1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
October 1994 | Volume 52 | Number 2
Reporting What Students Are Learning
Thomas R. Guskey
Although the debate over grading and reporting practices continues, today we know which practices benefit students and encourage learning.
Charged with leading a committee that would revise his school's grading and reporting system, Warren Middleton described his work this way:
The Committee On Grading was called upon to study grading procedures. At first, the task of investigating the literature seemed to be a rather hopeless one. What a mass and a mess it all was! Could order be brought out of such chaos? Could points of agreement among American educators concerning the perplexing grading problem actually be discovered? It was with considerable misgiving and trepidation that the work was finally begun.
Few educators today would consider the difficulties encountered by Middleton and his colleagues to be particularly surprising. In fact, most probably would sympathize with his lament. What they might find surprising, however, is that this report from the Committee on Grading was published in 1933!
The issues of grading and reporting on student learning have perplexed educators for the better part of this century. Yet despite all the debate and the multitude of studies, coming up with prescriptions for best practice seems as challenging today as it was for Middleton and his colleagues more than 60 years ago.
Although the debate over grading and reporting continues, today we know better which practices benefit students and encourage learning. Given the multitude of studies—and their often incongruous results—researchers do appear to agree on the following points:
When grading and reporting relate to learning criteria, teachers have a clearer picture of what students have learned. Students and teachers alike generally prefer this approach because it seems fairer (Kovas 1993). The types of learning criteria usually used for grading and reporting fall into three categories:
Teachers who base their grading and reporting procedures on learning criteria typically use some combination of the three types (Frary et al. 1993; Nava and Loyd 1992; Stiggins et al. 1989). Most researchers and measurement specialists, on the other hand, recommend using product criteria exclusively. They point out that the more process and progress criteria come into play, the more subjective and biased grades become (Ornstein 1994). How can a teacher know, for example, how difficult a task was for students or how hard they worked to complete it? If these criteria are included at all, most experts recommend they be reported separately (Stiggins 1994).
Despite years of research, there's no evidence to indicate that one grading or reporting method works best under all conditions, in all circumstances. But in developing practices that seek to be fair, equitable, and useful to students, parents, and teachers, educators can rely on two guidelines:
Averaging falls far short of providing an accurate description of what students have learned. For example, students often say, “I have to get a B on the final to pass this course.” Such a comment illustrates the inappropriateness of averaging. If a final examination is truly comprehensive and students' scores accurately reflect what they've learned, why should a B level of performance translate to a D for the course grade?
Any single measure of learning can be unreliable. Consequently, most researchers recommend using several indicators in determining students' grades or marks—and most teachers concur (Natriello 1987). Nevertheless, the key question remains, “What information provides the most accurate depiction of students' learning at this time?” In nearly all cases, the answer is “the most current information.” If students demonstrate that past assessment information doesn't accurately reflect their learning, new information must take its place. By continuing to rely on past assessment data, the grades can be misleading about a student's learning (Stiggins 1994).
Similarly, assigning a score of zero to work that is late, missed, or neglected doesn't accurately depict learning. Is the teacher certain the student has learned absolutely nothing, or is the zero assigned to punish students for not displaying appropriate responsibility (Canady and Hotchkiss 1989, Stiggins and Duke 1991)?
Further, a zero has a profound effect when combined with the practice of averaging. Students who receive a single zero have little chance of success because such an extreme score skews the average. That is why, for example, Olympic events such as gymnastics and ice skating eliminate the highest and lowest scores; otherwise, one judge could control the entire competition simply by giving extreme scores. An alternative is to use the median score rather than the average (Wright 1994), but use of the most current information remains the most defensible option.
The issues of grading and reporting on student learning continue to challenge educators today, just as they challenged Middleton and his colleagues in 1933. But today we know more than ever before about the complexities involved and how certain practices can influence teaching and learning.
What do educators need to develop grading and reporting practices that provide quality information about student learning? Nothing less than clear thinking, careful planning, excellent communication skills, and an overriding concern for the well being of students. Combining these skills with our current knowledge on effective practice will surely result in more efficient and more effective reporting.
Although student assessment has been a part of teaching and learning for centuries, grading is a relatively recent phenomenon. The ancient Greeks used assessments as formative, not evaluative, tools. Students demonstrated, usually orally, what they had learned, giving teachers a clear indication of which topics required more work or instruction.
In the United States, grading and reporting were virtually unknown before 1850. Back then, most schools grouped students of all ages and backgrounds together with one teacher. Few students went beyond the elementary education offered in these one-room schoolhouses. As the country grew—and as legislators passed compulsory attendance laws—the number and diversity of students increased. Schools began to group students in grades according to their age, and to try new ideas about curriculum and teaching methods. Here's a brief timeline of significant dates in the history of grading:
Late 1800s: Schools begin to issue progress evaluations. Teachers simply write down the skills that students have mastered; once students complete the requirements for one level, they can move to the next level.
Early 1900s: The number of public high schools in the United States increases dramatically. While elementary teachers continue using written descriptions to document student learning, high school teachers introduce percentages as a way to certify students' accomplishments in specific subject areas. Few educators question the gradual shift to percentage grading, which seems a natural by-product of the increased demands on high school teachers.
1912: Starch and Elliott publish a study that challenges percentage grades as reliable measures of student achievement. They base their findings on grades assigned to two papers written for a first-year English class in high school. Of the 142 teachers grading on a 0 to 100 scale, 15 percent give one paper a failing mark; 12 percent give the same paper a score of 90 or more. The other paper receives scores ranging from 50 to 97. Neatness, spelling, and punctuation influenced the scoring of many teachers, while others considered how well the paper communicated its message.
1913: Responding to critics—who argue that good writing is, by nature, a highly subjective judgment—Starch and Elliott repeat their study but use geometry papers. Even greater variations occur, with scores on one paper ranging from 28 to 95. Some teachers deducted points only for wrong answers, but others took neatness, form, and spelling into account.
1918: Teachers turn to grading scales with fewer and larger categories. One three-point scale, for example, uses the categories of Excellent, Average, and Poor. Another has five categories (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, and Failing) with the corresponding letters of A, B, C, D, and F (Johnson 1918, Rugg 1918).
1930s: Grading on the curve becomes increasingly popular as educators seek to minimize the subjective nature of scoring. This method rank orders students according to some measure of their performance or proficiency. The top percentage receives an A, the next percentage receives a B, and so on (Corey 1930). Some advocates (Davis 1930) even specify the precise percentage of students to be assigned each grade, such as 6-22-44-22-6.
Grading on the curve seems fair and equitable, given research suggesting that students' scores on tests of innate intelligence approximate a normal probability curve (Middleton 1933).
As the debate over grading and reporting intensifies, a number of schools abolish formal grades altogether (Chapman and Ashbaugh 1925) and return to using verbal descriptions of student achievement. Others advocate pass-fail systems that distinguish only between acceptable and failing work (Good 1937). Still others advocate a “mastery approach”: Once students have mastered a skill or content, they move to other areas of study (Heck 1938, Hill 1935).
1958: Ellis Page investigates how student learning is affected by grades and teachers' comments. In a now classic study, 74 secondary school teachers administer a test, and assign a numerical score and letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F to each student's paper. Next, teachers randomly divide the tests into three groups. Papers in the first group receive only the numerical score and letter grade. The second group, in addition to the score and grade, receive these standard comments: A—Excellent! B—Good work. Keep at it. C—Perhaps try to do still better? D—Let's bring this up. F—Let's raise this grade! For the third group, teachers mark the score and letter grade, and write individualized comments.
Page evaluates the effects of the comments by considering students' scores on the next test they take. Results show that students in the second group achieved significantly higher scores than those who received only a score and grade. The students who received individualized comments did even better. Page concludes that grades can have a beneficial effect on student learning, but only when accompanied by specific or individualized comments from the teacher.
—Thomas R. Guskey
Source : H. Kirschenbaum, S. B. Simon, and R. W. Napier, (1971), Wad-ja-get? The Grading Game in American Education, (New York: Hart).
Afflerbach, P., and R. B. Sammons. (1991). “Report Cards in Literacy Evaluation: Teachers' Training, Practices, and Values.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, Calif.
Austin, S., and R. McCann. (1992). “`Here's Another Arbitrary Grade for your Collection': A Statewide Study of Grading Policies.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Barnes, S. (1985). “A Study of Classroom Pupil Evaluation: The Missing Link in Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 36, 4: 46–49.
Bennett, R. E., R. L. Gottesman, D. A. Rock, and F. Cerullo. (1993). “Influence of Behavior Perceptions and Gender on Teachers' Judgments of Students' Academic Skill.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 85: 347–356.
Bishop, J. H. (1992). “Why U.S. Students Need Incentives to Learn.” Educational Leadership 49, 6: 15–18.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S., G. F. Madaus, and J. T. Hastings. (1981).Evaluation to Improve Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boothroyd, R. A., and R. F. McMorris. (1992). “What Do Teachers Know About Testing and How Did They Find Out?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
Brookhart, S. M. (1993). “Teachers' Grading Practices: Meaning and Values.” Journal of Educational Measurement 30, 2: 123–142.
Canady, R. L., and P. R. Hotchkiss. (1989). “It's a Good Score! Just a Bad Grade.” Phi Delta Kappan 71: 68–71.
Cangelosi, J. S. (1990). “Grading and Reporting Student Achievement.” In Designing Tests for Evaluating Student Achievement, pp. 196–213. New York: Longman.
Chapman, H. B., and E. J. Ashbaugh. (October 7, 1925). “Report Cards in American Cities.” Educational Research Bulletin 4: 289–310.
Chastain, K. (1990). Characteristics of Graded and Ungraded Compositions.” Modern Language Journal, 74, 1: 10–14.
Corey, S. M. (1930). “Use of the Normal Curve as a Basis for Assigning Grades in Small Classes.” School and Society 31: 514–516.
Davis, J. D. W. (1930). “Effect of the 6-22-44-22-6 Normal Curve System on Failures and Grade Values.” Journal of Educational Psychology 22: 636–640.
Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Feldmesser, R. A. (1971). “The Positive Functions of Grades.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Frary, R. B., L. H. Cross, and L. J. Weber. (1993). “Testing and Grading Practices and Opinions of Secondary Teachers of Academic Subjects: Implications for Instruction in Measurement.”Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 12, 3: 23–30.
Frisbie, D. A., and K. K. Waltman. (1992). “Developing a Personal Grading Plan.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 11, 3: 35–42.
Good, W. (1937). “Should Grades Be Abolished?”Education Digest 2, 4: 7–9.
Heck, A. O. (1938). “Contributions of Research to Classification, Promotion, Marking and Certification.” Reported inThe Science Movement in Education (Part II), Twenty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hill, G. E. (1935). “The Report Card in Present Practice.” Education Methods 15, 3: 115–131.
Hills, J. R. (1991). “Apathy Concerning Grading and Testing.” Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2: 540–545.
Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Endina, Minn.: Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., L. Skon, and R. T. Johnson. (1980). “Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Conditions on Children's Problem-Solving Performance.” American Educational Research Journal 17, 1: 83–93.
Johnson, R. H. (1918). “Educational Research and Statistics: The Coefficient Marking System.” School and Society 7, 181: 714–116.
Johnson, R. T., D. W. Johnson, and M. Tauer. (1979). “The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Students' Attitudes and Achievement.” Journal of Psychology 102: 191–198.
Kovas, M. A. (1993). “Make Your Grading Motivating: Keys to Performance-Based Evaluation.” Quill and Scroll 68, 1: 10–11.
Middleton, W. (1933). “Some General Trends in Grading Procedure.” Education 54, 1: 5–10.
Natriello, G. (1987). “The Impact of Evaluation Processes On Students.” Educational Psychologists 22: 155–175.
Nava, F. J. G., and B. H. Loyd. (1992). “An Investigation of Achievement and Nonachievement Criteria in Elementary and Secondary School Grading.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
O'Donnell, A., and A. E. Woolfolk. (1991). “Elementary and Secondary Teachers' Beliefs About Testing and Grading.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Ornstein, A. C. (1994). “Grading Practices and Policies: An Overview and Some Suggestions.” NASSP Bulletin 78, 559: 55–64.
Page, E. B. (1958). “Teacher Comments and Student Performance: A Seventy-Four Classroom Experiment in School Motivation.”Journal of Educational Psychology 49: 173–181.
Payne, D. A. (1974). The Assessment of Learning. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Rugg, H. O. (1918). “Teachers' Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System.” Elementary School Journal 18, 9: 701–719.
Selby, D., and S. Murphy. (1992). “Graded or Degraded: Perceptions of Letter-Grading for Mainstreamed Learning-Disabled Students.” British Columbia Journal of Special Education 16, 1: 92–104.
Starch, D., and E. C. Elliott. (1912). “Reliability of the Grading of High School Work in English.” School Review 20: 442–457.
Starch, D., and E. C. Elliott. (1913). “Reliability of the Grading of High School Work in Mathematics.” School Review 21: 254–259.
Stewart, L. G., and M. A. White. (1976). “Teacher Comments, Letter Grades, and Student Performance.” Journal of Educational Psychology 68, 4: 488–500.
Stiggins, R. J. (1994). “Communicating with Report Card Grades.” In Student-Centered Classroom Assessment, pp. 363–396. New York: Macmillan.
Stiggins, R. J., and D. L. Duke. (1991). “District Grading Policies and Their Potential Impact on At-risk Students.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Stiggins, R. J., D. A. Frisbie, and P. A. Griswold. (1989). “Inside High School Grading Practices: Building a Research Agenda.”Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 8, 2: 5–14.
Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1992). “The Effect of Training on the Appearance Bias of Holistic Essay Graders.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 26, 1: 24–29.
Wright, R. G. (1994). “Success for All: The Median Is the Key.” Phi Delta Kappan 75, 9: 723–725.
Thomas R. Guskey is Professor of Education Policy Studies and Evaluation, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.
Copyright © 1994 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.