Chapter 4. Surveys of Teachers' Grading Practices and Perceptions

The term grading practices refers to the ways teachers use information from assessments and other sources of information to determine and report student grades, whether on papers, unit tests, or semester reports. The term teacher perceptions denotes the range of teacher thinking about grading and grading practices. Perceptions can include beliefs, attitudes, and understandings—ranging from awareness and recognition to deeper meaning—and can be characterized by having value and even emotional components. Because perceptions are more elusive than practices, they are more difficult to document. However, recent research shows why these perceptions are important for understanding grading practices.

What Significant Studies Have Been Conducted in This Area?

Studies of grading practices and perceptions have been conducted since at least the middle of the 20th century. In this chapter I briefly describe earlier research and more thoroughly review research conducted since 1994. Research on teacher grading practices can be traced to the early studies of grading reliability described in Chapter 1. Starting from this base, studies from the late 20th century were generally critical of teachers' practices. More recent studies have sought to understand teachers' thinking about grading instead of merely criticizing their grading practices.

What Questions Have Been Addressed in This Research?

Studies documenting teachers' varied grading practices grew out of early studies of grading reliability (see Chapter 1), which suggested that because standards for grading were different, any given grade did not have a common or agreed-upon meaning. This led to widespread concern and distrust about the role of teacher judgment in grading (Brookhart, 2013a, 2013b). Later reviews by Crooks (1933), Smith and Dobbin (1960), and Kirschenbaum, Napier, and Simon (1971) ushered in debates about whether grading should be norm-referenced (based on comparing students to one another) or criterion-referenced (based on comparing student work to standards). While high schools tended to stay with norm referencing to accommodate the need for ranking students for college admissions, some at the elementary school level transitioned to what was eventually called mastery learning and then standards-based education.

20th Century Research

Following a period of emphasis on classroom assessment in the 1980s, more systematic investigations of teachers' grading practices and perceptions about grading were published. Brookhart's (1994) review of 10 years of grading literature summarized the findings from 19 studies of teachers' grading practices, opinions, and beliefs. Eleven of the studies involved surveys of mostly high school teachers, ranging in sample size from 84 to 973. Surveys emphasized different aspects of grading. Some focused more on different types of assessments used in grading, whereas others asked teachers about the factors they used to determine grades (typically achievement, effort, improvement, and behavior). Five of the studies used individual and focus group interviews with small numbers of participants, two studies supplemented interviews with observation and document analysis, and two investigations were case studies (one with a single participant).

While the studies Brookhart reviewed were diverse with respect to grade level, location, method, and emphasis, she found five common themes:

1. Measures of academic achievement (e.g., tests, quizzes, papers) were the most important determinants of grades.
2. Teachers emphasized the need for fair grading. Fairness was enhanced by using multiple sources of information for grades, being clear about what was assessed and how it would be graded, and by being consistent.
3. It was clear in 12 of the studies that teachers included nonachievement factors to determine grades. These factors included ability, effort, improvement, completion of work, and other student behaviors.
4. There was strong evidence that grading practices were not consistent from one teacher to another, with respect to either purpose or the extent to which nonachievement factors were considered. It was evident that individual teachers emphasize different factors when grading students, reflecting different beliefs and values. Some teachers reported using mostly achievement with few nonachievement factors, while others mixed several factors together.
5. Grading practices tended to vary somewhat by grade level. Although limited by the relatively small number of studies at the elementary level, secondary teachers emphasized achievement products (such as tests) more, while elementary teachers used more informal evidence of learning along with achievement and performance assessments.

Brookhart's review shows that during this 10-year period, there were relatively few empirical studies of grading practices and perceptions. Although overall conclusions were consistent across location (different regions of the United States, England, and Canada), grade levels, and methodology, potential for generalization is limited due to study characteristics. For example, of four large-scale surveys, one was restricted to Virginia teachers, one to science teachers in Canada, and two to teachers in the Midwestern United States. Furthermore, different surveys were used in almost all the studies, making comparisons and syntheses of findings problematic. Nevertheless, Brookhart's review demonstrates that during this period there was an increasing interest in investigating grading practices, with conclusions largely replicating previous research. As Brookhart points out, these findings aligned with policymakers' increasingly intense distrust of teacher judgments about student accomplishments. This distrust was part of the reason for developing student accountability and teacher evaluation systems based on large-scale testing. The findings also align with a period of emphasizing performance-based and portfolio classroom assessment, which resulted in widespread reports of unreliability of teachers' subjective judgments about student work.

Late 20th and 21st Century Research

My search for studies of teachers' grading practices and perceptions identified 38 studies with original data published in scholarly sources between 1994 and 2016 (see Figure 4.1, pp. 90–94). This included 24 empirical studies that were not cited in a recent review (Brookhart, 2013a).

Figure 4.1. Studies of Teachers' Grading Practices and Perceptions

Teachers' Grading Practices. Most studies of teachers' grading practices focus on how teachers determine grades for their students. This was typically accomplished by asking teachers directly about how different factors contributed to final grades for a designated period of instruction (e.g., mid-semester, semester, or year).

In a generalization study of Frary, Cross, and Weber (1993), Cross and Frary (1999) reported that most of the 307 Virginia middle and high school teachers in their sample used "hodgepodge" grading, combining in different ways achievement, effort, behavior, improvement, and attitudes. Nearly 40 percent of the teachers agreed that student conduct and attitude should be considered in determining grades, especially for raising low grades. Cross and Frary extended previous research by asking teachers about actual as well as ideal grading practices, providing confirmation that teachers value the use of nonacademic factors—albeit individually, with little district or school policy as guidance.

McMillan (2001) surveyed 1,483 Virginia middle and high school teachers on the extent to which 19 different elements were used to determine grades. Analysis showed these elements grouped into four meaningful factors: (1) nonachievement items labeled as "academic enablers," including effort, ability, improvement, work habits, attention, and participation; (2) academic achievement based on learning objectives and standards; (3) "external comparisons," including grade distributions of other teachers and comparisons with other students; and (4) use of extra credit. These four components were replicated in a survey study of over 900 elementary students that also found homework to be a fifth significant factor (McMillan, Myran, & Workman, 2002). In these studies, the mean ratings of importance of contributions of the components showed that academic performance and academic enablers were by far the most important in determining grades. This finding was essentially replicated in a study of 513 Canadian secondary teachers (Duncan & Noonan, 2007). Also, the studies showed significant variation among teachers in the same school. That is, the weight teachers gave to separate factors differed greatly within a single elementary or secondary school. In a study of 513 elementary and secondary teachers, Guskey (2009) also reported significant variation among teachers, as did Guskey and Link (2017), using a sample of K–12 teachers from five school districts. The studies also replicated the finding of "hodgepodge" grading. Clearly, both achievement and nonachievement factors were combined to come up with final grades.

Other studies conducted with different grade levels also document the extent to which nonacademic factors are included in the determination of grades. Using the Teachers' Perceptions of Grading Practices Scale, Liu (2008b) showed that middle and high school teachers used several factors in grading. Although her sample was small, over 90 percent of the teachers reported using effort in grading, over 60 percent used student ability and attendance/participation, and over 40 percent used classroom behavior. Imperial (2011) used a carefully developed 63-item survey to ascertain grading purposes, practices, and values with 416 Catholic high school teachers from 33 California high schools. He found that approximately 50 percent indicated that grades represent only academic achievement, although 78 percent included homework (with 50 percent of those saying homework counted for 20 percent or more of grades), 57 percent effort, and 70 percent participation. This suggests that teachers' conceptions of "academic achievement," as indicated by grades, includes academic enablers (McMillan, 2001).

In a qualitative interview study of middle school English teachers, Yesbeck (2011) also found clear evidence of "hodgepodge" grading, as did Russell and Austin (2010) in their survey study of 352 secondary music teachers, Deshpande (2015) in a mixed methods study of 188 New York City public middle school teachers, and Guskey (2002) in his study of 94 elementary and 112 secondary teachers. McMillan and Lawson (2001) found that a sample of 213 secondary science teachers included a variety of factors in grading, including ability and effort. Svennberg, Meckbach, and Redelius (2014) interviewed physical education teachers about their grading practices and found that student motivation, confidence, and interaction with others were important grading criteria. Aronson (2008), in a study of 168 middle and high school teachers, also found that the vast majority considered effort in grades and also considered attendance to be an important factor.

Cizek, Fitzgerald, and Rachor (1996) used a survey with 143 elementary and secondary teachers. They found that teachers generally considered and incorporated both objective and subjective factors when assigning grades, synthesizing information to increase the likelihood of achieving high grades. They also found, as McMillan and colleagues (2002), Randall and Engelhard (2009), and Brookhart (1994) did, that high variability was common among teachers within the same school regarding the meaning and purpose of grades. In a focus group with eight teachers, Truog and Friedman (1996) further confirmed the prevalence of "hodgepodge" grading, which they explained as being due in part to a lack of awareness of grading policies and to individual teaching styles. McMillan and Nash (2000), in a qualitative study, found that teaching philosophy and judgments about what is best for student motivation and learning contribute to variability of grading practices, including how much emphasis is placed on effort. Randall and Engelhard (2010) also found that teacher beliefs about what best supports students are important in determining factors used for grading (especially nonacademic factors for borderline grades), as did Sun and Cheng (2013) with a sample of 350 Chinese secondary-level teachers.

In summary, studies of teachers' grading practices over the past 20 years have primarily used surveys to document how teachers use both achievement and nonachievement evidence (primarily effort) and their own professional judgment to determine grades. This finding has been demonstrated with few differences between grade levels and core subjects taught, showing considerable variation among teachers. Teachers grade students in noncore subjects differently, with greater weight placed on nonachievement factors.

Teacher Perceptions About Grading. There are relatively few studies that focus directly on teacher perceptions of grading (e.g., by asking about teachers' attitudes and values). The finding that teachers include effort and other nonachievement factors when determining grades suggests that these factors are perceived as important. However, since survey results are limited to what is asked, it is hard to draw definitive conclusions about perceptions and beliefs from studies of grading practices. The investigations I report in this section have studied perceptions directly.

Most of the research on teachers' perceptions focuses on what grading means, the reasons for how grading occurs, and the consequences of grading for students. These questions are based on a framework for thinking about the validity of measures developed by Messick (1989).

Sun and Cheng (2013) surveyed 162 secondary-level teachers, asking them to make grading decisions for three different student scenarios, varying students' effort, homework, achievement, improvement, and ability. They also asked the teachers to provide a rationale to explain their choices. The findings showed that teachers believed that good grades served as rewards for successfully completed work, based on effort and quality, completion of homework, and learning progress. The authors suggest that grades are useful for encouragement and attributing success to effort. Teachers also indicated that lower grades may be justified in cases of low effort or poor participation, and that strict, "hard" grading is appropriate for high achievers. This suggests that teachers valued different contributions of nonacademic factors based on variations in student characteristics. That is, "fair" grading is best accomplished, to some extent, by individualization, resulting in variability within classes of students as well as among teachers. Finally, teachers considered consequences—for other students, future success, and students' feelings of competence. The authors conclude that two themes were prevalent: (1) fair grading, and (2) grading in a manner that is beneficial to students. The results also imply that grading is done on an individual student basis, depending on the ability, effort, and participation of each student. The value of grading, then, is as a tool not only to record achievement but also to have a positive effect on motivation and other nonachievement outcomes. Grading is perceived to have value for students on an individual basis, and this is seen at least by some as a benefit rather than as problematic.

Fairness is also a theme in a study by Tierney and colleagues (2011), who examined 77 Canadian high school math teachers' grading in the context of standards-based education using survey and interview methods. Teachers stressed that grading should reflect fair assessment and instructional processes and be consistent with principles of standards-based education policies. Almost all agreed that grades should reflect achievement expectations, and 75 percent also thought grades should be based on improvement (self-referenced). Approximately 25 percent also thought it was appropriate to use norm-referenced information in grading. In contrast to previous studies in the United States, over 80 percent of teachers indicated that they did not consider attitude, motivation, or participation in determining grades. About a third of the teachers considered effort (usually for borderline cases), and many used participation and incomplete assignments. A unique contribution of this study is the inclusion of questions about how final semester grades were calculated. There were significant differences of opinion about whether certain assessments should be dropped, and some teachers were more concerned than others about such dimensions as accuracy and integrity.

Notably, and consistent with what Sun and Cheng (2013) report, teachers in Tierney and colleagues' study relied on their understanding of individual student circumstances and instructional experience to make professional judgments (most teachers relied on professional judgment in addition to a specific grading formula). Professional judgment is also reflected in a qualitative study of four Swedish physical education teachers (Svennberg et al., 2014), in which the researchers found that teachers clearly had some kind of "internalized" grading criteria that included motivation, knowledge and skills, self-confidence, and interaction with others in ways that would facilitate student learning. Hay and Macdonald (2008) replicated this finding with physical education teachers in Queensland, Australia. In contrast, Simon and colleagues (2010) report a case study of one high school math teacher who indicated that although standardized grading policy conflicted with his professional judgment, it had a significant impact on determining final grades. This reflects the impact of policy in Canada, an important contextual influence.

Guskey (2009) and Guskey and Link (2017) found that elementary and secondary teachers differed in their perspectives about the purposes of grading. Elementary teachers were more likely to view grading as a process of communication with students as well as parents and to differentiate grading for individual students. Secondary teachers believed that grading served a classroom control and management function, emphasizing student behavior and completion of work. Bonner and Chen (2009) also examined teachers' perceptions about grading, using a sample of 222 teacher candidates. They incorporated principles of effective grading reflected in the measurement literature with constructivist views of education to develop and pilot the Survey of Assessment Beliefs, which focused on perceptions rather than practice, for teachers at all grade levels. Using a series of scenarios depicting teachers' grading, the researchers found evidence for four factors: (1) raising grades based on nonachievement factors, (2) varying grades for effort and allowing students to obtain the highest grade possible, (3) using a variety of assessment types, and (4) managing student behavior. Interpretation of the results suggested that perceptions focused on equity, consistency, accuracy, and fairness; academic-enabling factors to obtain the highest grade; and the range of different types of evidence needed for grades. This study is unique in showing the influence of instructional style on teacher perceptions of grading. The researchers replicated their work using the same instrument in a later study (Chen & Bonner, 2017).

Grimes (2010) surveyed 199 middle school teachers' attitudes toward grading and found, consistent with other research, that teachers thought grades should represent both academic and nonacademic indicators. As expected, over 90 percent of the teachers agreed that grades need to indicate academic progress and mastery of content, but over 80 percent also thought grades should indicate effort and should be viewed as feedback to students. Over 70 percent of the teachers used grades to motivate students and agreed that homework and participation should be considered in grading. Grimes found few differences by subject, grade level, or student ability.

The development of the Teachers' Perceptions of Grading Practices Scale (Liu, 2008a; Liu et al., 2006) represents a promising effort to assess teachers' beliefs and attitudes about grading. The survey includes items about importance, usefulness, effort, ability, grading habits, and perceived self-efficacy of the grading process. The usefulness items are particularly relevant to perceptions, including items such as "Grading provides feedback to my students," "High grades can motivate students to learn," and "Grading can encourage good work by students." While only one study of 307 secondary teachers used this instrument to relate perceptions of grading to student motivation, the work demonstrates how research about teachers' grading can progress beyond a simple reporting of practices. Kebles (2016) adapted Liu's scale to assess secondary mathematics teachers' perceptions of grading. Although the sample was small (35 teachers), the results showed respondents varied in the amount of emphasis they gave to effort, improvement, and participation in determining grades.

Another promising approach has been reported by Wiley (2011). She has developed and piloted (with 15 teachers) the Wiley Grading Questionnaire, which includes grading vignettes using Brookhart's (1993) research protocol, survey items developed by McMillan (2001), and additional open-ended and forced-choice items. However, early results do not show the ability to capture the more comprehensive understanding of perceptions that probe beyond nonacademic and academic factors that determine grades.

The limited number of studies on teacher perceptions of grading, for which new instruments are being developed, provide some indication of the rationale behind varied grading practices. Several studies have successfully explored the bases for practices and show that teachers view grades as having fair, individualized, positive effects on students' learning and motivation (and to a lesser extent, classroom control).

Studies Based on Standards-Based Grading. A few studies have explored grading practices and perceptions within the context of standards-based rather than more traditional modes of grading (Adrian, 2012; Guskey et al., 2010; McMunn et al., 2003; Swan et al., 2014; Welsh & D'Agostino, 2009; Wiles, 2013). Overall, these studies suggest a trend in grading practices and beliefs that are congruent with the goals of standards-based grading, including more favorable views about reporting effort, behavior, and homework separately from achievement (Wiles, 2013).

Most of these studies examine teachers' grading beliefs in the context of professional development to move toward standards-based grading. Guskey and colleagues (2010) and Swan and colleagues (2014) produced two research reports that compare teachers' and parents' views of standards-based report cards. They showed that teachers receiving professional development viewed standards-based grades as providing somewhat higher-quality and clearer information about student achievement. Since the standards-based report cards used a rubric to indicate achievement and a separate rating for process goals such as preparation and homework, the results suggest that teachers find a standards-based approach that shows only achievement more effective. However, in these studies, teachers did not seem to understand completely the implications of the new approach for grading (Brookhart, 2013b).

McMunn and colleagues (2003) reported a case study of 241 elementary and secondary teachers who participated in professional development to enhance standards-based grading practices. Prior to training, teachers reported highly idiosyncratic grading practices within the same school, with over 50 percent including participation and homework. Following training, teachers indicated a greater understanding of the need to separate achievement from nonachievement factors, but their classroom practices did not reflect this change in belief. Adrian (2012) studied reasons 86 elementary teachers gave for grading and what should be included in grading as part of a professional development program. She found only 20 percent of the teachers thought that effort, behavior, and homework should be included in grades, and 88 percent thought that it was not appropriate to reduce grades for late assignments. Wiles (2013) found that while few grading beliefs changed due to professional development for 22 middle school teachers, 78 percent thought grades should represent understanding of predetermined educational standards, and most thought other factors should have a limited effect. Finally, Welsh and D'Agostino (2009) used a sample of 37 3rd and 5th grade teachers to explore how those using a standards-based approach to grading could be described according to what they termed appraisal style. Through a series of interviews, they came to the same conclusions as McMunn and colleagues (2003). Teachers understood the importance of grading only on achievement, but there was still great variability about the emphasis given to effort or progress. Similar findings were reported by Llosa (2008) in her summary of two studies that showed tension between grading based on growth for individual students and absolute standards. Webster (2011) used a mixed methods design with 42 teachers to report multiple purposes and inconsistent practices, with a clear desire to focus more on academic achievement as emphasized in standards-based education.

What Are the Implications of These Research Findings for Improvement in Grading Policy and Practice?

Research on teachers' grading practices and perspectives suggests several clear conclusions, some trends over time, and implications for practice and policy. With respect to conclusions, whether teachers' grading practices are described as varied, idiosyncratic, individualized, hodgepodge, mixed, diverse, or "kitchen sink" (see Cizek et al., 1996), the evidence shows that they continue to be highly variable. The empirical support for this conclusion is largely consistent over time—indeed, for over 100 years, across different subjects and all levels of teaching, and using different methodologies. It is a firm finding that probably does not need further documentation. According to Brookhart (2013a), "Teachers at all levels mix effort and behavior into their achievement grades, especially for lower achieving students. … The mixing of effort and behavior into grading practices is robust" (p. 269). Furthermore, we know that variability in practice occurs among teachers at the same school, and even within a single classroom. This dynamic is what now needs further investigation and greater understanding. Why do some teachers weigh some nonachievement factors more heavily than others? Why do teachers in some subjects use nonachievement factors more than teachers in other subjects do? Labeling these varied practices as "hodgepodge" suggests a haphazard mix, whereas the research shows that, on the contrary, grades are informed by what teachers believe is in the best interests of students.

It seems that grading practices, while varied, are best understood when teachers' views toward the purpose, meaning, value, and consequences on student learning and motivation are taken into consideration. That is, a teacher's perceptions about grading provide a rationale and explanation for how grading does much more than document learning—it is, rather, a key element in promoting learning and motivation. This dynamic suggests that a "one-size-fits-all" set of required grading guidelines for all teachers is not in the best interests of student learning, and also that teachers need to fully understand their reasons for using different factors in grading. This may be best accomplished by reflecting on the purposes of grading. A great stimulus for reflection is to use scenarios as case studies.

Beyond documenting academic achievement, what do grades represent? These beliefs need to be clearly articulated and then discussed with others. A collaborative approach to elucidating grading practices will enhance the validity of what is done and provide a stimulus for more in-depth understanding. Too often, teachers' grading is idiosyncratic and isolated, even within the same school. Planned discussions about grading with other teachers will have great value, providing shared insights and experiences that all will benefit from.

Fairness should be a part of these discussions. "Being fair" is clearly a concern of teachers, and there is a need for shared clarity and consistency about how fairness is interpreted. What is "fair" grading? What are some examples of different grading practices for students that are most fair to all students? How is fairness related to the purposes of grading?

Student effort, whether documented by participation, homework, behavior, completion of work, or other indicators, is clearly a key element of grading. Whether recorded separately or combined with achievement, effort is recognized by teachers as important to achievement and motivation. Standards-based grading has promoted separate reporting of effort, but progress is not widespread, especially in higher grades. Given recent advances in motivation theory and research, it would be helpful to conduct further studies that probe more deeply into how evaluation of effort as reflected in grading is used for motivation. Although it's clear that most teachers use effort in grading, it is not as clear how and why teachers identify, record, and use effort indicators. Teachers need to address and discuss what effort means and how it is used for grading and motivation (e.g., by suggesting a separate reporting of effort and debating the pros and cons of this approach).

Most teachers want to give students the highest grades possible. This dynamic, "pulling for students," explains why nonachievement, academic-enabling factors have been important in grading, especially the use of effort and improvement: they allow most students to be successful (Bonner, 2016). In this sense, grading may be individualized to some extent in the same classroom. This aspect of grading also needs discussion among teachers. Specifically, it would be helpful to provide a clear rationale for how "pulling for students" is operationalized to better assure fairness and consistency within and across classrooms. Under what circumstances should teachers individualize the weight given to different factors in their grading? Is it fair to bump a grade based on improvement for one student and consider effort for another? What guidelines and principles would help teachers more effectively incorporate nonacademic factors in their grading? These are all questions worth further consideration.

The research suggests some guidelines for grading "borderline" students. Because a grade must represent an accurate indication of student achievement, factors that may have negatively influenced performance (such as student illness) should be taken into consideration. For borderline cases, such grades should receive less weight than other assessments. For students exhibiting a clear learning progression, cumulative assessments should tip the balance toward a higher grade. A particularly egregious example of how grading is unfair in borderline cases is when a missed assignment is calculated as a zero. This is because the zero assumes no knowledge or proficiency and unduly skews the overall score in a negative direction. Finally, it is best to grade individual assignments and assessments more strictly and then bump semester grades higher for borderline students.

Teacher judgment is at the heart of grading and based on each teacher's unique teaching styles, values, and beliefs. While this leads to some level of inconsistency in grading, it probably enhances validity in the sense that variability results in more accurate grades that have a positive influence on learning and motivation. Teachers' professional judgments supplement more objective evidence, yet there is little research that probes the nature of these judgments to better understand how they are formed and supported. This suggests a need for policy that addresses these variations. For example, teachers can be asked to articulate how their values and beliefs about learning and motivation influence their grading practices. Currently, there seems to be an unspoken and unaddressed acceptance of varied practices, rather than a shared discourse about why a practice is used, how fair it is for all students, and how it relates to learning and motivation. Teachers should accept the need to make professional judgments, understand how they are made, and be comfortable in making them. High-quality grading is much more than crunching numbers! In fact, mindless number crunching is recognized as deleterious. Grading involves teachers' qualitative judgments about assignment and test difficulty and about the criteria used to evaluate students' work. Teachers should recognize and rely on these judgments.

The research suggests that grades are often viewed as a form of feedback to students. But is the feedback the teacher intends the feedback students hear? The meaning that students give to grades is what is most important. Teachers need to consult with students about how they interpret grades—what message students receive, what this suggests about their learning, and what the effect of the grade is on motivation.

Recent findings suggest that teachers believe idiosyncratic and individualized grading practices are helpful to students, and the use of "academic enablers" such as effort and participation reflect actual achievement. This perception seems to outweigh concerns about variability in grading. Just as assessment more broadly now emphasizes how tests can enhance as well as document student learning, grading may appropriately be applied by teachers in varied ways because doing so is in the best interests of students. Grading for learning may be as important as grading of learning when thinking about the purpose of grading and its consequences. Rather than denigrate "hodgepodge" grading, therefore, it may be more useful to better understand it and help teachers use both academic and nonacademic factors in ways that are well thought out, transparent, and fair, to improve student motivation and learning.

References

Adrian, C. A. (2012). Implementing standards-based grading: Elementary teachers' beliefs, practices and concerns (Doctoral dissertation). Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Retrieved from http://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/4090

Aronson, M. J. (2008). How teachers' perceptions in the areas of student behavior, attendance and student personality influence their grading practice (Doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, New York.

Bailey, M. (2012). The relationship between secondary school teacher perceptions of grading practices and teacher perceptions of student motivation (Doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, St. Louis.

Bonner, S. M. (2016). Teacher perceptions about assessment: Competing narratives. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 21–39). New York: Routledge.

Bonner, S. M., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Teacher candidates' perceptions about grading and constructivist teaching. Educational Assessment, 14(2), 57–77.

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Letter: Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 35–36.

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123–142.

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

Brookhart, S. M. (2013a). Grading. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 257–271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013b). The use of teacher judgment for summative assessment in the USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69–90.

Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., et al. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803–848.

Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment. New York: Routledge.

Chen, P. P., & Bonner, S. M. (2017). Teachers' beliefs about grading practices and a constructivist approach to teaching. Educational Assessment, 22(1), 18–34. doi:10.1080/10627197.2016.1271703

Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, J. M., & Rachor, R. A. (1996). Teachers' assessment practices: Preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159–179. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0302_3

Crooks, A. D. (1933). Marks and marking systems: A digest. The Journal of Educational Research, 27, 259–272.

Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 53–73.

Deshpande, A. (2015). Making the grade: Exploring the variability of grades and teacher beliefs about grading in New York City public middle schools (Doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York.

Duncan, R. C., & Noonan, B. (2007). Factors affecting teachers' grading and assessment practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1–21.

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 & Practice, 12(3), 23–30.

Grimes, T. V. (2010). Interpreting the meaning of grades: A descriptive analysis of middle school teachers' assessment and grading practices (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Perspectives on grading and reporting: Differences among teachers, students, and parents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ED464113)

Guskey, T. R. (2009). Bound by tradition: Teachers' views of crucial grading and reporting issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ED509342)

Guskey, T. R., & Link, L. J. (2017). Grades represent achievement and "something else": Analysis of the nonachievement factors teachers consider in determining students' grades. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.

Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., & Jung, L. A. (2010). Developing a statewide, standards-based student report card: A review of the Kentucky initiative. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. (ED509404)

Hay, P. J., & Macdonald, D. (2008). (Mis)appropriations of criterion- and standards-referenced assessment in a performance-based subject. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 153–168.

Imperial, P. (2011). Grading and reporting purposes and practices in Catholic secondary schools and grades' efficacy in accurately communicating student learning (Doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco. Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=diss

Kebles, K. E. (2016). What's in an A? A quantitative study on the grading perceptions of middle school and high school math teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Wilmington University, Wilmington, DE.

Kelly, F. J. (1914). Teachers' marks: Their variability and standardization. No. 66. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Kirschenbaum, H., Napier, R., & Simon, S. B. (1971). Wad-ja-get? The grading game in American education. New York: Hart Publishing.

Kunnath, J. P. (2016). A critical pedagogy perspective of the impact of school poverty level on the teacher grading decision-making process (Doctoral dissertation). California State University, Fresno, CA.

Liu, X. (2008a). Assessing measurement invariance of the teachers' perceptions of grading practices scale across cultures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

Liu, X. (2008b). Measuring teachers' perceptions of grading practices: Does school level make a difference? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

Liu, X., O'Connell, A. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2006). The initial validation of teachers' perceptions of grading practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Llosa, L. (2008). Building and supporting a validity argument for a standards-based classroom assessment of English proficiency based on teacher judgments. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 27(3), 32–42. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00126.x

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00055.x

McMillan, J. H., & Lawson, S. R. (2001). Secondary science teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. (ED450158)

McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 203–213. doi:10.1080/00220670209596593

McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000, April). Teacher classroom assessment and grading decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

McMunn, N., Schenck, P., & McColskey, W. (2003). Standards-based assessment, grading, and reporting in classrooms: Can district training and support change teacher practice? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ED 475763)

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council of Education and Macmillan.

Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2009). Differences between teachers' grading practices in elementary and middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 175–185.

Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). Examining the grading practices of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1372–1380. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.008

Rugg, H. O. (1918). Teachers' marks and the reconstruction of the marking system. The Elementary School Journal, 18(9), 701–719.

Russell, J. A., & Austin, J. R. (2010). Assessment practices of secondary music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(1), 37–54. doi:10.1177/0022429409360062

Simon, M., Tierney, R. D., Forgette-Giroux, R., Charland, J., Noonan, B., & Duncan, R. (2010). A secondary school teacher's description of the process of determining report card grades. McGill Journal of Education, 45(3), 535–554.

Smith, A. Z., & Dobbin, J. E. (1960). Marks and marking systems. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed.) (pp. 783–791). New York: Macmillan.

Starch, D., & Elliot, E. C. (1912). Reliability of the grading of high-school work in English. School Review, 20, 442–457.

Starch, D., & Elliot, E. C. (1913a). Reliability of grading work in mathematics. School Review, 21, 254–259.

Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1913b). Reliability of grading work in history. School Review, 21, 676–681.

Sun, Y., & Cheng, L. (2013). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values assigned. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 326–343. doi:10.1080/0969594.2013.768207

Svennberg, L., Meckbach, J., & Redelius, K. (2014). Exploring PE teachers' "gut feelings": An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers' internalised grading criteria. European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 199–214. doi:10.1177/1356336X13517437

Swan, G. M., Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2014). Parents' and teachers' perceptions of standards-based and traditional report cards. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 289–299.

Tierney, R. D., Simon, M., & Charland, J. (2011). Being fair: Teachers' interpretations of principles for standards-based grading. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 210–227.

Truog, A. L., & Friedman, S. J. (1996). Evaluating high school teachers' written grading policies from a measurement perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New York.

Webster, K. L. (2011). High school grading practices: Teacher leaders' reflections, insights, and recommendations (Doctoral dissertation). Lewis and Clark College, Edwardsville, IL. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/929134496

Welsh, M. E., & D'Agostino, J. (2009). Fostering consistency between standards-based grades and large-scale assessment results. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading (pp. 75–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Wiles, G. (2013). A quantitative study exploring grading and assessment practices in the middle school environment (Doctoral dissertation). Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID.

Wiley, C. R. (2011). Profiles of teacher grading practices: Integrating teacher beliefs, course criteria, and student characteristics (Doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/887719048

Yesbeck, D. M. (2011). Grading practices: Teachers' considerations of academic and non-academic factors (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.