Table 1 Principles for Effective Grading |
|
|
Grading versus Assessment
Various modules in the Guidebook examine the special role of evaluation and assessment in higher education (4.1.2 Distinctions Between Assessment and Evaluation, 1.4.8 Mindset for Evaluation, and 4.1.3 Mindset for Assessment). Although grading is primarily an evaluative tool, many faculty overuse grading and try to make it an assessment tool by infusing it with coaching information (Walvoord & Anderson, 1998). When grading is not carefully conceived, faculty find themselves trapped between the role of judge and the role of coach. Assessment systems that include feedback on effort and performance can influence grades, but, when students receive grades, they need only enough justification that their grades are fair (3.1.3 Methodology for Creating a Quality Learning Environment). It is the unusual learner who has the ability to convert evaluation results into assessment feedback (1.4.9 Turning Evaluation into Assessment). In designing grading systems, faculty should strive for alignment with learning outcomes, consistency among different graders, and efficiency in reporting results (Huba & Freed, 1999).
Principles for Effective Grading
Many of the principles given in Overview of Evaluation (1.4.6) are relevant to grading. However, because grades are such a large part of student, parent, faculty, and administrator values, it is valuable to highlight a separate set of principles for effective grading and to apply these in crafting and validating course grading systems. These principles are given in Table 1.
Types of Grading Systems
Common grading systems are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. Categories are based on who makes the decisions about grading.
Faculty-Centered: Grading in this system relies on an individual relationship between the faculty member and each student in the course. The faculty member takes full responsibility for collecting assignments, grading student work, communicating results, and mediating complaints.
This type of system is complicated in team teaching situations, and it may not be possible to achieve grading consistency among multiple sections.
Collaborative: This system is similar to the faculty-centered system, except that in this case students carry some of the burden of grading course work. One way to implement peer grading is to develop checklists for students to use as they grade other students’ work (Walvoord, et al., 1998). Clearly, this will increase the students’ understanding of the course content as well as the grading process. Care should be taken to manage competitive behaviors between students and any student manipulation of the system to compromise important course outcomes. For example, students may focus on ways to persuade others that their grade should be higher, rather than focusing on elevating their understanding of the subject matter.
Contract Learning: In this system students and faculty negotiate the design and weighting of different elements in the grading system. This is often done by mutual agreement at the beginning of the course, and the negotiation process often generates deeper understanding of course expectations. Contracts can be on an individual basis or a class-wide basis. Ideally, learning contracts are formal documents that are signed by all parties involved. Some contracts may specify what the student needs to accomplish in order to attain a certain grade. Others may just specify the outcomes necessary to successfully complete the course. If a final letter grade is to be given, however, expectations for each letter grade should be included.
Tools for Grading
Common grading tools are discussed below and summarized in Table 3. Instructors may use just one or a combination of these tools in a single course.
Answer Key Tools: Answer key tools feature items in which students select a single answer from a set of choices. The most familiar examples in college classrooms are true-or-false and multiple-choice tests. With the advent of innovative computer systems, short answers can also be part of answer key systems when software is able to recognize certain correct or incorrect phrases in the answer. In large classes, this type of grading system is the only feasible choice. Unfortunately it is not a good system for evaluating higher levels of understanding. Selected response answers are best suited to knowledge of facts and simple concepts, often in isolation. Faculty members with large classes may want to consider using peer-grading activities to evaluate higher levels of understanding.
Criterion-Referenced Tools: Criterion-referenced tools feature criteria established by the instructor to identify levels of learning. The most common criterion-referenced tool is the rubric. Rubrics have become very popular in the last decade and are most often represented in a table that defines different performance levels in key aspects of the course (1.4.2 Fundamentals of Rubrics). Levels of performance can correspond to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) or can be defined using phrases such as “does not approach,” “minimally approaches,” “acceptable level,” and “exceeds expectations” (Arter & McTighe, 2001). An advantage of using rubrics is that they clearly define levels of learning, helping students visualize their performance on a continuum.
Subjective Determination: Experienced faculty members often have strong mental models of expected performance on a test, a paper, or presentation. They make a judgment about a performance task based on its alignment with their mental model. Essay tests and papers often fall into this category. Experienced instructors may just “know,” without extended, formal analysis, the quality of an answer or paper. One drawback of this model is the difficulty of ensuring consistency. Faculty who teach composition, for example, may find their impression of a paper affected by the papers graded immediately prior to that paper. If two or three previous papers have been extremely weak, a modestly good paper may look better than it really is.
Faculty may choose to develop a hybrid grading system that is a combination of the systems and tools described above. For example, homework may be evaluated by peers with a rubric, while essay exams are graded by the instructor, who relies on his or her knowledge of the subject and past experience to assign a grade. For a large class, most assignments and exams may be graded through an answer key system, but there may be a team project that is graded with a rubric. Hybrid models allow better matching of grading techniques to different course activities, but the variety can be confusing to students. To diffuse this, clear communication about grading is important at the start of the course.
Implementing a Grading System
Once the grading system has been determined, faculty need to consider different ways to calculate the final grade. As Walvoord and Anderson note, different methods of calculation reflect different value systems. For example, weighting different grading activities, such as giving greater weight to the final exam than to that for submitted homework, will affect how students will focus their efforts. Students who do poorly in one area or in a certain part of the course may benefit if they are allowed to earn points by selecting activities to meet course requirements from a list of approved options. When students are unhappy with mid-term grades, one can emphasize the more developmental nature of activities earlier in the course by offering to use the only the final examination grade.
Although most universities designate one grade reporting system (e.g., only A through F, no + or –) faculty can tabulate grades using different methods throughout the term. Walvoord and Anderson recommend selecting the least complicated grading scheme possible. For example, if pass/fail is sufficient, use it.
Early communication of the grading system is very important. It should be identified in the course syllabus, discussed in the first class period, and reinforced throughout the term. This is especially important if a hybrid system is used.
Many faculty are now grading in an online environment, which creates some new challenges, especially if the course management system includes a grade book. Instructors are commonly inclined to grade too many activities, such as every discussion item. However, when all discussions are graded, some students may be intimidated about asking what they see as “stupid” questions, fearing that this may lower their grade. In both online and traditional environments, clarity and simplicity are essential considerations in designing a grading system.
Concluding Thoughts
Along with instructional design and classroom facilitation, an instructor’s grading system is an important contributor to his or her reputation as a teacher. The audience for a course grading system is not only students, but also faculty peers and administrators. If properly used, course grading systems are valuable tools for communicating and reinforcing course expectations to everyone with a vested interest in a course. To be effective, they don’t need to be complex or time-consuming. Remember that a course grading system by itself can’t grow students’ knowledge or learning skills. Careful attention should be given to design and implementation of a course assessment system (Angelo & Cross, 1993) that works in consort with the course grading system to provide timely and meaningful feedback to students.
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Huba, M. F., & Freed, J. E. (1999). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Walvoord, B. E., Anderson, T. A., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
|
System |
Key Points |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Faculty-Centered |
Students complete assignments, primarily on their own, and submit them to a single faculty member. |
It is the most commonly used grading system. Students get feedback from one source. |
There may be a long delay between submission and feedback, depending on faculty workload It adds to faculty workload. |
|
Collaborative |
Students participate in peer grading and self-grading. It can involve some negotiation about scoring. |
Students are likely to take greater ownership of their learning. Students learn from being in an evaluative role. |
It adds to the student workload It may disadvantage students who are not social learners. Some students may try to manipulate the system in their favor. |
|
Contract Learning |
A faculty member and student discuss the expectations for the course and achieve consensus on course requirements and the relative weighting of grades. |
This method increases students’ understanding of course expectations. Some students are motivated to strive for a higher grade. |
This is very time consuming if done on a one-on-one basis. It may cause students to be too grade conscious. Some students may exert just enough effort to pass. |
|
Tool |
Key Points |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Answer Key Examples: True-or-False, Multiple Choice |
Each question has a correct answer. Students are forced to choose one among several possible answers. |
A large inventory of knowledge items can be examined using this method. It is ideally suited to lower levels of knowledge. Grading is easy. |
Students can choose correct answers by guessing. It is not well-suited to higher levels of understanding A large amount of effort may be required up-front to reverse engineer wrong answers. |
|
Criterion Referenced Example: rubric |
Faculty member creates criteria in developmental terms (using a taxonomy like Bloom’s) to identify levels of achievement |
Encourages and acknowledges deeper learning |
Time-consuming to develop and validate Less familiar to student |
|
Subjective Determination |
Faculty member has a mental model of quality performance. Evaluation is based on alignment with instructor’s mental model. |
Takes advantage of instructor experience and expertise. Easy to use; no preparation time required Can increase speed of grading |
Has a subjective element Consistency difficult to ensure Justification for grade can be unclear to student |