Research Brief Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium

TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT AND

GRADING PRACTICES: Phase 1

Introduction

A significant amount of recent literature has focused on classroom assessment and grading as essential aspects of effective teaching. There is an increased scrutiny of assessment as indicated by the popularity of performance assessment and portfolios, newly established national assessment competencies for teachers, and the interplay between learning, motivation, and assessment (Brookhart, 1993, 1994; Tittle, 1994). In Virginia, the Standards of Learning and associated tests highlight the importance of assessment in relation to accountability.

Previous research documents that teachers tend to award a "hodgepodge grade of attitude, effort, and achievement" (Brookhart, 1991, p. 36). It is also clear that teachers use a variety of assessment techniques, even if established measurement principles are often violated (Cross & Frary, 1996; Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993; Plake & Impara, 1993; and Stiggins & Conklin, 1992).

Assessment and grading continue to be a private activity, with considerable variation among teachers. While "newer" forms of assessment, such as performance-based and portfolio, are based on recent research on cognitive learning, the suggestions are based on theory and not empirical evidence. There are several studies which show that teachers engage in assessment and grading practices that are not consistent with what would be recommended by measurement "experts." While descriptions of grading practices are plentiful, there is little research on the relationship between grading practices and student motivation and achievement.

Research Questions

The purpose of the proposed research is to gather information from teachers regarding their assessment and grading practices to answer the following questions:

• What is the current state of assessment practice and grading by teachers?
• What assessment and grading topics do teachers identify as needs to be addressed in in-service?
• What is the relationship between assessment and grading practices and grades given to students?
• What are the relationships between grade level, and subject taught and assessment and grading practices?
• What are the reasons teachers give for their assessment and grading decision-making?
• What is the impact of the SOL tests on the extent to which different assessment techniques are used in the classroom?
• What classroom assessment and in-service needs do teachers have?

Methodology

Phase 1 included development and administration of a teacher questionnaire to survey teachers’ assessment and grading practices and in-service needs.

The population included the entire population of grade 3-5 regular elementary teachers and all middle and high school science, mathematics, social studies, and English teachers in the seven Richmond metropolitan school districts. Surveys were returned by 921 elementary, 597 middle and 850 high school teachers for a 62% return rate.

The surveys used closed-form items to assess the extent to which teachers emphasized different assessment and grading practices, as well as in-service needs. A six point scale, ranging from not at all to completely, was constructed to allow teachers to indicate usage. Separate questionnaires were developed for elementary and secondary levels. The stem for the items was:

To what extent were final first semester grades of students in your single class described above based on:

Findings

Elementary

For this group of teachers as a whole, there are a few factors that contribute very little, if anything, to grades, namely: disruptive student behavior, grade distributions of other teachers, performance compared to other students, school division policy grades, and extra credit for nonacademic performance. Also, a few factors clearly contribute most, ranging from "quite a bit" to "extensively": academic performance as opposed to other factors; performance compared to a set scale of percentage correct; and specific learning objectives mastered

The remaining factors contribute some: improvement of performance; student effort; ability levels of students; work habits and neatness; completion of homework; quality of completed homework; class participation and attention; inclusion of zeros in calculating grades; and effort, improvement, behavior and other "nontest" indicators for borderline cases

There is a fairly large standard deviation reported for these items, showing considerable variation in the extent to which the factors are used for grading.

The results show that teachers rely on a many different types of assessments. While objective assessments are used most frequently, performance assessments and projects are used almost as much in language arts. There is great reliance on assessments prepared by the teachers themselves, but also considerable use of assessments provided by publishers

Grades of A, B and C are most typically awarded by elementary teachers, comprising more than 70% of the total grades given. A grade of B is most typically awarded by teachers, accounting for approximately 32 to 35 % of total grades given .

Of highest need to teachers is training in the assessment of reading proficiency. Understanding and using the new SOL (Standards of Learning) tests was the second highest need of teachers. The assessment of reasoning and other "higher order" thinking skills, along with the assessment of writing skills, share the third place

Table 1 summarizes data that shows the variability of assessment and grading practices by comparing variability within schools to variability between schools. To calculate the average standard deviation within schools, the responses of teachers from the same school were used to derive a standard deviation score for that school for each item. A total of 105 standard deviations, one for each of 105 schools, were then averaged to result in within school variability. Between school variability was calculated by using the mean for each school, considering that as a single score, and then calculating the standard deviation of the means.

Table 1

Variation Within and Between Elementary Schools for Selected Items

(n=105 schools and teachers)

Question

Mean Variation Within

Mean Variation Between

% As awarded in math

16.2

10.4

Student effort – how much the student tried to learn

.92

.57

Assessments that measure student reasoning

.81

.42

Objective assessments

.97

.51

The chart in Figure 1 illustrates the frequency of mean percentage math As awarded between schools.

Figure 1

Between School Variability and As Awarded for Elementary Teachers

It shows that the percentage of math As awarded was 12 percent or less for thirty five ele-

mentary schools, while for 20 schools the percentage of math As awarded was 32 percent. This shows a large between school variation of the number of As awarded.

Prior to examining the relationships between subject (mathematics compared to language arts) and grade level (grades 3, 4, and 5), a factor analysis data reduction process was performed for each of the major categories of items (factors, types, and cognitive levels) for both mathematics and language arts. The factor analysis for items used in grading (factors) resulted in four major components: effort, ability, improvement, work habits, attention, and participation; homework;.

academic performance; and extra credit and for borderline cases. The factor analysis for types of assessments used resulted in three components for both mathematics and language arts: constructed-response assessment; objective assessments; and teacher-made tests. The factor analysis for cognitive levels showed high intercorrelation among the three items that suggested "higher order" knowledge and skills (understanding, reasoning, and application). The relationship analyses for subject matter and grade level found very few relationships or trends.

Secondary

Like elementary teachers, the same few items contribute little or nothing to grading, contribute the most to grading, and contribute some. Concerning types of assessments used, there is great reliance on assessments designed primarily by the teachers themselves, with relatively little reliance on those provided by publishers. Essay type questions are used only slightly less than objective tests, and there is considerable use of student projects and performance assessment by. However performance assessments appear to be used less by secondary teachers than elementary teachers.

Student understanding was rated highest, with a strong emphasis on both reasoning and application. Recall knowledge was used least. These results match what was found for elementary teachers. Several assessment topics were identified as a fairly strong need for in-service, including: using assessment during instruction; understanding and using SOL tests; assessing reasoning and other higher order thinking; and improving overall quality of classroom tests.

The grades of A and B are awarded to approximately 50% of the students in middle school, 36% in grades 9-11, and 48% in grade 12. The percentage of students receiving failing grades increases significantly in 9^th grade and declines during grades 10-12. Like elementary teachers, B grades are the most common awarded in grades 9 and 12, while C is most common in grades 10 and 11. Similar to the findings for elementary teachers, there is a large variation in secondary teachers’ assessment practices and grading

Like with elementary teachers, factor analysis was used to reduce the items to fewer, more meaningful, components. There were few clear trends or relationships between assessment and grading practices and grade level, subject matter, and cognitive level of the class. Teachers of advanced classes emphasize academic performance, constructed response assessments, major exams, and reasoning more than standard or basic classes, while basic classes emphasize homework and extra credit more than advanced classes.

Conclusions

The results of these analyses indicates that teachers use a variety of factors assessing and grading students, with different teachers weighting these factors in idiosyncratic ways. Two factors appear to have the greatest influence on determining grades, academic performance and achievement, and behaviors and traits that are related to performance, such as effort, ability, and participation, are important contributors to determining grades. There is great variation among teachers in how much different practices are used and the contribution of different factors to determine grades. Little of the variation can be explained by grade level, subject matter, or ability level of the class, suggesting that teachers may develop idiosyncratic practices based to only a small extent on grade level, subject or ability levels of the students. Most of the variation in practice occurs with factors that have a moderate influence on grades, such as effort, participation, homework, and improvement.

Teachers at all levels indicated significant needs for professional development in several assessment areas, including how to use assessment during instruction, improving the quality of classroom tests, understanding SOL tests and using SOL test results, assessing reasoning, and, for elementary teachers, assessing reading and writing.

At the high school level it appears that advanced and AP classes use more constructed response assessments and tend to focus more on reasoning and other higher order thinking skills. These teachers also emphasized academic performance more, assessments designed by themselves. Extra credit and zeros were used less. Only a small relationship was found between assessment and grading practices and grades awarded. There was a tendency for elementary teachers who used more assessments of reasoning and less objective items and homework, for middle school teachers who used constructed response items more, and high school teachers who assess recall knowledge to award more As.

Implications

The finding from this study suggest several implications for teachers, staff development, and administrators.

1. Considering the significant contribution for many teachers of factors such as effort, improvement, and participation, is it clear how these factors are incorporated? How do teachers monitor and "grade" effort? Also, is it acceptable, or desirable, to maintain the essentially private, idiosyncratic approach to assessment and grading that results in such wide variation? Would it be helpful to have discussions among teachers concerning the weight given to the performance-enabling factors and how they are documented?
2. Currently, constructed response assessments and assessments of reasoning and higher order thinking skills are used extensively. With the emphasis on sccountability tests it may be both interesting and informative to monitor the extent to which these kind of assessments are continued.
3. Teachers have indicated a need for further professional development on many assessment issues and techniques, which suggests that efforts to provide such training would be welcome.
4. A significant percentage of teachers use zeros in calculating grades. This is a sometimes contentious issue on which there is little consensus. It may be helpful to identify alternatives to including zeros in calculating grades and to explore whether district or school policies concerning this practice should be developed.
5. To what extent do teachers differentiate understanding from reasoning and other higher order skills? Further exploration of what is meant by recall knowledge may be helpful in bringing attention to the difference between knowing and understanding.
6. Given that assessment and grading practices are not well described by grade level, subject, or ability level of the students, what does influence these practices?

References

Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers' grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 279-301.

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 123-142.

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 35-36.

Frary, R.B., Cross, L.H. & Weber, L.J. (1993). Testing and grading practices and opinions of secondary teachers of academic subjects: Implications for instruction in measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 12(3), 23-30.

Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 10-25.

Stiggins, R. J. & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teacher’s hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment, Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Tittle, C. K. (1994). Toward an educational psychology of assessment for teaching and learning: Theories, contexts, and validation arguments. Educational Psychologist, 29, 149-162.

Top of page

Lift Assistive is a UsableNet product. Lift Assistive Main Page.