24.10.2014 Views

Reforming Grading Practices in Secondary Schools - eStaffRoom

Reforming Grading Practices in Secondary Schools - eStaffRoom

Reforming Grading Practices in Secondary Schools - eStaffRoom

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ecommendations that achievement should be the<br />

sole <strong>in</strong>gredient <strong>in</strong> grades, that attitudes should not<br />

be <strong>in</strong>cluded as a grad<strong>in</strong>g variable, and that consistent<br />

policies should be followed. (See figure 1.) Stigg<strong>in</strong>s<br />

et al. (1989) suggested three possible reasons for<br />

the discrepancies: that best practice is a matter of<br />

op<strong>in</strong>ion, that measurement specialists fail to take <strong>in</strong>to<br />

account the practical realities of the classroom, and<br />

that teachers are unaware of the recommendations. A<br />

consensus has s<strong>in</strong>ce emerged as to what is best practice,<br />

and a number of researchers and practitioners<br />

have recommended guidel<strong>in</strong>es for grad<strong>in</strong>g (e.g., Guskey<br />

& Bailey, 2001; Toml<strong>in</strong>son & McTighe, 2006;<br />

Marzano, 2000, 2006; Stigg<strong>in</strong>s, Arter, Chappius, and<br />

Chappius, 2004; Wormeli, 2006; Cooper, 2007; and<br />

O’Connor, 2002, 2007). There are differences <strong>in</strong> order,<br />

emphasis, and words <strong>in</strong> the guidel<strong>in</strong>es, but these<br />

educators have many years of teach<strong>in</strong>g experience<br />

and make similar recommendations.<br />

Some researchers, such as Kohn (1994), called<br />

for abandon<strong>in</strong>g grades completely. He suggested that<br />

grades lead to less successful learn<strong>in</strong>g, less <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />

learn<strong>in</strong>g, and less will<strong>in</strong>gness to engage <strong>in</strong> challeng<strong>in</strong>g<br />

tasks. However, Clymer and Wiliam (2006/07)<br />

disagreed. They stated that if teachers do not provide<br />

some <strong>in</strong>dication of students’ achievement, school systems<br />

are likely to rely on timed written exam<strong>in</strong>ations.<br />

They also found that appropriately designed grad<strong>in</strong>g<br />

systems can help identify where students are <strong>in</strong> their<br />

understand<strong>in</strong>g and what they need to improve.<br />

It is essential to be clear about the primary purpose<br />

of grades, which is to communicate students’<br />

achievement of learn<strong>in</strong>g goals. As Brookhart (2004)<br />

noted, grades have a secondary purpose that <strong>in</strong>cludes<br />

provid<strong>in</strong>g teachers with <strong>in</strong>formation for <strong>in</strong>structional<br />

plann<strong>in</strong>g and provid<strong>in</strong>g teachers, adm<strong>in</strong>istrators,<br />

parents, and students with <strong>in</strong>formation for placement<br />

of students. She also noted that the ma<strong>in</strong> difficulty<br />

driv<strong>in</strong>g grad<strong>in</strong>g issues is that grades serve a variety<br />

of conflict<strong>in</strong>g purposes. Bailey and McTighe (1996)<br />

agreed that the primary purpose of grades is to communicate<br />

student achievement to students, parents,<br />

school adm<strong>in</strong>istrators, postsecondary <strong>in</strong>stitutions,<br />

and employers.<br />

Figure 1.<br />

Recommended <strong>Grad<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Practices</strong><br />

Discrepancy<br />

n Achievement as only characteristic <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Ability not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Motivation and effort <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n All daily assignments <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Amount of grad<strong>in</strong>g data gathered<br />

n Quality of grad<strong>in</strong>g data<br />

n Consistent policies followed<br />

n Methods of aggregat<strong>in</strong>g components<br />

n Fixed percentages as cutoff scores<br />

n Total po<strong>in</strong>t accumulation for cutoff scores<br />

n Decid<strong>in</strong>g on borderl<strong>in</strong>e cases<br />

No Discrepancy<br />

n Communicat<strong>in</strong>g grad<strong>in</strong>g methods to students<br />

n Attitude not <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Interest not <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Personality not <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Written tests <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Oral question<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction not <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Performance assessments <strong>in</strong> grades<br />

n Normal distribution not used<br />

Stigg<strong>in</strong>s, Frisbie, and Griswold (1989, pp. 7–8)<br />

2<br />

Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal’s ResearchReview january 2009

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!