Grading Pupil Performance 4 страница

final grade when averaged with other assessments. Fairly simple and straightforward techniques are available for equalizing the influence of assessments with widely different spreads of scores (Gronlund, 1985). However, this is not a major problem with most classroom as­sessments, which generally are given in a similar format to the same group of pupils, cover the topics taught in instruction, and are scored in the same way. Under these conditions, the spread of scores will usu­ally be small enough that adjustments need not be made. Figure 8.6 shows that the differences between the highest and lowest score on the eight assessments used to determine a pupil's grade are 20 for the homework scores; 33 for the quiz score; 35, 35, 40, and 25 for the four unit tests; and 23 and 18 for the two projects. These ranges are similar enough in magnitude that the eight components can simply be added and averaged to determine an overall score.

Figure 8.6 shows the final average performance of each pupil across the assessment indicators Ms. Fogarty included in her social studies grades. The assessment indicators are weighted in the way she chose: homework and quizzes each make up one-eighth of the total score, unit tests make up one-half of the total score, and projects make up one-quarter of the total score. Consider J. Aston's scores in Figure 8.6. This pupil received a homework score of 85 because, following Ms. Fogarty's rule, this is the score that corre­sponded to the majority of the homework performances shown in Figure 8.5. J. Aston's quiz score is 88, based on the average of two quizzes rounded off to a whole number. The four test scores are as shown in Figure 8.5, except that 20 points have been added to test 3 as Ms. Fogarty decided. The two project grades are expressed in terms of the numerical equivalents Ms. Fogarty selected. Adding these scores gives a total score of 661, which, when divided by 8 (for the eight pieces of information that were combined) gives an aver­age performance of 83. The average for each pupil communicates what percentage of the content and behaviors taught in social stud­ies during the first marking period was achieved by each pupil. No­tice that this interpretation is only appropriate if the assessments are scored in terms of percentage mastery and if they are fair and representative samples of the things that were taught. Ms. Fogarty can now apply her performance standards to award pupils grades.

ASSIGNING GRADES TO PUPILS

When Ms. Fogarty first began thinking about grading in her class­room, she decided to assign grades based on a criterion-referenced approach because she felt that this approach gave each pupil a chance to get a good grade if he or she reached the performance

standard. She also decided to use plusses and minuses in her social studies grades, although she chose not to use them in her spelling grades. The performance standards Ms. Fogarty adopted were

A = 94 or higher

A -= 90 to 93 B + = 87 to 89 B = 84 to 86 B - = 80 to 83

C - = 70 to 73 D + = 67 to 69 D = 64 to 66 D - = 60 to 63 F = less than 60

C += 77 to 79 C = 74 to 76

This is a widely used criterion-referenced grading standard.

Looking at the overall semester averages as shown in Figure 8.6, Ms. Fogarty can apply her criterion-referenced performance standards to award grades. It is at this juncture that she is likely to consider pupils' nonacademic characteristics and think about things like this: "This child has worked so hard this marking period in spite of an unsettled home situation. It's amazing that she was able to focus on her school-work"; "There is so little positive reinforcement in this kid's life right now that low grades would absolutely crush him, even though his per­formance has been very poor"; and "This kid has so much going for her but just can't be bothered to expend the effort to do a good job in school. What a waste of ability. She needs to be shaken up."

Ms. Fogarty, like most teachers, is aware of her responsibility to grade pupils fairly, based primarily on their academic performance, but this does not make the grading process any easier for her. During grading, most teachers reflect on their pupils' characteristics and needs, as well as the possible effect of their grades on the pupils.

Kids are more than numbers. Each is special in his or her own way; spe­cial good and special bad, but special nonetheless. When I grade pupils I always want to add more than just the letter grade. I want to say "A, but for your own good, work up to the ability you have"; or "C—, but a re­markably good performance in light of your physical problems this term; don't be discouraged by this grade"; or "B, but if you keep slacking off the way you did in the last half of the term, you'll get a C or D next term." Grades say little about each pupil's special characteristics and needs.

I grade strictly by the numbers. I calculate each pupil's average and as­sign grades based strictly on that average. A 79.4 average is not an 80 av­erage, and a 79.4 average will get a C +. I disregard any information about the pupils except their semester average. This is the only way I can be fair to all pupils.

I calculate the averages based on tests and assignments just like the books say to. But when it comes time to assign the grade, I know I'm not grading an average, I'm grading a kid who I know and who spends time in my classroom every day. I know how the kid has behaved, how much ef­fort has been put into my class, and what effect a high or low grade will have on him or her. I know about the pressure the kid gets from parents and what reaction they will have to a particular grade. If I didn't know about these things, grading would be much easier.

So too will Ms. Fogarty look at each pupil's term average and think about the pupil's effort, motivation, cooperativeness, home situation, and behavior. She may raise a pupil's grade slightly if she thinks the pupil has shown improvement during the term and wants to encour­age her. She may raise a grade for a pupil who performed well all term except for one very low test score that the pupil got when his grandmother's death had upset him. Each teacher decides for him or herself how grading will be handled and what considerations will enter into each pupil's grade. This is appropriate, so long as the teacher bears in mind that the principal function of a grade is to convey a pu­pil's mastery of the subject matter taught.

When Ms. Fogarty used her performance standards and graded her class solely on the basis of their average on the assessments shown in Figure 8.6, her criterion-referenced grades were as follows.

Name	Average	Grade	Name	Average	Grade
Aston, J.		B-	Picardi, O.		B-
Babcock, W.		B	Ross, O.		A-
Cannata, T.		c	Sachar, S.		B-
Farmer, P.		A-	Saja, J.		B-
Foster, C.		B	Stamos, G.		c+
Gonzales, E.		c-	Whalen, W.		c-
Grodsky, F.		D	Yeh, T.		A
Martin, J.		B-

Notice that some pupils such as J. Aston and E. Gonzales are within 1 point of the performance standard for the next higher grade. It is for pupils who are close to reaching the next higher grade that teachers' judgments about nonacademic characteristics usually en­ter into grading.

It is relevant to reflect upon the many decisions that Ms. Fogarty had to make to arrive at this grade distribution. She had to decide whether to use a norm-referenced or a criterion-referenced grad­ing approach. Having selected the criterion-referenced approach, she had to decide what her performance standards would be for each grade she wished to assign. She had to decide on the kinds of assessment information that would be included when pupils' grades were determined. She had to decide what weight would be given to the different kinds of assessment information she wanted to use. Since some of the information she wished to include in the pupils' grades was expressed as percentage scores out of 100 and other information was expressed as checkmarks or project grades, Ms. Fogarty had to de­cide what percentage corresponded to each project grade or home­work checkmark. She had to decide whether to adjust any scores be­cause the test on which they were based was not completely valid for the instruction she provided. Finally, she had to decide whether the grade a pupil received based solely on the pupil's average academic performance would be altered slightly because of affective or personal characteristics of the pupils.

Each of these decisions represents a judgment Ms. Fogarty made by considering the characteristics of her class, her perception of her grading responsibilities, the quality of the assessment information she gathered, and the expectations of the school in which she teaches. Different teachers with different classes and in different schools would likely have made different decisions than Ms. Fogarty, but they all would have had to confront the same issues and decisions that Ms. Fogarty did.

To complete this example, consider how Ms. Fogarty would have assigned grades if she had chosen a norm-referenced grading ap­proach. In this case, she would have decided upon the grading curve she wished to implement; that is, she would have identified in advance the percentage of pupils whom she wanted to receive each grade. Sup­pose Ms. Fogarty decided that she wished to use a norm-referenced grading curve that gave the top 20 percent of the pupils an A, the next 20 percent a B, the next 40 percent a C, and the last 20 percent a D.

To assign grades using this norm-referenced curve, Ms. Fogarty must arrange the pupils from highest to lowest in terms of their av­erage score over the marking period. Recall that in a norm-referenced approach, the grade a pupil gets depends on how his or her perfor­mance compares to the performance of the rest of the class. The best way to compare performance is to rank pupils from highest to lowest in terms of their average scores. This ordering is shown below.

Name	Score	Name	Score
Yeh, T.		Saja, J.
Farmer, P.		Sachar, S.
Ross, O.		Stamos, G.
Foster, C.		Cannata, T.
Babcock, W.		Gonzales, E.
Aston, J.		Whalen, W.
Martin, J.		Grodsky, F.
Picardi, O.

The top 20 percent of the pupils will receive A grades. Since there are fifteen pupils in the class, 20 percent of the class is three pupils. Thus, T. Yen, P. Farmer, and O. Ross will receive A grades because they are the top three scorers in the class. Ms. Fogarty's grading curve called for the next 20 percent of her pupils to receive a B grade. Thus, the next three people in order of score, C. Foster, W. Babcock, and J. Aston, will receive B grades. The next 40 per­cent of the class will get C grades. This group of six pupils starts with J. Martin and ends with T. Cannata. Finally, the last 20 percent of the class, E. Gonzales, W. Whalen, and F. Grodsky, will receive D grades. In assigning grades by the norm-referenced approach it is important to bear in mind that two pupils who attain the same score must receive the same grade, regardless of the curve that has been selected. Notice the differences in the grade distributions under the norm-referenced and the criterion-referenced approaches. Remem­ber that these differences are mainly the result of decisions made about the grading curve or performance standards that are used.

OTHER METHODS OF REPORTING PUPIL PROGRESS

Grades, whether on individual classroom assignments or on report cards, are the most common way that pupils and their parents are kept informed of how things are going in the classroom. But grades are limited in the information they convey: they are given relatively infre­quently; they provide little specific information about how a pupil is performing; and they rarely include information about the teacher's perceptions of a pupil's effort, motivation, cooperation, and classroom demeanor. Because of these limitations, other approaches for report­ing pupils' school progress also are needed and used by teachers. Among these approaches are parent-teacher conferences, letters or phone calls to parents, and pupil-teacher conferences. Each of these forms of communication can provide supplementary information about a pupil's life in the classroom that grades often cannot provide.

The most widely used nongrading method of communicating about a pupil's performance in the classroom is the parent-teacher confer­ence. Most elementary schools require at least one face-to-face parent-teacher meeting. Many require or strongly recommend that parents and teachers meet twice a year, usually in the fall and spring. At the middle and high school levels, because pupils are older and teachers meet large numbers of pupils each day, required parent-teacher con­ferences are less common. Most middle and high schools have an open house night when parents can meet briefly with teachers, but this is not the same as the lengthy parent-teacher conferences that are com­mon in the elementary school. Of course, if a parent specifically requests a conference with a middle or high school teacher, it will be arranged.

GRADING PUPIL PERFORMANCE 351

Parent-teacher conferences permit two-way, multifaceted com­munication, unlike the one-way communication grades provide. Conferences permit discussion, elaboration, and explanation of pu­pil performance. The teacher can get information from the parents about their concerns and their perceptions of the child's school ex­perience. Information can also be obtained about special problems the pupil is having, from physical and emotional problems to prob­lems of classroom adjustment. Parents can inform the teacher of their concerns and ask questions about the pupil, his or her behav­ior in the classroom, and the curriculum being followed. Teachers who are at the last grade of elementary school or middle school, or at the end of nursery school, will often be asked by parents to recom­mend the type of school, teacher, or academic program that is most suitable for a pupil. Certainly a parent-teacher conference addresses a broader range of issues and concerns than a report card grade does.

It is natural for teachers to feel somewhat uneasy at the prospect of a conference with parents. The teacher will want the parents to like him or her, will not want a confrontational experience, and may have to tell parents some things about their child that they will not want to hear. Because the teacher will have certain things he or she wants the parents to know and because there is always an element of uncertainty about the way the conference will go, it is necessary that the teacher prepare in advance. In preparing, the teacher should have an agenda of the things he or she wants to cover. For example, most teachers will want to provide a description of the pupil's academic and social per­formance in the classroom. The teacher will also want to get answers to questions from the parents (e.g., "Does Robert act this way at home?" "What does he say about the work load in school?"). Certainly the teacher will want to give parents the opportunity to ask questions. Fi­nally, the teacher, in conjunction with the parents, will sometimes want to plan a course of action to help the pupil. Other items for a parent-teacher conference could be added, depending on the pupil's prob­lems and the parent's preconference requests.

Planning is necessary to accomplish this agenda (Gronlund, 1974; Sax, 1980). The teacher will want to gather samples of the pupil's work in class and remind him or herself of particular behavioral or attitudinal issues to raise. Specific examples of behavioral or attitudinal problems that occurred in class should be noted for de­scription to the parents. If there is a severe problem or potential problem, the teacher ought to look over the pupil's permanent record file in the school office to see whether the problem has been manifested in other grades or noticed by other teachers. All this needs to be done before the conference.

Finally, the teacher will want to locate a comfortable, private spot to hold the conference. Usually this means before or after school in the teacher's classroom, when pupils are not present. If this is the

352 CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT

case, provide suitable, adult-sized chairs for the parents. The au­thor is a veteran of many elementary school conferences in which the teacher sat comfortably behind his or her desk and the author was scrunched down in a primary-sized pupil chair, knees near his chin, trying to act dignified and carry on a productive conference. Conferences work better when they are private and undisturbed, and when all parties are comfortably situated.

The following tips can help the conference itself proceed success­fully (Gronlund, 1974; Sax, 1980). Set a proper tone. This means making parents feel welcome, maintaining a positive attitude, and remembering that a pupil is not "their" problem or "your" problem but a mutual problem. Find out what parents want to know or are concerned about before the conference if possible; this way you can prepare to answer their questions or concerns. Don't do all the talk­ing; use the opportunity to meet with parents to find out about cog­nitive or affective issues you want to bring out and discuss. Talk in terms parents will understand; avoid jargon, which often confuses rather than clarifies. Concrete examples help when explaining things to parents. Be frank with parents, but convey both the pupil's strengths and weaknesses. You will want to convey certain points to parents that you are sure they will take away from the conference. If you don't know the answer to a question, don't bluff. Say you don't know, and try to find out after the conference.

Don't talk about other pupils or colleagues by name or by impli­cation. Don't belittle colleagues or the principal in front of parents, no matter what your feelings. Don't say things like, "Last year's teacher did not prepare Rosalie well in math" or "Teachers get so little support for their ideas from the principal." Regardless of whether the statements are true, it is not professional to discuss such issues with parents. Do not compare a child to other pupils by name. Parents who observe a teacher comparing their child to an­other, named child wonder what the teacher tells other parents about their child in conferences. When parents ask how their child is doing in this marking term, do not open your marking book, place it in front of the parents, and show them their child's perfor­mances. When you do this, you also show parents the performances of other pupils, and this is none of the parents' business. Teachers are professionals and they have an obligation to act professionally. This means being truthful with parents, not demeaning colleagues in front of parents, concentrating discussion only on the parents' child, and not discussing information from the conference with other teachers.

If a course of remedial action seems appropriate for the pupil, plan the action jointly with the parents. Make both parties respon­sible for implementing the plan: "I will try to do these things with Charles in class, and you will try to do these other things with him at home." Finally, summarize the conference at the end before the parents leave. Review the main points and any decisions or courses of action that have been agreed upon.

Parent-teacher conferences can be very useful to a teacher and to parents if planned and conducted successfully. They allow the teacher to supplement his or her information about the pupil, and they allow the parents to obtain a broader understanding of their child's school performance. The main drawback of parent-teacher conferences is that they are time-consuming, although many school districts are beginning to include a conference day in the school cal­endar specifically set aside for parent conferencing.

Other, less commonly used methods to convey information about a pupil's school performance are letters or phone calls to parents and pupil-teacher conferences. Letters and phone calls to parents are used mainly to inform parents of a special problem that has occurred, and so are used quite infrequently by teachers. Regular written or phone communication between a teacher and a parent is very rare and occurs only if the parent specifically requests frequent progress reports and the teacher agrees to provide them. Certainly from a time efficiency viewpoint, phone calls are better than writing letters to parents. If a teacher does write to parents, it is extremely important that the letter be free of spelling and grammatical errors. Few things can create a poorer impression in a parent's mind than a misspelled, grammatically incorrect letter sent home by their child's teacher.

Some teachers, especially those in the upper elementary grades, hold informal pupil-teacher conferences at report card times. The rea­son that this practice is confined principally to the upper elementary grades is because it is felt that younger pupils will not benefit greatly from such conferences and because older pupils are graded by so many different teachers that conferences with each would be imprac­tical. The purpose of these conferences is for the teacher to go over the pupil's report card before he or she brings it home. The teacher will point out areas of strength and areas where more work is needed next term. The teacher will answer questions the pupils have about the grades. By doing this, the teacher conveys very specifically and help­fully what the report card means for that pupil. It also clearly indicates to the pupil the areas where improvement is needed. This type of pupil-teacher conference is time-consuming, but it allows the teacher to say things that grades alone can't convey, and it provides the pupil with a better understanding of his or her performance during the marking period.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

The objective of grading is to represent pupil achievement of cer­tain subject matter in a consistent and fair manner. Classroom teachers are in the best position to judge both how pupils have per­formed and what is fair for their classes. Grading is a judgmental process carried out by the teacher in order to convey information about a pupil's academic performance. There is no one best way to assign grades. Each teacher must consider the nature of his or her class, the subject matter being taught, and his or her beliefs about grading in order to devise a system for assigning grades.

There are two primary approaches to grading: norm-referenced and criterion-referenced. In the norm-referenced approach, a pupil's performance is compared to the performance of other pupils to de­termine a grade. Only a limited number of pupils can get each grade, and pupils who score higher than most other pupils receive the high grades. In the criterion-referenced approach, a pupil's performance is compared to a predetermined performance standard to determine a grade. In the criterion-referenced approach, there is no limit on the number of pupils who can receive a particular grade. Whether in the norm-referenced or the criterion-referenced approach, the standards set should be meaningful and realistically attainable by pupils; pupils ought to be able to meet the standards with effort and hard work. Older pupils should be told about the standards and the system used to award grades. Teachers should be consistent in their application of the standards and system, not telling pupils one thing about grading and then doing something different.

Subject matter grades should be based primarily on pupils' perfor­mance on content-related assessments such as tests, quizzes, home­work, projects, and reports. Effort, motivation, participation, or inter­est should not be a part of the subject matter grade. The importance of grades and the need to defend one's grades call for the use of for­mal, objective assessment information in determining a grade. It is bet­ter to include several types, rather than only one type, of assessment information in determining a grade, so long as the assessments used are related to subject matter mastery. The various types of assessment information can be weighted differently and summarized, with infor­mation perceived to be most important being weighted most heavily.

Whatever system of grading is used, it should be applied as uni­formly as possible across all pupils in the class. There should not be different grading approaches, assessment information, or weight­ings for different pupils in the class. A focus on academic perfor­mances and consistency in the application of the grading system are the keys to meaningful subject matter grading.

Grades are only as good as the assessment information they are based on. Invalid or inconsistent assessment information will produce invalid and inconsistent grades which convey little to interested par­ties. Care should be taken to ensure that the tests, quizzes, homework, and projects that grades are based on are well constructed, appropri­ate to the instruction pupils were provided, and scored objectively so that the grades based on them will be valid and reliable.

GRADING PUPIL PERFORMANCE 355

Grading is not an easy task for most teachers, involving as it does the need to make formal, permanent judgments about pupils who most teachers know in more than just an academic way. But grading is an important part of a teacher's responsibility and must be done. As such, it ought to be done in a way that conveys accurate infor­mation about a pupil's subject matter learning.

REFERENCES

Bartlett, L. (1987). Academic evaluation and student discipline don't mix: A critical review. Journal of Law and Education, 16(4), 155—165.

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on stu­dents. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Deutsch, M. (1979). Education and distributive justice: Some reflections on grading systems. American Psychologist, 34 391—401.

Ebel, R. E., and Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gronlund, N. E. (1974). Improving marking and reporting in classroom instruc­tion. New York: Macmillan.

Gronlund, N. E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Hills, J. R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Kubiszyn, T., and Borich, G. (1989). Marks and marking systems. In L. Ander­son (ed.), The effective teacher (pp. 365—369). New York: Random House.

Kunder, L. H., and Porwoll, P.J. (1977). Reporting pupil progress: Policies, procedures, and systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nitko, A. J. (1983). Educational tests and measurement. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Rosswork, S. G. (1977). Goal setting: The effects of an academic task with varying magnitudes of incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 710-715.

Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Simon, S. B., and Bellanca, J. A. (1976). Degrading the grading myths: Primer of alternatives to grades and marks. Washington, DC: Association for Su­pervision and Curriculum Development.

Stiggins, R. A., Frisbie, D. A., and Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Mea­surement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5—14.

Terwilliger, J. S. (1971). Assigning grades to students. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-28