This literature synthesis is focused on a particular aspect of my overall research regarding the use of research-based pedagogical interventions and strategies designed to reduce and mitigate school-related student stress. By gaining more in depth theoretical and practical understanding in the area of grading and assessment, it is possible to get a better sense of one facet of this pedagogical practice and the ways in which it reduces or amplifies school-related student stress. Furthermore, teachers have an ethical duty of care for the students entrusted to them. While grading and assessment practices and procedures have been inconsistent since its formal inception as a pedagogical device in the nineteenth century in the United States, it is incumbent upon teachers in the twenty-first century to ensure that their practices and procedures are up to date in order that equity may be achieved concerning students and their course achievements.

A Quick History of Grading

Measuring progress and grading emerged in the United States in the nineteenth century. Yale University was the first to institute a “4.0 system” sometime between 1813-1839. Harvard University, on the other hand, used a “100 percentile system” starting in 1837. In 1898, Mount Holyoke constructed a grading scale that read: “A = 95 – 100; B = 90 – 94; C = 85 – 89; D = 80 – 84; E – 75 – 79; F – failed.” With little consistency between tertiary institutions of higher learning Durm (1993) confirmed, “the history of grading in schools in the United States is replete with trial and error. By the late Twentieth century, grading systems and reporting measures in the United States appear to have standardized with a combination of the “4.0 system” along with the use of associated letter grades and grading scales. Still, without a sense of any solid, agreed-upon professional and philosophical rationale for grading and assessment, it is difficult to ensure that equity is achieved for students.

Existing Problems with Grading Precision, Scales, and Criteria

Jongsma (1991) details a series of problems associated with grading including (1) its precision (or lack thereof); (2) the variability of grading scales (as previously noted above); (3) the lack of consistent grading criteria; and, (4) the indiscriminate use of zeroes (especially in skewing grades through the fallacious use of the mean as a measure of central tendency.

Regarding the lack of precision in grading, Jongsma notes (cf. Probst 1988) that grades “may conceal other evaluative information that might be more useful to students and parents and trains them to accept an alphabetic or numerical symbol instead of useful information about literacy processes” (Jongsma, 1991).

Jongsma suggests (cf. Canady and Hotchkiss, 1989) that variability in grading scales and criteria from teacher to teacher or from subject area to subject area may affect the validity of the score that a student receives. It is also worth mentioning here that we may question the validity of a 100-point system (see the Mount Holyoke example cited in the previous section above). If, for example, an A represents 90 – 100 percentage points, a B from 80 – 89, a C from 70 – 79, a D from 60 – 69, and an F is anything from 59 and below, then we have assigned approximately 59 percentage points of failure compared with 41 points of achievement. Such a grading scale is mathematically flawed. Jongsma laments that “grading criteria may be regarded as arbitrary and mysterious, a function of teacher taste rather than a representation of inherent and tangible standards.” While we must give credit to the advances that have been made since this article was written, one can argue that teachers have a ways to go with the implementation of consistent grading criteria. A first step in this area might be to clearly articulate criterion through the use of rubrics, syllabi, and other communicative devices.

Another mathematical invalidity results from the indiscriminate use of zeroes in grading. When combined with the questionable use of averaging (the mean as a measure of central tendency), as well as the unethical use of disciplinary actions in arriving at final grades, the results are potentially devastating for students. Zeroes are frequently given for incomplete, late, or missing work. These are disciplinary behavioral attributes and as such should be reported separately from academic achievement indicators. Depending upon the number of instances of zeroes in a given grade book, the inclusion of such scores when averaged along with other scores will skew the outcome unfavorably for the student (cf. Reeves, 2004).

Variations in Teachers’ Practices and Procedures

While grading and assessment are ultimately professional judgments conducted by teachers there are significant variations in actual practice and procedure (e.g. Campbell, 2012, pp. 30-31). Campbell suggests “grades don’t seem to accurately account for what students know and are able to do, and the inconsistency across schools, classrooms, and even within one academic department can lead to gross inequities for students (Campbell, 2012, p. 31)”. This inconsistency seemed to extend to both teachers who have had measurement instruction and those that did not (Brookhart, 2004). For teachers “the grading process, as currently practiced, leaves teachers to work out the compromises they must make in their dual role as both judge and advocate for students” (Brookhart, p. 141).

Other factors that have affected variations in teachers’ grading and assessment practices and procedures include such external variables as class size, subject area, and school size. In a study conducted by Duncan and Noonan on 513 high school teachers in Canada, the researchers found that one subject area had a “modest effect” on teachers’ practices and procedures (2007). More specifically, they found that high school mathematics teachers emphasized cognitive skills, concepts inherent to the study of mathematics, rather than behavioral attributes including student effort, work habits, paying attention, and so forth (Duncan and Noonan, p. 10).

Advances in Reforming Practices and Procedures

Advocates for grading and assessment reforms have proposed the idea of assessment for learning as opposed to assessment of learning. Consequently, an examination of the role of formative assessment practices and its promotion in the overall assessment strategies of teachers has been the focus of such scholars as Stiggins (2002) and Guskey (2003). In addition, the use of alternative assessment practices including self-assessment and peer-assessment are gaining some traction amongst classroom practitioners (cf. MacMillan and Hearn, 2008).

Standards-based grading, a type of formative assessment (assessment for learning), has also gained momentum at the high school level. Iamarino describes it as a grading system in which “students are evaluated based on their proficiency in meeting a clearly-articulated set of course objectives” (2014). Set in opposition to “points-based” assessment practices which are summative in nature, Iamarino contends that standards-based grading and formative assessments empower students in order to have “the tools necessary to succeed in future assignments (Iamarino, p. 2).” Furthermore, Iamarino suggests that standards-based grading “not only holds students accountable to their progress, but eliminates the discrepancies implicit in attempting to turn point calculations into an accurate representation of a student’s achievements. (Iamarino, p. 2).”

As a classroom teacher who understands the busyness of the day-to-day life in a school community, Scriffiny (2008) moved to replace her points-based grading system with a standards-based system. She suggests seven reasons for moving towards standards-based grading system including: (1) grades should have meaning; (2) the need to challenge the status quo; (3) the ability for teachers to control grading practices; (4) the reduction of meaningless paperwork; (5) helpful in allowing teachers to adjust instruction; (6) allows students to understand what quality looks like; and (7) a “launch pad” toward other reforms.

Concerning the notion that grades “should have meaning,” Scriffiny was hard pressed to “describe the qualitative difference between an A, B, C, D, or F.” (Scriffiny, p. 71). She sought clarity by clearly articulating qualitative indicators attached to each grade symbol.

With regard to the idea of “needing to challenge the status quo,” Scriffiny recognized that her students were good at “playing school” but learned very little actual content. As such, she made the significant move to relinquish the grading of homework. Since homework is a type of formative practice, one could make the argument that it is invalid to include homework as an indicator of achievement much like sports team practices “count” in the sense that these can improve players and that players should work hard at practice, it is the actual match or game that “counts” in the standings. Scriffiny, however, does provide “systematic and extensive feedback on assignments” in order to send “students the message that they can and should do homework as practice” (Scriffiny, p. 72).

On “controlling grading practices,” Scriffiny suggests that incorporation of a standards-based grading system in a traditional points-based grade book system is still possible provided that the system is not “based on the inappropriate use of averages.” (p. 72) Here, one can question the use of the mean as an appropriate measure of central tendency. A way to get around this is to use a scale system that moves away from a traditional 100-point scale and perhaps takes into account 4 or 5 levels of achievement instead.

On the “reduction of paperwork,” Scriffiny does not “assess student mastery of any objective until (she is) confident that a reasonable number of students will score proficiently.” (p. 73) This is a form of “mastery grading” and ensures that all of the practice that has taken place will lead a student toward successfully achieving the objective.

Regarding the notion of “instruction adjustment,” Scriffiny proposes that student performance on assessments should also inform teachers about their pedagogical practice. (p. 73) While students are better informed about their understandings of concepts or attainment of skills, teachers are better equipped, through a standards-based grading system to understand how to meet the needs of students who do not meet their proficiency goals.

Concerning the idea of “quality,” Scriffiny agrees that learning how to “measure the quality of one’s own work is a learned skill” (Scriffiny, p. 73). Here, the idea of revision of past student work in order to meet high standards is a necessary condition for successful student achievement.

In a nod toward teacher self-assessment, the final reason Scriffiny puts forth which is the “launch pad toward other reforms.” (p. 74) Scriffiny realized that reforming her grading system meant simultaneously reexamining her curriculum. This meant articulating a clearer set of standards alongside precise levels of mastery for her courses.

Finally, she suggests these seven reasons are merely a starting point toward scrutinizing existing practices as a way of ensuring that students and parents are clearer about the meaning of grading and assessment.

Toward a Philosophical Rationale for Grading and Assessment

Campbell recommends a series of strategies that could form the basis for a philosophical rationale for grading and assessment: “(1) every final course grade should be based on content standards and academic achievement only; (2) the practice of assigning minimum grades should be implemented; (3) schools and districts should implement policy around the teaching practice of providing specific feedback to students; and (4) educators should share their understanding of the powerful effect of consistency, clear criterion, feedback, and extinguishing the gate-keeper mentality (Campbell, p. 33).” Alfie Kohn (1994) an advocate for constructivist practices in education, suggests five principles of assessment that educators should consider and that could also be used as the basis for a philosophical rationale for grading and assessment: (1) assessment should not be overdone; (2) evidence of student comprehension comes from the direct observation of student behavior rather than test scores; (3) schools must become safe and caring spaces; (4) the quality of curriculum is of paramount concern when considering assessment; and (5) student participation in the assessment criteria is of prime importance. Additionally, teachers are invited to consider: (1) using narrative feedback rather than letter or number grades for individual assignments; (2) exclusion of formative assessments in the grade calculation; (3) elimination of the use the curve; and (4) exclusion of non-academic factors such as effort or behavior (Kohn, p. 40). Taken together, it is possible for teachers to establish a philosophical rationale for grading and assessment that would form a foundation that would permit equity for students.

Conclusion and Mindscape Links

Without standard practices and procedures for grading and assessment, or an established philosophical rationale for the same, teachers may have difficulty ensuring student equity in learning. By extension, the possibility for increased student stress as a result of this lack of equity in learning may result. Furthermore, high quality work and achievement at high levels is attainable by all students. (Mindscape 1: Teaching and Learning for Equity and High Achievement.) At the same time, it is imperative that we balance high achievement with student health and wellness in ways that do not do harm to the well-being of those entrusted to the care of the learning community. By ensuring that teachers incorporate current research-based teaching practice designed to reduce school-related student stress into their work, then the school community is doing its part in supporting those students who are struggling. Acknowledging that 96 percent of DLSHS students are violating standards of academic and personal integrity through various forms of cheating, it is essential that these same practices, of which grading and assessment practices and policies are a large part, is integrated into the fabric of curricular course design and teacher pedagogical practice. (Mindscape 4: Ethical, Caring, and Reflective practice.)

References

Brookhart, S.M. (1993, Summer). Teachers’ Grading Practices: Meaning and Values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (2), 123-142.

Campbell, C. (2012). Learning-Centered Grading Practices. Leadership, May-June 2012, 30-33.

Canady, R.L., Hotchkiss, P.R. (1989). It’s A Good Score! Just A Bad Grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 68-71.

Challenge Success. (2014). Stanford Survey Of Adolescent School Experiences: De La Salle High School (Concord).

Duncan, C. R., Noonan, B. (2007). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Grading and Assessment Practices. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53 (1), 1-21.

Durm, M.W. (1993, Spring). An A Is Not An A Is Not An A: A History Of Grading. The Educational Forum, 57, 294-297.

Guskey, T.R. (2003). How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.

Iamarino, D.L. (2014). The Benefits Of Standards-Based Grading: A Critical Evaluation Of Modern Grading Practices. Current Issues In Education, 17(2), 1-10.

Jongsma, K.S. (1991, December). Rethinking Grading Practices. The Reading Teacher, 45(4), 318-320.

Kohn, A. (1994). Grading: The Issue Is Not How But Why. Educational Leadership, October 1994, 38-41.

MacMillan, J.H., Hearn, J. (2008, Fall). Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher Achievement. Educational Horizons, 40-49.

Probst, R.E. (1988). Response And Analysis: Teaching Literature In Junior And Senior High School. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Reeves, D.B. (2004, December). The Case Against The Zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325.

Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Assessment Crisis: The Absence Of Assessment For Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 758-765.

Western Association For Schools And Colleges. (2015). Ensuring Educational Excellence (E3) Self Study: De La Salle High School.