Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | noah-booker |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 1 times |
KENI BRAYTON COX
FEBRUARY 16. 2011
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON
Cox, K. (In Press). Putting classroom grading on the table: A
reform in progress. American Secondary Education Journal.
1
Classroom Grades: ‘Keeping Hope Alive’
A boy named Manual2
Traditional Grading Practices3
Tendency to do to our students what was done to us (Graham, 2005)
Competitive, zero-sum game with grades used as leverage
System of rewards and punishmentsA “hodgepodge” of factors which may
differ considerably from teacher to teacher
Significance of the study4
Reform in grading lags behind other reforms necessary for standards-based practice.
(e.g., Guskey, 2009; McMillan, 2001; Stiggins, 2005)
Grades affect student motivation and sense of self efficacy (Brookhart, 2004; Carifo & Carey, 2009;DeLisle & Hargis, 2003; Reeves, 2004; Stiggins, 1999)
Ending the Cycle of Predictability5
Academic success and high school completion continue to be statistically predictable based on color, class and language.
Background6
18 month study of an urban secondary school district in reform (2006 – 2008)
Majority Hispanic >60% SED 20% English learners
Common assessments and course-alike data meetings previously institutionalized
Districtwide Initiative: Grading Reform
7
Purpose: To establish new norms for grading, norms to support the learning and improve the academic success of students at risk
Goal: To close the achievement gap by keeping hope alive while holding studentsaccountable
Motivation8
”hope and optimism in a given situation
and relative to a given problem have
been shown to be strong determiners
of both motivation and achievement”
(Carifo & Carey, 2009)
Accountability9
“We want to keep the hope there for the
kids…it’s hard to motivate them without hope
and they are looking for excuses not to do
anything.” (Al)
Reforms in Grading10
1.Consistency among course-alike teachers—
2.Acceptance of “late” work, no penalty
3.Minimum 50% F—elimination of the zero
4.Test-retake policy—permitting students to retake tests for full credit
Focus: Non- traditional Grading Practice
11
1. Grading practices of a group of classroom teachers – pioneers in grading reform
2. What they have to say about what they do and why
Focus: Practices and rationale of the “reformed graders”
12
Reported practices of high implementer focus group
Focus Group
Course Alike Agreement
Minimum 50%“F”
Test Retake Policy
Late Work Policy
7 Algebra ITeachers
“pioneers”
YES YES YES
Full Credit
YES
13
What they said
Consistency in Grading14
“Before …students would complain that if they got teacher A, they could get an A, but if they had teacher B, they’d only get a C…it wasn’t fair for the students. [Now] they’re pretty much going to end up getting a similar grade.” (Cal)
Consistency in Grading15
“Before, you might have felt you were giving a grade as to what you felt was important so it was teacher to teacher…but with common assessments there needs to be an agreement as to what we want the students to understand…”(Jesus)
On late work policy…16
“I realized I had given my kids a test and
some had done quite well [but] they had
really poor grades…because they weren’t
doing the busy work, the homework…I
asked myself, ‘what are my grades reflective
of?’ (Stan)
And..17
“We all make mistakes. You have more than one chance to learn.” (Al)
Rachel: “These are kids who are still building their confidence and figuring out like who they are…”
50% Minimum F18
“The thing is, we want to keep the hope there for the kid. It’s very important. It’s hard to motivate them to do anything without hope” (James)
50% Minimum F19
“Once a kid gives up, you can’t get through to them; they don’t come to school; they come late” (Jesus)
“It’s still an F, but it does give the kid the opportunity to get out of the basement and get a passing grade [in the class]” (Cal)
Another thing, 20
“It’s also hope for the teacher…when you have too many students who get an F, who are on the bottom, it’s pretty hard to motivate” (Jesus)
Re-testing21
“We know we can definitely drop the ball on certain topics and we don’t want our students to pay the price for that; and if there is something I totally misjudged or I assumed the kids would get quickly and they don’t, a retest is a fair opportunity to make up for that.” (Cynthia)
And,22
“Do I care when they learn it? NO. I just want them to learn it. For some kids it takes more time.” (Michelle)
“The assessment is really to help the kid to learn…testing without penalty.” (all)
The Rest of the Story23
Traditional graders also have a story to tell..
Equally passionate and committedBelieve they are doing the “right” thing
Implications24
Need to put “classroom grading on the table”
What is the purpose of grades? What should grades convey? To whom?
What should be the purpose and nature of schooling?
Limitations25
“Putting Classroom Grading on the Table: A Reform in Progress” – status check only
One district and 15 teachers within that district
Mathematics over represented
References26
Brookhart, S. (1994). Teacher grading: Practices and theory. Applied Measurement in Education.
7 (4), 279-301.
Brookhart, S. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in theory and practice.
Teacher College Record, 106(3), 429-456.
Carifio, J.& Carey, T. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy
recommendations. The High School Journal, 93(1), 23-37.
Crooks, T.J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of
Educational
Research, 58(4), 438-481.
DeLisle, R. & Hargis, J. ( 2003 ). The big fish. Education, 125(4), 702-705.
Docan, T.N. (2006)). Positive and negative incentives in the classroom: An analysis of grading
systems
and student motivation. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 21-40.
References (cont.)27
Graham, P. (2005) Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice
through preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607-621.
Guskey, T. R. (Ed.) (2009). Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based
grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McMillan, J.H. (2001) Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading
practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
1, 20-32.
Stiggins, R.J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path
to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4), 324-328.
Retrieved February 11 from Academic Search Premiere database.
28
Keni Brayton Cox, Ph.D.Assistant Professor,
Department of Educational Leadership
657 278 [email protected]