess ment itemrelated to that concept correctly, it no longer discriminates among students and is therefore eliminatedfrom the asses sment. These types of ass essm ents maximize differences among students, thusfacilitating the s election process.

If, on the other hand, your purpose as an educator is to develop talent, then you go about your workdifferently. First, you clarify what you want s tudents to le arn and b e able to do. Then you do everythingpossible to ensure that all students learn those things well. If you succeed, there should be little or novariation in meas ures of s tudent learning. All students are likely to attain high s cores on m easures of achievement, and all might receive high grades. If your purpose is to develop talent, this is what you striveto accomplish.

BUY THIS ISSUE

Read Abstract

MEMBERSHIP MY ACCOUNT HELP LOG IN Forgot Passw ord?HOME STORE
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/current_issue.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/books-publications.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/http://shop.ascd.org/?ProductCode=112018http://shop.ascd.org/?ProductCode=112018http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=87130939http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=65550690http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/conferences.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/professional-development.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/programs.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/research-a-topic.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/memberships.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/MYACCOUNT.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/customer-service.aspxhttp://auth.ascd.org/login.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/forgotpassword.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/forgotpassword.aspxhttp://auth.ascd.org/login.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/customer-service.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/MYACCOUNT.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/memberships.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/nov11/vol69/num03/abstract.aspx#Five_Obstacles_to_Grading_Reformhttp://shop.ascd.org/?ProductCode=112018http://www.ascd.org/research-a-topic.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/programs.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/professional-development.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/conferences.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/books-publications.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1090http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=110949337http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=87130939http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=104080054http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=65550690http://printthisarticle%28%29/http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Educational_Leadership/Contact_the_Staff.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/PERIODICALS/ASCDproductlistingEL.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/archived_issues.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/current_issue.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/ASCD-Book-Translations.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/ASCD-Book-Translations.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/permissions.aspxhttps://twitter.com/search?q=%40ASCDhttp://www.ascd.org/conference-on-teaching-excellence.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/


2/6



Obstacle 2: Grade distributions should resemble a normal bell-shapedcurve.

The reasoning behind this belief goes as follows: If scores on intelligence tests tend to resemble anormal bell-shaped curveand intelligence is clearly related to achievementthen grade distributionsshould be similar.

A true understanding of normal curve distributions , however, shows the error in this kind of reasoni ng.The normal bell-shaped curve describes the distribution of randomly occurring events when nothing intervenes . If we conducted an experiment on crop yield in ag riculture, for exampl e, we would expect theresults to resemble a normal curve. A few fertile fields would produce a high yield; a few infertile fieldswould produce a low yield; and most would produce an average yield, clustering around the center of the

distribution.

But if we intervene in that process say we add a fertilizerwe would ho pe to attain a very differentdistribution of results. Specifically, we would hope to have all fields, or nearly all, produce a high yield. Theideal result would be for all fields to move to the high end of the distribution. In fact, if the distribution of crop yield after our intervention still resembled a normal bell-shaped curve, that would show that our intervention had failed because it made no difference.

Teaching is a similar intervention. It's a purposeful and intentional act. We engage in teaching to attain aspecific resultthat is, to have all students, or nearly all, learn well the things we set out to teach. And justlike adding a fertilizer, if the distribution of student learning after teaching resembles a normal bell-shap ed curve, that, too, shows the d egree to which ou r intervention failed . It made no difference.

Further, research has shown that the seemingly direct relationship between aptitude or intelligence andschool achievement depends on ins tructional conditions, not a normal distribution curve (Hanushek,2004; Hershberg, 2005). When the instructional quality is high and well matched to students' learning

needs, the magnitude of the relationship between aptitude/intelligence and school achievementdiminishes drastically and approaches zero (Bloom, 1976; Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, 1981).

Obstacle 3: Grades should be based on students' standing amongclassmates.

Most parents grew up in class rooms where their performance was judged against that of their peers. Agrade of C didn't mean you had reached Step 3 in a five-step proces s to m astery or proficiency. It meant"average" or "in the middle of the class." Similarly, a high grade did not necessarily represent excellentlearning. It simply meant that you did better than most of your classmates. Because most parentsexperienced such norm-based grading procedures as children, they see little reason to change them.

But there's a problem with this approach: Grades based on students' standing among class mates tell usnothing about how well students have learned. In such a system, all students might have performedmiserably, but some sim ply performed less miserably than others.

In addition, basing grades on students' standing among class mates m akes learning highly competitive.Students must compete with one another for the few scarce rewards (high grades) to be awarded byteachers. Doing well does not mean learning excellently; it means outdoing your classmates. Suchcompetition damages relationships in school (Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996). Students are discouraged fromcooperating or helping one another because doing s o might hurt the helper's chance at success .Similarly, teachers may refrain from helping individual students because some students might construethis as showing favoritism and biasing the competition (Gray, 1993).

Grades must always be based on clearly specified learning criteria. Those criteria should be rigorous,challenging, and transparent. Curriculum leaders who are working to align ins tructional programs withthe newly developed common core state standards move us in that direction. Grades based on specificlearning criteria have direct meaning; they communicate what they were intended to communicate.

Obstacle 4: Poor grades prompt students to try harder.

Although educators would prefer that motivation to learn be entirely intrinsi c, evidence indicates thatgrades and other reporting methods affect student motivation and the effort students put forth (Cameron &

Pierce, 1996). Studies show that mos t students view high grades as positive recognition of their success,and some work hard to avoid the consequences of low grades (Haladyna, 1999).

At the same tim e, no research supports the idea that low grades p rompt students to try harder. More often,low grades prompt students to withdraw from learning. To protect their self-images, many studentsregard the low grade as irrelevant or meaningless. Others may blame themselves for the low grade butfeel helpl ess to improve (Selby & Murphy, 1992).

Recognizing the effects on students of low grades, some schools have initiated policies that eliminate theuse of failing grades altogether. Instead of assigning a low or failing grade, teachers as sign an I , or incomplete, with immediate consequences. Students who receive an I may be required to attend aspecial study sess ion that day to bring their performance up to an acceptable leveland no excuses areaccepted. Some schools hold this s ession after regular school hours whereas others conduct it duringlunchtime.

Such a policy typically requires additional funding for the necessary support mechanisms, of course. But


3/6



in the long run, the investment can save money. Because this regular and ongoing support helpsstudents remedy their learning difficulties before they become major problems, schools tend to spendless time and fewer resources in major remediation efforts later on (see Roderick & Camburn, 1999).

Obstacle 5: Students should receive one grade for each subject or course.

If someone proposed combining m easures of height, weight, diet, and exercise into a single number or mark to represent a person's physical condition, we would consi der it laughable. How could thecombination of such diverse measures yield anything meaningful? Yet every day, teachers combineaspects of students' achievement, attitude, responsibility, effort, and behavior into a single grade that'srecorded on a report cardand no one questions it.

In determining students' grades, teachers typically merge scores from major exams, compositions,

quizzes, projects, and reports, along with evidence from homework, punctuality in turning in assignments,class participation, work habits, and effort. Computerized grading programs help teachers apply differentweights to each of these categories (Guskey, 2002a) that then are combined in idiosyncratic ways (seeMcMillan , 2001; McMillan, Myran, & Workman, 2002). The result is a "hodgepodge grade" that is ju st asconfounded and impossible to interpret as a "physical condition" grade that combined height, weight, diet,and exercise wou ld be (Brookhart & Nitko, 2008; Cros s & Frary, 1996).

Recognizing that merging these diverse sources of evidence distorts the meaning of any grade,educators in many parts of the world today assign multiple grades. This idea provides the foundation for standards-based approaches to grading. In particular, educators distinguish product, process, andprogress learning criteria (Guskey & Bailey, 2010).

Product criteria are favored by educators wh o believe that the primary purpose of grading is tocommunicate summative evaluations of students' achievement and performance (O'Connor, 2002). Inother words, they focus on what students know and are able to do at a particular point in time. Teacherswho use product criteria typically base grades exclusively on final examination scores; final products(reports, projects, or exhibits); overall as sess ments; and other culminating demonstrations of learning.

Process criteria are emphasized by educators who believe that product criteria do not provide a completepicture of student learning. From their perspective, grades should reflect not only the final results, but alsohow students got there. Teachers who consider responsibility, effort, or work habits when assigninggrades use process criteria. So do teachers who count classroom quizzes, formative ass essm ents,homework, punctuality of assignments, class participation, or attendance.

Progress criteria are used by educators who believe that the most important aspect of grading is howmuch students gain from their learning experiences. Other names for progress criteria include learning gain, improvement scoring, value-added learning , and educational growth . Teachers who us e progresscriteria look at how much improvement students have made over a particular period of time, rather than

jus t where they are at a given mom ent. As a resul t, scoring criteria may be highly individualized amongstudents. Grades m ight be based, for example, on the number of skills or standards in a learningcontinuum that students mastered and on the adequacy of that level of progress for each student. Most of the research evidence on progress criteria comes from studies of individualized instruction (Esty & Teppo,1992) and special education programs (Gersten, Vaughn, & Brengelman, 1996; Jung & Guskey, 2010).

After establis hing explicit indicators of product, process, and progress learning criteria, teachers incountries that differentiate among these indicators assign separate grades to each indicator. In this way,they keep grades for responsibility, learning skills, effort, work habits, or learning progress distinct fromassessments of achievement and performance (Guskey, 2002b; Stiggins, 2008). The intent is to providea more accurate and comprehensive picture of what s tudents accomplish in school.

Although schools i n the United States are jus t beginning to catch on to the idea of separate grades for product, process, and progress criteria, many Canadian educators have used the practice for years(Bailey & McTighe, 1996). Each marking period, teachers in these schools assign an achievement gradeon the basis of the student's performance on projects, ass essm ents, and other demonstrations of learning. Often expressed as a letter grade or percentage ( A = advanced, B = proficient, C = basic, D =needs improvement, F = unsatisfactory), this achievement grade represents the teacher's judgment of thestudent's level of performance relative to explicit learning goals established for the subject area or course.

Computations of grade-point averages and class ranks are based solely on these achievement or "product" grades.

In addition, teachers assign separate grades for homework, class participation, punctuality of assignments, effort, learning progress, and the like. Because these factors usually relate to specificstudent behaviors, most teachers record numerical marks for each ( 4 = consistently; 3 = usually; 2 =sometimes; and 1 = rarely). To clarify a mark's me aning, teachers often identify specific behavioralindicators. For example, these might be the indicators for a homework mark:

4 = All homework assignm ents are completed and turned in on time.

3 = There are one or two miss ing or incomplete homework assignments.

2 = There are three to five mis sing or incomplete homework ass ignments.

1 = There are numerous mis sing or incomplete homework assignments.

Teachers s ometimes think that reporting multiple grades will increase their grading workload. But those


4/6


5/6


6/6



Veronica_Bacigalupo Thank you for your research and article. Students dont begin at the samestarting point. When teachers can assess data before, during, and after instruction, they know where individual gaps a re. They can better provideindividualized instruction. Data analysis, not grading, provides the basis for differentiated instruction; in this manner, instructional gaps are addressed.Students are taught what they need to know and are n ot categorized by whatthey dont know. Educators can capture the student progres s through a varietyof means (e.g., quizzes, homework, and pa rticipation). When the data from thisstage is analyzed, educators will often discover how students learn best.Some students may perform exceptionally well in verbal activities (e.g.,

debates, discussions , role plays) while others perform best in reflectiveassignm ents (e.g., journaling, essay writings). Process criteria can also betelling of outside factors influencing student achievement and performance.Students who work late at night or have household responsibilities m ay notalways complete homework assignments or be punctual; they may, however,enter all in-class activities with great vigor and interest. Grades are more than

just num bers. Grading is a tool that captures how well studen ts areperforming agains t standards/objectives, how well students approachperformance, and how well student performance actually looks. Grades arealso reflection of the relationship between a teacher and student. They canhighlight what both a teacher and student did and didnt do during the gradingperiod to ens ure achievement. In effect, they even may spe ll out jus t howimportant achievement really is to both parties.

Nov. 13, 2011 11:00am EST

1703 North Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1714

MISSION : ASCD is a global community dedicated toexcellence in learning, teaching, and leading. ASCDsinnovative solutions promote the success of eachchild.

2014 ASCD. All Rig hts Res erved.P4

ABOUT ASCD

Contact Us

Help

Press

ASCD Job Ramp

Privacy Policy

Permissions

Terms of Use

Advertise With Us

Sponsorships

CONNECT WITH US

Affiliates

Connected Communities

Student Chapters

Professional InterestCommunities

ASCD EDge

ASCD on Twitter

ASCD on Facebook

ASCD on YouTube

ONLINE STORE

ASCD Store Home

Books & E-Books

Videos

Online Learning

Periodicals

Conferences

Join ASCD

PROGRAMS

Conferences andInstitutes

Leadership Institute for Legis lative Advocacy(LILA)

Educator Advocates

The Whole Child

Emerging Leaders

Report
http://www.ascd.org/programs/Emerging-Leaders/Emerging-Leaders.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/whole-child.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/public-policy/Educator-Advocates.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/conferences/LILA/home.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/conferences.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/MEMBERSHIP.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/CONFERENCES.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/PERIODICALS.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/ONLINELEARNING.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/VIDEOS.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/BOOKSEBOOKS.aspxhttp://shop.ascd.org/http://www.youtube.com/officialascdhttp://www.facebook.com/ascd.orghttps://twitter.com/ASCDhttp://edge.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/professional-interest-communities/home.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/Student-Chapters/Student-Chapters.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/Connected-Communities/home.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/Affiliates/Affiliates.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/ascd-sponsorship.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/advertising.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/Terms-of-Use.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/permissions.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/about-ascd/ASCD-Privacy-Statement.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/ascdjobramp.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/news-media.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/customer_service.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/customer-service/Contact-Us/Contact-Us.aspxhttp://www.ascd.org/http://www.ascd.org/http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?st=&tid=&u=35143282&as=127586&b=http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?st=&tid=&u=35143282&as=127586&b=

Educational Leadership_Effective Grading Practices_Five Obstacles to Grading Reform

Documents

Transcript of Educational Leadership_Effective Grading Practices_Five Obstacles to Grading Reform