Many aspects of grading reflect traditions that have been a part of education for over 150 years. Yet, no research exists demonstrating that grades positively contribute to the learning process.
Establishing grades arose from a need to rank and sort high school graduates so college admissions officers could more easily select candidates. Why? Between 1870 and 1910, the number of American public high schools exploded from 500 to 10,000. Think about that massive migration of adolescents and teenagers into schools--and that equally long line of high school graduates wanting to attend college. Unprecented growth. Colleges had no idea how to handle it.
The lingering problem is that the tradition is so ingrained (we are doing the heavy lifting for university admissions offices) that we likely couldn't imagine "school" any other way. Imagine parents learning that a school district might drop class ranking, the use of the GPA, or the designation of a valedictorian. Actually, some districts have made that change!
- More top districts drop class ranking (October 2016)
- The end of valedictorians? Schools rethink class ranking (June 2017)
So, Wormelli poses a simple question worth asking: Why do we assign grades and why do we record grades on report cards?
Wormelli notes that teachers often do not know why we assign grades beyond "we have to."
Typically, grading isn't discussed among teachers--and neither is our personal teaching or assessment philosophies (if we even have one to articulate). We do not talk about the hows and whys of grading--particularly in teacher training programs--yet we willing talk about the what we grade just fine. We tell parents Johnny did not do well on assessments x, y, and z but we struggle when conversations need to go deeper than the grades.
We are merely stuck in a cyclical chain of behaviors. Research continues to show that when it comes to grading, teachers tend to repeat what was done to them as students (Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993; Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Troug & Friedman, 1996).
Realistically, breaking the chain, or changing how we grade and assess, is about changing our core values.
Zeros on the 100 Point Scale
Most schools use a massive F-range from a 60 to 0 which puts teachers in a position to subconsciously ask, "do I give the lowest and most hurtful score within the F range?"
Wormelli asks, "Do we really need degrees or gradations of "F-titude?"
Rather, we should teach and grade in such a way that we "engender hope." When we put a zero in (in a 100 Point Scale) we are saying to that kid that there is no hope. A zero in a 100 Point Scale is six levels below failure. A child has to climb six levels up just to get even with absolute failure.
What if we gave the A the same level of influence? Imagine if 100 down to 40 equaled various distinctions of an A. We would never tolerate such an outlier. It would be absurd to even discuss!
To this point, Wormelli references the writing and work of Doug Reeves on the use of the zero. Reeves contends that the appropriate penalty for kids who do not do the work is helping them get the work done without the presence of a zero. A zero is unnecessary and does more long-term damage in exchange for short-term shock value.
Who are Grades For?
If our purpose for grades is to communicate to parents then is it really a teaching instrument?
If our purpose for grades is to communicate to the students then research proves that student-self assessment and spoken feedback with the teacher is the most effective on student growth. Neither have anything to do with grades...let alone a 100 Point Scale.
Furthermore, grades have proven to have the detrimental effect. If students do not hit "the score" they feel the pressure to hit, all kinds of bad things happen internally.
Kids give up.
Kids see little hope.
Kids see the grade a symbol that learning has stopped.
Furthermore, and even more entangling for us, according to Thomas Guskey (Wormelli references his research) "percentage grades are the most difficult to justify or defend from a procedural, practical, or ethical perspective." They are the worst predictor of achievement and it is a myth that we are more precise when using percentage grades.
Research studies since 1912 (Starch & Elliot) have proven that there is a greater likelihood of variation among the grades given by teachers--in all classes, not just traditionally subjective Language Arts courses--when using percentage grades. Yes, even math teachers fall into this trap. Starch & Elliot repeated the study in 1913 with geometry papers and Johnson and Rugg in 1918 across the grade levels. In 2011, the Starch & Elliot studies were replicated by Hunter Brimi and he even trained the teachers in a consistent method of assessment. In all cases, the results are the same. Specifically, in the Brimi study, among the seventy-three teachers who assessed the same papers, scores ranged from a 50 to a 96!
So why do we use percentage grades and weighted grades if there is no research in support of them?
Percentage and weighted grades were relatively rare until the 1980s when grading software and online grade books emerged. We use percentage grades because they exist in the technology we are made to use. An ordering of work becomes an ordering at work. Percentage grades are in the system because programmers put them there--sans pedagogy, sans evidence, sans research.
Slides from Wormelli's presentation: Standards-Based Assessment
Comments
Post a Comment