University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ASSESSING MEANING AND VALUE OF GRADING SYSTEMS 1

Assessing the Meaning and Value of Traditional Grading Systems: Teacher Practices and
Perspectives

By

Scott Neigel

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Scott Neigel

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I cannot express enough gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Stowe, for your ongoing support
and tutelage throughout this process. Your knowledge, steady demeanor, and sense of humor
made you a truly invaluable resource. You always knew when to push, when to pull, and when it
was time for a laugh. While the journey was arduous and glum at times, it was also fascinating
and enjoyable thanks to Dr. Stowe. I would also like to thank the other members of my
dissertation committee. Dr. Datta, my first professor in the OCL program, provided such a
tremendous foundation through superb teaching and a desire to help students grow. You were
alongside me at the first immersion to help me choose my topic, and were there for my defense
to see it through. Dr. Cash, you are a role model for administrators like me and others in the
program. Your relentless focus on helping students with the greatest needs is commendable and
an inspiration to all educators.
I am so fortunate to have a father who served both as a sounding board and an editor for
me throughout this process. Your knowledge and expertise were unbelievable and you always
had time to lend an ear or an eye, regardless of your other responsibilities. I truly could not have
done this without you. I must also acknowledge my mother, who always provided
encouragement, support, and love. Thanks Mom and Dad. I am so lucky to have you both.
I am so appreciative of all the members of Cohort Two. You are such an awesome group
and I have enjoyed getting to know each of you. I am especially grateful to my writing partner,
Jackii, who provided amazing feedback and support. You inspired me to fight on and your APA
skills are second to none!
Thank you to all my high school colleagues for your support and participation in this
project. I appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to help me complete this project.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
3

Most importantly, thank you to my wife and children. Carrie, you have been amazing
over the past two years balancing your new business endeavor, my doctoral program, and two
crazy little boys. Words cannot express how impressive you are or how much your support
meant to me throughout this experience. Henry and Nate, you are the best stress relievers a
father could hope for. The joy that you bring to life everyday has provided me with balance and
inspiration. Daddy does not have to “go to school” anymore, so let’s have some fun!

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 9
Organizational Context and Mission 10
Organizational Goal 11
Related Literature 11
Importance of the evaluation 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 17
Stakeholder Group for the Study 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 19
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 20

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 22
The Meaning of Final Grades 22
The Value of Assessment 25
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Theoretical Framework 28
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Factors 28
Knowledge and Skills 29
Motivation 35
Organization 39
Summary 46
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context 47

Chapter Three: Methodology 50
Participating Stakeholders 50
Sampling 51
Data Collection and Instrumentation 55
Credibility and Trustworthiness 60
Validity and Reliability 60
Ethics 61
Limitations and Delimitations 63

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 65
Overview of Purpose and Questions 65
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
5

Participating Stakeholders 65
Findings 68
Research Question One 68
Research Question Two 84
Summary 100

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations 102
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 102
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 116
Limitations and Delimitations 129
Future Research 130
Conclusion 132

References 134

Appendices 149
Appendix A: Survey Protocol 149
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol 156
Appendix C: Documents and Artifacts Protocol 158
Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research 159
Appendix E: Codebook 161
Appendix F: Survey Results 162
Appendix G: Initial Training Workshop Evaluation 180
Appendix H: Program Evaluation 182

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 17
Table 2. Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder Goal 30
Table 3. Motivational Influences on Stakeholder Goal 36
Table 4. Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal 40
Table 5. NJDOE AchieveNJ Teacher Evaluation Scale 53
Table 6. Focus Group Participant Information 54
Table 7. Focus Group Participant Information (Repeated) 67
Table 8. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 103
Table 9. Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 108
Table 10. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 110
Table 11. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 117
Table 12. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers 119
Table 13. Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors 120
Table 14. Components of Learning for the Program 124
Table 15. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 125
Table 16. Teacher Grading Practices Accountability Report Card 127

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework on the meaning and value of Grades 48
Figure 2. Participants in survey organized by content area 66
Figure 3. Participants in survey by years of teaching experience 66
Figure 4. Survey results for higher grades based on effort 73
Figure 5. Survey results for passing students based on effort 74
Figure 6. Survey results for percent of graded based on academic achievement 86
Figure 7. Survey results for helpfulness of formative assessment 90
Figure 8. Survey results for teacher comfort level with alternative assessments 91
Figure 9. Survey results for sufficient professional development on assessment 95
Figure 10. Survey results for frequency of collaboration on grading 96
Figure 11. Survey results for pressure by stakeholders to assign higher grades 98

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
8

ABSTRACT
This study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the meaning and value of
grades within a traditional grading system. Teachers’ grading and assessment practices were
examined in terms of clarity, consistency, and to what extent assessment guided instruction.
Teachers from a high-performing suburban high school in the Northeast responded to an
electronic survey and participated in focus groups regarding their grading and assessment
practices. Gradebooks were analyzed to triangulate teacher practices and perspectives regarding
the meaning of student grades. Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework was utilized to
assess knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on teachers’ grading and
assessment practices. The findings of this assessment revealed that teachers possessed
knowledge about assessment and the motivation to apply it, but faced organizational barriers
implementing effective practices in a traditional grading system. Responses indicated that
teachers understood and used formative assessment during class, but also included it in students’
grades to elicit effort and ensure sufficient graded assignments to justify student performance.
Organizational constructs such as marking periods and online grading systems, in addition to an
overall lack of organizational support and training, were found to be substantial obstacles to
teachers achieving the stakeholder and organizational goals. The findings of this study
emphasized the need for enhanced training, collaboration, and communication on grading and
assessment. The development and implementation of an effective plan to address these
organizational issues could shift schools from using traditional grading systems to rank and sort
students to assessment programs that promote student learning.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Problem of Practice

Traditional assessment practices used in secondary schools to determine final student
grades vary widely from teacher to teacher (Cross & Frary, 1999; Guskey, 2006a; McMillan,
2001). In a recent study examining over 100 years of research on grading, Brookhart et al.
(2016) concluded that grades represent a mixture of multiple achievement and nonachievement
factors. The study found that grades are not a pure achievement measure, but rather a
multidimensional measure that reflects both what students learn and how students act in school.
In the most recent comprehensive survey on high school grading practices (O’Connor, 2009),
The College Board (1998) found that 85% of schools reported teachers possessing significant
autonomy in establishing grading norms and procedures for students. Research studies of
teachers’ grading practices over the past 10 years have documented that grades represent myriad
elements, including student achievement, effort, behavior, engagement, and improvement (Allen,
2005; Brookhart, et al., 2016; Cheng & Sun, 2013; Guskey, 2006a; Imperial, 2011; Randall &
Engelhard, 2010; Zoeckler, 2007). This large variation in the meaning of grades among teachers
makes it difficult for students, parents, schools, and colleges to understand how the various
factors have been combined to communicate the student’s summative performance (Randall &
Engelhard, 2010). In traditional grading systems, teachers focus on the summative aspect of
grading, making sure to use various assessments to provide evidence of student learning when
assigning the student a grade for a unit of time (Dirksen, 2011; Heritage, 2007). When
assessments are used primarily to report on student achievement, teachers are losing
opportunities to use data as formative feedback that can impact instruction and positively affect
student-learning outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Heritage, 2007). Traditional grading systems
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
10

focus on the utility of grades rather than utilizing grading to enhance student learning (Muñoz &
Guskey, 2015). Assessment practices among teachers in a traditional grading system do not
prioritize student learning but rather produce student grades that have ambiguous meaning.
Organizational Context and Mission
Mountaintop High School (pseudonym) is the only high school in the Vealtown School
District (pseudonym). Mountaintop High School serves 850 students grades nine through twelve
from four surrounding towns located in rural, suburban settings. The mission of Mountaintop
High School is to prepare students for college and career readiness after graduation. The
Mountaintop High School staff is comprised of 90 professionals, including teachers, counselors,
nurses, child study team members, and a librarian. Seventy-two percent of the faculty possesses
advanced degrees in their fields. The student to teacher ratio at Mountaintop High School is 12:1
and each guidance counselor works with a caseload of about 210 students. The ethnic
breakdown of the students of Mountaintop is approximately seventy-five percent white, fifteen
percent Latino or Hispanic, seven percent Asian, and two percent African-American. Ninety-
four percent of the Class of 2016 went on to post-secondary institutions with eighty two percent
attending four-year institutions and twelve percent attending two-year schools. In the class of
2016, students excelled on Advanced Placement tests, SATs, and ACTs, and many students were
admitted to the most selective colleges in the United States.
Mountaintop utilizes a traditional grading system with letter grades ranging from A-F that
are accompanied by a percentage score. Teachers have significant autonomy in setting up their
gradebooks by assigning weights to various assignment categories in the student information
system, which then generates marking period, and then final, grades. There are few specific
written guidelines as to how teachers establish their grades and teachers possess the ultimate
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
11

authority in determining how a student’s final grade is constructed. These grades are combined
at the end of the school year to create an overall grade point average (GPA). The median
weighted GPA for the class of 2016 was a 3.62, on a scale where the top students’ GPA range
from 4.5 – 4.7. Twenty seven percent of students in the class of 2016 achieved a GPA higher
than 4.0. Students at Mountaintop are highly motivated and keenly focused on their grades as a
means to propel them to future success.
Organizational Goal
Mountaintop stresses the importance of student learning and academic excellence.
Students at Mountaintop High School are assessed by their content area teachers and assigned
year-end letter grades in each course. Teachers’ grading systems reflect a multitude of factors
and vary from teacher to teacher, especially across different content areas. Additionally,
teachers’ grading systems emphasize summative over formative assessment. By September
2018, Mountaintop High School will establish consistent standards for grading and assessment
that promote student learning. This goal is necessary to bring clarity to disparate grading
systems and to purposefully use assessments to drive instruction. To track progress toward the
goal, supervisors and administrators will work with teachers on how to align grading systems
with the standards as well as incorporate effective, research-based assessment practices in their
classrooms. Examples of these practices include enhanced use of formative assessment to
modify instruction and providing student feedback along with summative assessments to
effectively capture and communicate student learning.
Related Literature
This section provides a brief overview of the existing literature that supports the
existence of a problem with teacher grading practices. First, it will discuss empirical studies on
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
12

grading over the past 20 years that have focused on how teachers combine a variety of factors
into a single, final grade (Brookhart et al., 2016). The subsequent literature suggests a possible
explanation for why teachers’ grades include such a wide array of elements: that teachers base
their grading decisions on personal beliefs about how to best support and foster student success
(Randall & Engelhard, 2010). These beliefs can lead to teachers grading formative assessments
over the duration of a marking period to encourage student effort. This behavior is problematic
in that students are being assigned summative grades for practice efforts, rather than being
provided meaningful formative feedback (Vatterott, 2015). It is important to note that while
some of the research cited in Chapter One and Chapter Two is twenty to twenty-five years old, it
is still pertinent because of how little teacher grading practices have changed over the course of
that time. In Brookhart et al.’s (2016) study of over 100 years of grading research, the authors
notedd that the majority of studies since Brookhart’s (1994) review revealed similar findings
regarding teachers’ grading practices.
Teachers frequently include factors other than academic achievement, such as effort, to
determine student grades. It is evident through a perusal of teachers’ gradebooks that many
teachers assign a “hodgepodge grade of attitude, effort, and achievement” (Brookhart, 1991, p.
36). McMillan’s (2001) study of 1483 Virginia teachers’ grading practices revealed several
factors that were used to determine grades: student achievement, academic indicators such as
effort, potential, and improvement, and extra credit. In a survey conducted by Cross and Frary
(1999), 81% of teachers agreed that outside factors such as attitude, effort, and behavior ought to
be considered in a separate manner from academic achievement. However, 25% of teachers in
the same survey admitted to awarding students higher grades frequently due to high levels of
effort (Cross & Frary, 1999). Cheng and Sun’s (2013) study of 350 Chinese secondary school
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
13

English language teachers found that particular weighting was given to effort in teacher grading
systems. Effort can be rewarded explicitly through a teacher improving a grade or implicitly
through homework or class participation (Randall & Engelhard, 2010). While homework as a
means to reward effort or completion was examined in this study, the value of homework as a
practice was not explored in depth. Some researchers cautioned teacher over-reliance on effort
in grading systems, suggesting that it could give students a false sense of competence or a belief
that they are being rewarded for trying, not actually achieving the goal (McMillan & Nash,
2000). Despite educational measurement specialists’ ongoing advocacy against including effort
in student grades, it is a common practice among teachers (Blount, 1997; Cheng & Sun, 2013;
McMillan, 2001; Randall & Engelhard, 2010). Effort, attitude, and other academic enablers are
even more likely to be considered when a student is unsuccessful in a course (Brookhart, 1993).
Teachers often struggle with the integrity of the grading process because they understand
the significant implications that grades play in students’ lives. Most teachers are cognizant that
academic achievement should be the only factor reflected in student grades, but fear that the
social consequences of such grades would be far too detrimental to students (Brookhart, 1993;
Guskey, 2006a; Randall & Engelhard, 2010). Teachers understand that much of a young
person’s self-esteem and self-worth is derived from the types of grades he or she receives in
school (Guskey, 2006a; Randall & Engelhard, 2010; Stanley & Baines, 2004). McMillan (2001)
asserted that it is natural for teachers to want their students to be and feel successful, so teachers
utilize grading practices that produce good marks. In two studies where teachers were given
scenarios of hypothetical student grade situations, teachers stated that they would pass students
who were failing if the student made the effort (Brookhart, 1993; Cross & Frary, 1996). While
some teachers might not arbitrarily raise the grade, McMillan (2001) suggested that teachers
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
14

often provide extra credit related to academic performance when students were on the borderline.
In addition to effort, attitude and character are sometimes considered with borderline students,
especially when the student is in danger of failing (Zoeckler, 2007). According to Brookhart
(1993), “If a teacher’s first priority is to be an advocate for the student, concern about
consequences to students may be expected to have more influence on grading practices than
concern about interpretability” (p. 140). This idea has led to some educational theorists to
suggest that there is an inherent conflict of interest for a teacher to both instruct and assess
students, or in other terms, serve as both coach and judge (Bishop, 1992). As an advocate for
students, teachers feel they are acting in the students’ perceived best interest by considering
encouragement and improvement in the grading process (Cheng & Sun, 2013). While it is
certainly part of a teacher’s responsibility to motivate students and reward perseverance, Guskey
(2006) suggested that teachers can report on improvement and effort through a separate
mechanism that does not impact the final grade.
Despite recent emphasis on the importance of assessment practices, a student’s
educational performance is still typically reported with grades or giving marks (Cizek,
Fitzgerald, & Rachor, 1995). The use of summative assessments solely to generate student
grades leads to a focus on performance and competition between pupils rather than an emphasis
on the learning process (Atjonen, 2014; Morrison, 2003). This concentration on grades
encourages students to compare themselves against their peers, instead of identifying areas for
personal improvement (Atjonen, 2014; Morrison, 2003). In Blount’s (1997) study of practicing
teachers, the prevailing explanation for the purpose of grades was to show how a student is
progressing in the class. However, when using a traditional grading system in the form of letters
or percentages, no matter whether the grade is good or bad, it is often unclear to the learner what
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
15

components of their work were strong or weak (Atjonen, 2014). If grades are intended to be
used as effective feedback for student performance, then they must be used to alter the gap
between performance levels (Ramaprasad, 1983; Sadler, 1989). However, this is not what is
occurring in most schools as teachers tend to overemphasize the grading function of assessment
while underutilizing formative assessment and the feedback process to enhance student learning
(Black & Wiliam, 1998). The use of traditional summative assessments to create final grades for
students eliminates a valuable opportunity to use assessment to improve instruction and
consequently, student learning.
Importance of the Evaluation
The problem of assessment practices devoid of meaning and value is important to address
for several reasons. In a young student’s life, the grades that he or she receives in school are one
of the most significant measures of success and play a large role in determining potential college
and career options for students. Representatives from colleges across the country describe how
important grades are on a high school transcript, both for admission and scholarship purposes
(Williford, 2009). Interpreting those grades, however, without a context for how the number or
letter was derived, remains a challenging proposition for universities and colleges (The College
Board, 1998).
In recent years, opponents of the traditional multi-factor grading practices have begun to
suggest alternate means for communicating student achievement on report cards. Guskey (2006)
suggested reporting product, process, and progress marks separately on a report card to give
colleges a more developed view of student learning. Gentile and Lalley (2009) advocated for the
use of standards-based grading where teachers report mastery of standards. Regardless of the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
16

approach to the solution, the problem of unclear assessment practices needs to be addressed
before grades are entirely disregarded as a meaningful communicator of student achievement.
Additionally, researched-based teacher assessment practices have the potential to
substantially enhance student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). When classroom assessments
are only summative in nature and used mainly to develop a final grade, teachers are missing an
opportunity to use assessments and feedback to drive instruction (Dirksen, 2011; Heritage,
2007). If teachers can utilize assessment practices to identify gaps in student learning, they will
be more successful in adjusting instruction and helping students increase achievement (Heritage,
2007; Underwood & Burns, 2014). However, if teachers continue to take the traditional grading
system for granted, assessment practices will remain unchanged (Morrison, 2003) and students
will miss out on valuable feedback for potential growth (Boston, 2002).
This study helped Mountaintop High School assess the grading practices of teachers
within the organization as to the meaning of grades and the value they added to student learning.
It identified gaps in performance within the organization that could be addressed through future
collaborative efforts surrounding assessment. Furthermore, it provided valuable information
about where those efforts are necessary and how to develop, implement, and evaluate a plan to
address longstanding concerns about traditional grading systems. If the study leads to the
achievement of the organizational goal of consistent grading systems that promote student
learning, the impact on Mountaintop and its stakeholders would be tremendously positive.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholders at Mountaintop High School include students, parents, teachers and
administrators. Students are the stakeholders that are directly impacted by the grading process,
however, they tend to be concerned mostly with the grade itself as opposed to the efficacy of the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
17

process. Likewise, parents have a vested interest in their students’ grades as they view them as
the gateway to future success and are willing to overlook ineffective practices if the result is a
high grade. While students and parents are pivotal stakeholders, this study will only focus on the
roles teachers and administrators play in establishing assessment practices. For purposes of this
study, teachers are the most important stakeholder group because they typically possess the
ultimate authority on how students are assessed and graded. School and district level
administrators are generally responsible for ensuring consistency and effectiveness of grading
systems among teaching staff, specifically within the departments that they directly supervise.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1.
Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Mountaintop High School is to work together as a staff to improve the
collective ability to successfully prepare students for college and careers.
Organizational Performance Goal
By September 2018, Mountaintop High School will establish consistent standards for
grading and assessment that promote student learning.
Teachers Stakeholder Goal Administrators Stakeholder goal
By June 2019, 100% of teachers will work
with supervisors to create grading practices
that align with organizational standards and
that drive instruction.
By September 2018, 100% of
administrators will develop an action plan
for their respective departments to support
teachers in their revision of grading
systems to align with school standards.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The organizational goal of transforming the school’s assessment mechanisms will require
stakeholder buy-in at all levels. However, the most important group, and focus of this study, is
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
18

the Mountaintop High School teaching staff. The stakeholder goal is that by June 2019, 100% of
teachers will work with supervisors to create grading practices that align with organizational
standards and that drive instruction. Teachers at Mountaintop have significant autonomy in
developing their grading system, which can lead to inconsistent feedback to students on
academic performance. While it is necessary to maintain some teacher autonomy because of the
variance between academic departments at the secondary level, general assessment practices
need to be consistent school wide. Because all students have the right to a free and appropriate
public education, it is imperative that all teaching staff members are able to create grading
systems that are research-based, comprehensible, and provide valuable feedback to students.
Failure to do this will hinder the school’s ability to improve student academic performance and
potentially fail to prepare students for college and career readiness.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of the project was to evaluate the degree to which teachers at Mountaintop
High School utilize clear and consistent assessment practices to measure student achievement
and whether those practices promote student learning and drive instruction. The analysis will
focus on the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences that impact teacher
grading practices and perspectives. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, this analysis focused on teaching staff members at
Mountaintop High School.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. To what extent is Mountaintop High School meeting its goal of all teachers developing
clear and consistent assessment and grading practices that drive instruction?
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
19

2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving
the organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis was adapted to the evaluation model and
implemented as the conceptual framework. This method assists in explaining organizational
goals and clarifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within the
organization. The methodological framework was an explanatory sequential mixed method
design. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on Mountaintop High
School staff that impact Mountaintop’s ability to achieve its organizational goal were created
through personal knowledge and related literature. These influences were assessed through
surveys, focus groups, literature review, and document analysis. Research-based solutions are
proposed and assessed in a comprehensive manner.

Definitions of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure clarity and consistency of the terms used
throughout the study.
Assessment. The process of gathering information about students’ achievement or
behavior that a teacher uses to make decisions (Marzano, 2000; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
Formative Assessment. A judgment about the quality of students’ achievement made
while the students are still in the process of learning. This evaluation helps a teacher guide a
student’s next learning steps and provides valuable feedback to the student (Burden & Byrd,
2010; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
20

Grades. The numbers or letters reported at the end of a set period of time as a
summative statement of a student’s achievement (Marzano, 2000; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
Grading. The process of creating a letter grade A-F that sums up students’ academic
performance or achievement (Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
Standards-Based Grading System. A grading approach where students are evaluated
solely on their proficiency on well-defined course criteria. Students’ practice attempts at mastery
are not included in their final grade (Reeves, 2016; Vatterott, 2015).
Summative Assessment. Determination of the quality of students’ achievement when
the instructional process is completed (ie. at the end of a unit, marking period or course) (Burden
& Byrd, 2010; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
Traditional Grading System. The combining of various types of formative and
summative assessments to create a marking period grade that is either a percentage or letter
grade A-F (Burden & Byrd, 2010; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).

Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided the reader with an
overview of the key elements considered when evaluating the meaning and value of traditional
grading systems. It also introduced the organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as
the framework for the study. Chapter Two offers a review of the most important literature that
pertains to the phenomenon being studied. The history, purpose, and use of grades will be
addressed in this section. Chapter Two also details the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on teachers’ grading practices and beliefs. Chapter Three provides the
methodology of the study regarding selection of participants as well as data collection and
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
21

analysis. In Chapter Four, findings and analysis of the collected data are presented. Chapter
Five suggests solutions, driven by data and relevant literature that could potentially address the
identified gaps. Chapter Five also provides recommendations for how the solutions could be
effectively implemented and evaluated.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter Two outlines the literature that discusses how teachers use assessments and
grades to communicate student achievement. The chapter is broken into three sections: an
analysis of the traditional meaning of grades, a discussion of the value of formative evaluation,
and a gap analysis of teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on
grading. The first section focuses on how teachers have traditionally constructed students’
grades and the meaning of those grades while the second portion of the chapter will focus on the
potential value of using classroom assessment formatively to improve instruction. The chapter
concludes with an analysis of classroom assessment through the gap analysis framework that
examines the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on teachers’ use of grades.
The Meaning of Final Grades
Purpose of Grades in Historical Context
To understand the meaning of teachers’ grades, it is essential to first acknowledge that
grades serve administrative, informational, guidance, sorting and selecting, motivational,
instructional, and research purposes (Burden & Byrd, 2010; Guskey & Pollio, 2002; Marzano,
2000). Within each of these functions runs the common theme that grades are primarily intended
to communicate feedback about student achievement (Marzano, 2000). While this information is
utilized by students and parents to assess academic progress, it is also used by various
stakeholders to recommend academic or career paths, create course schedules, assess strength of
programs, and sort or select students for remedial or accelerated programs (Burden & Byrd,
2010). Given this wide array of functions, it is challenging for one grade to effectively achieve
all of these objectives (Guskey & Pollio, 2002), especially when grades often reflect factors other
than academic achievement (Allen, 2005). Despite the fact that grading is a nuanced,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
23

complicated, and scrutinized process in schools today, the accepted mechanism for teachers to
assign student grades has remained unchanged for over one hundred years (Vatterott, 2015).
Since the advent of education, feedback about student performance has been an important
part of a teacher’s responsibility. Prior to the late 1700s however, teachers provided this
information in a narrative form, indicating what areas a student had mastered and where there
was room for improvement (Guskey, 1994; Marzano, 2000). Narrative feedback continued until
the latter half of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century when compulsory
attendance laws created a massive increase in the number of public high schools in the United
States (Guskey, 1994). With almost 10,000 new schools and 11 million additional students,
secondary schools sought a more efficient alternative to assessing students through descriptive
reports (Vatterott, 2015). By this time, Yale University had begun categorizing student
performance into a four-point scale and Harvard University followed suit by classifying students
into six distinct percentage “divisions”. In 1897, Mount Holyoke College started using letter
grades from A – E with an adjective descriptor (Marzano, 2000; Vatterott, 2015). However,
most high schools in the early 1900s adopted percentage grading as the primary way to
communicate student performance (Guskey, 1994; Vatterott, 2015). Percentage grading
remained until the groundbreaking studies of Starch and Elliott (1912, 1913) revealed a wide
disparity in the teacher scoring of both English and Geometry exams. With student scores
ranging from 50 to 97 on the English exam and 28 to 95 on the Geometry exam, schools turned
to the letter grading scale, which had fewer and larger categories (Guskey, 1994; Vatterott,
2015). This use of letter grades continued through the twentieth century as documented by 91%
of schools reporting in 1998 that they were utilized an A-F grading scheme (The College Board,
1998). With the recent emergence of the standards movement, researchers have only just begun
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
24

to question and challenge the use of traditional grading systems (Schimmer, 2016). Much of the
latest criticism can be tied back to the same issues Starch and Elliott (1912, 1913) discovered,
that the meaning of teacher grades varies greatly from teacher to teacher.
Grade Variance by Teacher
It is readily evident to anyone who has spent time in a school setting that the meaning of
a grade for a course depends largely on the teacher. The College Board (1998) survey revealed
that 85% of schools nationwide reported that secondary teachers have significant autonomy in
establishing grading norms and procedures for students. While teacher grading will always
contain some level of subjectivity, the disparity of teacher judgment is significant and there is
little confidence in teachers’ ability to assess student achievement (Brookhart, 2013). Cizek et
al. (1995) noted that teacher assessment practices were highly variable and unpredictable
depending on characteristics such as practice setting, years of experience, grade level or
familiarity with assessment practices of school. Furthermore, the researchers asserted that
teachers utilize assessment policies that reflected their own individualistic values and beliefs
about teaching. Teachers often view grading as part of their larger philosophy of teaching and
learning that is centered on student needs (McMillan, 2001; McMillan 2003) and understand the
implications of their value-laden grading decisions in a larger sociocultural context (Cheng &
Sun, 2013). If one of the core values of teachers is that all students can succeed, it is
understandable why teachers structure their grading systems to promote student success (Randall
& Engelhard, 2010). This “success bias” or habit of pulling for students may help explain why
final grades frequently include extraneous factors beyond student achievement (Cizek et al.,
1995; McMillan, 2003). To what extent a teacher’s grades reflect that value, or other values or
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
25

beliefs, is unknown and is at the root of the problem in identifying the meaning of student
grades.
The Value of Assessment
A student’s final grade is typically comprised of a series of assessments created and
administered by the classroom teacher that are somehow combined to create a single letter or
number. One of the major reasons why student grades can have confounding meanings is that a
variety of assessments are merged to determine the final mark. Before analyzing the role that
these assessments play in determining grades, it is important to understand the difference
between formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment is used by teachers to
monitor student learning while it is in progress, to provide ongoing feedback to students (Burden
& Byrd, 2010; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011) and to modify the teaching and learning activities in
which students are engaged (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Teachers use summative assessments to
evaluate students’ performance after a set period of time and typically count them toward grades
for a marking period (Burden & Byrd, 2010; Nitko & Brookhart, 2011). Formative assessments
are intended as assessments for learning that are administered prior to summative assessments,
while there is still time for the student to improve (Vatterott, 2015).
Traditional Use of Summative Assessments
In traditional grading systems, teachers often view all assessments as summative
evaluation and factor them into the student’s final grade. Teachers combine formative evaluation
data with summative evaluation data to determine grades for a marking period or course. For
example, teachers confound achievement grades by treating practice tests, quizzes, and
homework as summative evaluation instead of rehearsal and therefore generate premature
measures of achievement (Burden & Byrd, 2010). In doing this, the inherent differences
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
26

between formative and summative assessments are confused in practice and assessment fails to
have a genuinely formative function in learning (Harlen & James, 1997). When descriptive
feedback is accompanied by a grade, students tend to focus on the evaluative judgment of their
performance rather than the teacher feedback meant to help improve student achievement
(Brookhart, 2008). Nitko and Brookhart (2011) recommended that teachers record formative
assessment scores, but not include them in letter grades or achievement progress. This use of
truly formative evaluation allows students to gain invaluable feedback and realize that they can
improve their learning through mistakes and failure (Vatterott, 2015).
Using Formative Assessment to Improve Instruction and Student Performance
Whereas summative assessments are used to communicate student achievement,
formative assessment can be used as an effective tool to improve instruction. When assessment
information is used for an instructional purpose, such as providing descriptive feedback, the
assessment becomes formative rather than just evaluative (Schimmer, 2016). Research on the
impact of feedback on achievement suggests that accurate, specific, and timely feedback
promotes student learning and growth in a way that grades cannot (Hattie, 2009; Marzano,
2010). Feedback encourages student metacognition about what they know and what they still
haven’t learned and helps students identify the next steps in learning. Grades alone do not elicit
this response in students (Schimmer, 2016). Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal research review
of 250 sources found that strengthening teacher practice of formative assessment produced
significant learning gains in students. The authors stressed the importance of student self-
assessment, checking for understanding, timely and specific feedback, and teachers adopting a
mindset that all students can learn. Despite Dunn and Mulvenon’s (2009) refutation of the effect
size in Black and Wiliam’s (1998) study, two later studies found a positive impact of formative
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
27

assessment on student achievement (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Araceli
Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2006). This combination of formative evaluation and feedback is one of
the most powerful tools that educators possess to improve student achievement (Reeves, 2016).
As Wiggins (1998) noted, “The aim of [formative] assessment is primarily to educate and
improve student performance, not merely to audit it” (p. 7). It is important for teachers to
understand the distinct differences between formative and summative assessment and how to
effectively and appropriately utilize classroom assessments.
Standards-Based Grading Systems
In standards-based grading systems, student performance is compared to explicit
standards rather than the performance of peers (Reeves, 2016). This use of a criterion-referenced
grading approach enables teachers to use grades to communicate solely student mastery of
learning standards (Marzano, 2000; Vatterott, 2015). Extraneous information such as effort,
attitude, completion scores, or behavior is not included and therefore, does not distort a student’s
grade (Schimmer, 2016; Vatterott, 2015). In standards-based grading systems, a student is not
penalized with grades while they are still learning. Practice assignments, such as homework, are
only used for feedback, which provides students multiple attempts at learning and many
opportunities to demonstrate proficiency or mastery of concepts (Vatterott, 2015). This process
is unique to each student, which allows for greater differentiation based on student needs (Miller,
2013). After each attempt at learning, the student gains valuable feedback from the teacher, and
is able to identify how they can move to the next level of learning (Reeves, 2016). Standards-
based assessment clarifies the meaning of grades by providing a more accurate depiction of
student learning and creating a clear link between curriculum and assessment (Muñoz & Guskey,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
28

2015; Vatterott, 2015). For schools to be able to achieve the goal of more effective assessment
practices, they must first identify potential gaps in performance.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Theoretical Framework

This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model as a theoretical
framework to examine the meaning and value of grades. Clark and Estes’ (2008) work provides
a structure to identify organizational goals and potential gaps for stakeholder performance.
Through the use of this model, the research is categorized into possible causes of the
performance gaps as well as potential solutions. This study identifies the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences that impact teachers’ ability to create clear,
consistent, and valuable grading systems. A segment of this chapter is a literature review that
introduces assumed causes of this gap in performance that will be further examined in Chapter
Four. The causes presented will be validated or disputed through surveys, literature review, and
analysis of research. There will also be conclusions from the research with potential
recommendations for improvement.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Factors
This section will identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence teachers’ grading practices and perspectives. The first section suggests four areas
where teachers’ knowledge impacts achievement of the organizational goal. The second section
discusses elements of teacher grading that are influenced by motivational factors. The third and
final section reviews the organizational factors that affect teacher’s grading practices and
perspectives. These knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors are the key stakeholder
influences that explain the existing gap between teachers’ grading practices and research-based
grading practices that drive instruction.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
29

To understand the origins of this performance gap, Clark and Estes (2008) recommended
a three-pronged approach that focuses on stakeholder knowledge, the motivation to achieve the
prescribed goal, and the organizational barriers that prevent the goal from being achieved. By
categorizing potential obstacles to achieving the goal into these three categories, leaders are more
likely to be able to develop effective solutions to the problem. Knowledge barriers are identified
through types of knowledge needed to achieve the goal, while motivation and organizational
issues are viewed through various theories that apply to addressing either motivational or
organizational problems.
Knowledge and Skills
This section will focus on knowledge-related influences important to the organizational
goal of making grading systems more meaningful and valuable to students. For this goal to be
achieved for Mountaintop High School, teachers should possess certain knowledge regarding
student assessment strategies. As primary stakeholders in this study, teachers need to understand
effective practices in grading, be able to effectively communicate the meaning of student grades,
and utilize assessment to drive instruction. For this to occur, it is important for teachers to have
opportunities to further their knowledge of assessment and to reflect on grading practices. The
reviewed literature will be analyzed through the lens of specific types of knowledge as they
pertain to teachers’ use of assessment.
Knowledge influences. It is important to establish the knowledge teachers need to be
able to effectively assess students. Using Bloom’s original taxonomy, there would be multiple
facets of student assessment that would pertain to teacher knowledge. In a revision of the
knowledge dimension of Bloom’s taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) created a structure of four
different kinds of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
30

knowledge is the basic facts students should know to work within a discipline such as
terminology or specific details (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda 2011). Conceptual knowledge
describes how the fundamental elements coexist and operate within a larger structure, for
example: categories, classifications, generalizations, or theories (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda 2011).
Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something and can also be used to describe
methods of inquiry or criteria for deciding when to apply appropriate procedures, techniques or
skills (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda 2011). Lastly, metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of
one’s own cognition and specific cognitive processes (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda 2011).
Each teacher knowledge influence is categorized into a specific knowledge type within
Krathwohl’s (2002) dimension. It is important to codify the different knowledge types needed
by teachers to address the multifaceted knowledge gap that exists in the realm of student
assessment. By identifying the types of knowledge on which teachers may need training,
organizations can focus resources on closing that gap and improving both teacher and student
performance. It is evident in the knowledge worksheet (Table 2) how these knowledge types are
interrelated and essential in addressing the organizational goal of establishing consistent and
valuable grading systems.
Table 2

Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder Goal

Organizational Mission
The mission of Mountaintop High School is to work together as a staff to improve the
collective ability to successfully prepare students for college and careers.
Organizational Global Goal
By September 2018, Mountaintop High School will establish consistent standards for
grading and assessment that promote student learning.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, 100% of teachers will work with supervisors to create grading practices
that align with organizational standards and that drive instruction.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
31

Knowledge Influence

1. Teachers need to know
research-based classroom
assessment principles and
standards.
2. Teachers should have a clear
understanding of the meaning of
their final grades.
Knowledge Type

Declarative
(Conceptual)

Declarative
(Conceptual)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment

Focus Group questions #2,
#3, #4, & #8

Focus Group question #3
& #6. Survey questions #5-
27. #45-46
Document analysis.
3. Teachers need to understand
how to use assessment to guide
instruction.
Procedural Focus group questions #4,
#7, & #8
4. Teachers need to reflect on how
their assessment practices affect
student learning.
Metacognitive

Focus group questions #1,
#3 & #7

The knowledge elements in the table are progressive in that teachers must first have the
declarative knowledge on assessment principles and standards prior to understanding procedural
and metacognitive elements of grading.
Understanding research-based classroom assessment principles and standards.
Assessment is one of a teacher’s most important and time-consuming responsibilities (Stiggins,
1988). Teachers’ assessment practices are frequently not aligned with classical measurement
theory (Cizek et al., 1995), but rather based on personal insight and experiences (Alm &
Colnerud, 2015). Measurement specialists specify that assessments should convey student
achievement, not extraneous factors such as behavior or effort, should be as standardized as
possible, and should not be used as reward or punishment (Blount, 1997; Bonner & Chen, 2009).
Teachers need to be able to utilize a wide variety of assessment methods suited to the learning
that is to be assessed as well as select measurement tools that match the instructional objectives
(Bonner & Chen, 2009; Stiggins, 1988). Furthermore, teachers must understand that assessment
cannot just be summative, but also must be formative, in that it provides feedback to both
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
32

teachers and students over the course of instruction (Boston, 2002; Dirksen, 2011; Frey &
Schmidt, 2010). The feedback to the teacher about how well the student understands the content
or concept is the key element in identifying and addressing any student performance gap
(Heritage, 2007; Sadler, 1989). Summative assessments do provide teachers some information
about student performance, but are usually evaluative and rarely used to adjust instruction.
However, summative assessments become formative in nature when used to adapt teaching to
meet student needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Boston, 2002). Assessment activities can occur
before, during, and after instruction and should be interwoven into a teacher’s practice with the
goal of addressing student learning needs (McMillan, 2001). These types of formative
assessments provide teachers with valuable information about pupil progress and mastery of
concepts that can then help teachers make important instructional decisions (Black & Wiliam,
1998; Stiggins, 2005). Studies have shown that questioning (Araceli Ruiz-Primo & Furtak,
2006), feedback through grading, peer and self-assessment, and the formative use of summative
tests (Black et al., 2004) elicited gains in student learning. As teachers strive to develop
effective, meaningful assessment systems that drive instruction, it is important for them to
acquire
and
develop this conceptual knowledge of necessary classroom assessment practices.

Having a clear understanding of the meaning of final grades. As previously discussed,
educational measurement specialists indicate that student grades should be an accurate depiction
of learning. However, a great deal of educational research has been written on student grades
being a “hodgepodge” of achievement, effort, and attitude (Brookhart, 1991; Cross & Frary,
1999; McMillan, 2001; Randall & Engelhard, 2010). Guskey (2006) demonstrated how two
different students’ grades of a “C” could be reached through two very dissimilar paths. Gullen,
Gullen, and Erickson-Guy (2012) found similar results when they asked groups of teachers from
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
33

the same school to assign marking period grades given two students’ disparate scores on various
assignments. While the points added up to a similar total on the assignments, the teachers in the
study mostly disagreed with one another on what grade to assign and provided grades ranging
from A to F for each student. In traditional grading systems, teachers are required to use a single
grade to represent a tremendous amount of information about a student (Guskey & Pollio, 2002).
Teachers idiosyncratically combine scores from students’ quizzes, tests, essays, projects,
presentations along with homework scores, punctuality in completing work, class participation,
and work habits into a final letter grade (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). Thus, the meaning of final
grades differs from school to school, teacher to teacher, and from student to student (Brookhart
et al., 2016). This wide disparity in what constitutes a student’s final grade makes the meaning
of the grade unclear to any interested party, whether it be parents, other teachers, or college
admissions offices (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). To make final grades meaningful, teachers must
clearly specify how process, product, and progress are used as criteria indicators (Guskey,
2006a). Teachers must cultivate and demonstrate a clear conceptual knowledge of what that
letter grade conveys about student learning for the grade to be meaningful (Deddeh, Main, &
Fulkerson, 2010).
Understanding the use of assessment to guide instruction. Traditionally, summative
assessments have been used by teachers to report out on student progress after a period of
instruction (Boston, 2002; Sadler, 1989). In contrast, formative assessment is ongoing over the
course of instruction and provides feedback to teachers about student learning that then drives
instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Boston, 2002; Brookhart, 2011; Stiggins, 2005). Heritage
(2007) noted that for assessment to be of value for instructional planning, it needs to be a video
stream rather than a snapshot in time. For teachers to effectively use assessment to modify
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
34

instruction, they must develop procedural knowledge of what this formative process entails.
Teachers should understand that some of the same summative evaluation strategies that they
currently use can become formative by using the results as data to improve instruction (Dirksen,
2011). This data should drive teacher feedback to students about the qualities of their work with
advice on what can be done to improve performance (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Heritage, 2007).
Other types of assessments that allow teachers to provide specific feedback to students are
authentic assessments, portfolios, surveys, journaling, or in-class quick writes (Boston, 2002;
Dirksen, 2011; Underwood & Burns, 2014). This data need not always be from summative or
formal assessments, but also through daily teacher observation and classroom discussion (Boston,
2002). Black and Wiliam (1998) emphasized the importance of meaningful dialogue between
students and teachers that helps students to reflect on, explore, and express their understanding of
a given topic. Teachers should also accentuate the importance of the student’s role in formative
assessment by teaching students how to self-assess so that they can identify what they need to do
to improve (Heritage, 2007; Underwood & Burns, 2014). Sadler and Good (2006) found that
middle school science students who performed self-grading showed an increase in learning when
compared to the control group. The research study conducted by Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall,
and Wiliam (2004) affirmed the importance of student self-assessment as a key to student
learning. Teachers in the study reported that when students understand their goals and are able
to assess progress toward them, they can better guide their own work and provide feedback to the
teacher about needs for further instruction. When teachers understand how to implement various
forms of formative assessment, they will be able to effectively use assessment to drive
instruction.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
35

Reflecting on the impact of assessment on student learning. At some point, teachers
were all once students who received grades (Guskey, 2006b), and were shown how to grade by a
mentor or cooperating teacher, both of which substantially impact their grading practices
(Gullen, Gullen, & Erickson-Guy 2012). Assessment and grading has existed as long as public
education and there has been little scrutiny of assessment methods and what they actually assess.
For some teachers, grading has become a rather mechanized process instead of one with
substantial teacher reflection on the impact of classroom assessment practices (Kitiashvili, 2014).
According to Blount (1997), teachers want to distance themselves from the subjectivity of grades
by considering themselves “keepers of numbers” rather than a teacher who must make value
judgments on student learning. This shift in focus to solely the number or letter score, rather
than considering the actual feedback that goes along with the grade, undermines the feedback
component of the assessment process (Atjonen, 2014). Rather than viewing grades solely as
student academic accountability through summative measures, teachers need to engage in the
metacognitive process of determining what their formative assessment strategies reveal about
student learning needs (Atjonen, 2014). Grading policies such as not accepting late work,
assigning zeros for missed assignments, and not allowing student to redo work will not teach
students accountability and provide an inaccurate picture of a students’ understanding of the
content (Wormeli, 2006). It is important for teachers to cultivate metacognitive knowledge of
their assessment practices through reflection on the effect those practices have on student
learning.
Motivation
In this section, the literature reviewed will center on motivational influences that impact
teacher grading practices. For purposes of this study, motivation is defined as the process where
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
36

people choose whether to partake in an activity, how much effort to put in, and their willingness
to persist in pursuit of a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). As Rueda (2011) noted,
someone having the necessary knowledge to be able to partake in an activity does not mean that
they want to or will go through with it. The same researcher also emphasized the importance of
identifying motivational gaps in performance because motivational problems cannot be
addressed by strategies designed to solve knowledge gaps.
It is important to identify any existing motivational gaps that are impeding the
achievement of the organizational goal at Mountaintop. Because some teacher assessment
practices have been utilized for many years, there is a potential lack of teacher self-efficacy in
adopting and implementing newer, less traditional methods. Furthermore, teachers see value in
many existing grading practices, especially those that reward student effort and motivate students
to succeed. Self-efficacy theory and expectancy value theory were used in this study to elucidate
motivational influences in teacher grading systems. Table 3 below demonstrates how these
motivational influences impact both the organizational goal of meaningful assessment and the
stakeholder goal of reforming teacher grading systems.
Table 3:
Motivational Influences on Stakeholder Goal
Organizational Mission
The mission of Mountaintop High School is to work together as a staff to improve the
collective ability to successfully prepare students for college and careers.

Organizational Global Goal
By September 2018, Mountaintop High School will establish consistent standards for
grading and assessment that promote student learning.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
37

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, 100% of teachers will work with supervisors to create grading practices
that align with organizational standards and that drive instruction.
Motivational Indicator(s)

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy - Teachers need to feel capable
using non-traditional assessment strategies to
assess students.

Focus Group question #8.
Survey question #7
Utility Value - Teachers need to see the value
of using assessment to drive instruction rather
than just as a summative measure.
Focus group question #4.
Survey question #8, #36

Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-Efficacy Theory is defined as individuals’ judgments about
their own abilities to carry out courses of action at certain performance levels (Pajares, 2006;
Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy is particularly important when people face challenges or difficulty
in a given task (Rueda, 2011). If people feel self-efficacious enough to complete an activity,
they will persist in the face of such adversity. Conversely, if an individual lacks self-efficacy in
a specific context, he or she is less likely to persevere when encountering a challenging task
(Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy is particularly important for teachers when
implementing classroom assessment that may be challenging, but impactful on student learning.
Teacher Self-Efficacy. Teachers need to feel capable using non-traditional assessment
strategies to assess students. Teachers traditionally generate students’ final grades through some
sort of combination of tests, quizzes, projects, homework, and perhaps class participation
(McMillan, 2001). Alternative assessment, sometimes referred to as performance-based or
authentic assessment, is a type of assessment that goes beyond traditional assessments by
determining what exactly students know and can achieve (Buldur & Tatar, 2010). Researchers
have found that the effective use of alternative assessment instruments requires substantial
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
38

knowledge and competence of both in-service and pre-service teachers (Ören, Ormance, &
Evrekli, 2014). Despite recognition of the value of these non-traditional assessment strategies,
such practices are often not utilized by teachers because they are often uncomfortable with how
to implement them and are hesitant to dedicate the time needed to change their deep-rooted
traditional methods of assessment (Atjonen, 2014; Buldur & Tatar, 2010; Ogan-Bekiroglu,
2009). Without proper training and education, teachers might not feel efficacious enough to
persist in implementing performance-based or authentic assessments (Buldur & Tatar, 2010).
Several studies on pre-service teacher education around assessment indicated that specific
training on assessment methods resulted in an increase in self-efficacy (Buldur, 2009; Coklar &
Odabasi, 2009; Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2009; Sahin & Ersoy, 2009). Substantial research has indicated
that higher self-efficacy in alternative assessment theory would increase the likelihood of
successful application of these theories into classroom assessment practices (Buldur & Tatar,
2010; DeLuca, Chavez, & Cao, 2013; Levy-Vered & Nasser-Abu Alhija, 2015; Ören et al.,
2014).
Expectancy Value Theory. Expectancy Value Theory examines the importance or value
that an individual associates with a task (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Eccles (2006) broke
expectancy value down to the basic motivational questions of whether one can and wants to do a
task. There are four dimensions of value with regard to motivation: intrinsic value, attainment
value, utility value, and perceived cost (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Specifically, utility value is
established by how helpful a task is for an individual to fulfill a goal or need (Eccles, 2006;
Rueda, 2011).
Teachers’ Utility Value. Teachers need to see the value of using assessment to drive
instruction rather than just as a summative measure. Traditional summative assessments are an
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
39

efficient, accepted method of generally communicating various aspects of student performance
(Cross & Frary, 1999). However, there is evidence that formative assessment, unlike summative
assessment, is effective in improving student achievement rather than just reporting it (Heritage,
2007). Black and Wiliam (1998) found that formative assessment experiments resulted in effect
sizes between 0.4 and 0.7, which are larger than typical educational interventions. Furthermore,
their results indicated that improved formative assessment helped low achievers even more than
the average student. This result can be attributed to the notion that formative assessment allows
low achieving students to view failure as feedback, which can lead to substantial learning
through applied effort (Boston, 2002; Dirksen, 2011). Formative assessment reinforces the ideal
that all children can learn through the feedback process and refutes the idea that poor student
performance is related to a lack of natural ability (Boston, 2002). Formative assessment also
helps teachers establish rapport with students and determine individual student needs
(Underwood & Burns, 2014). Teachers need to be able to see formative assessment as a
meaningful process that provides valuable and practical information about student learning rather
than just another fad in education (Heritage, 2007). If teachers are able to see the value of how
the formative assessment process can be used to drive instruction and enhance student learning
rather than just another grade in the gradebook, they are more likely to be motivated to utilize it
in their classroom (Heritage, 2007)
Organization
Clark and Estes (2008) noted that even when employees are extremely motivated and
knowledgeable, inadequate processes or resources can derail an organizational goal.
Organizational culture impacts all efforts to improve performance and if an organizational
change is to be effective, change agents must consider all aspects of an organization’s culture. In
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
40

all schools, including Mountaintop High School, learning should be at the heart of the
organizational culture and performance goals should be centered on student learning. However,
traditional grading and assessment procedures of most schools are focused more on the utility of
student performance than on student learning. When organizational goals and policies conflict
with organizational culture, performance problems are likely to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 4 introduces the organizational influences on the stakeholders’ progress toward achieving
the organizational goal. Each of the influences has a unique impact on teachers’ capacity to
create consistent grading practices that promote student learning.
Table 4
Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal
Organizational Mission
The mission of Mountaintop High School is to work together as a staff to improve the collective
ability to successfully prepare students for college and careers.
Organizational Global Goal
By September 2018, Mountaintop High School will establish consistent standards for grading
and assessment that promote student learning.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, 100% of teachers will work with supervisors to create grading practices that
align with organizational standards and that drive instruction.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: There is a general
acceptance among teachers that grades are a
necessary component in the school, favoring the
utility of grades over a focus on learning.
Focus Group Questions #1 and #3
Survey Questions #34, #35, #37, #39-43
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Teachers are not provided with the proper, training,
resources, and support to help effectively assess and
evaluate student performance.
Focus Group Questions #1 & #2
Survey Questions #1-4, #51-54
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers often develop grading practices in isolation
or do not have many opportunities to discuss grading
and assessment practices with peers.
Focus Group Question #9.
Survey Question #29
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
41

Cultural Setting Influence 2: Teachers are under
tremendous pressure from students, parents, and
administration to inflate students’ grades.

Focus Group Questions #6

Survey Questions #30-33

Cultural Model Influence 1
While some teachers would agree that the traditional use of grades does not align with the
mission of enhancing student learning, the problem has existed for almost a century. The
assumption that grades are a necessary part of school is embedded in the culture of most
secondary schools (Campbell, 2012). Few teachers question the traditional use of grades,
perhaps for fear of disrupting an accepted, age-old practice that, in theory, is supported by peers
(Alm & Colnerud, 2015). The continued use of grades to communicate student achievement
could be viewed as an Abilene Paradox (Harvey, 1988) for high schools, where teachers know
that traditional grading systems are detrimental to student learning, but willingly implement them
nonetheless. There is little innovation present when it comes to grading at Mountaintop High
School, but rather an acceptance of the current reality of grades as an important part of
schooling.
Utility of grades versus a focus on learning. Many teachers could not fathom teaching
and learning without the use of grades, but researchers have identified concerns over the
traditional use of grades and their impact on student learning (Kohn, 1994; Krumboltz & Yeh,
1996; Morrison, 2003; O’Connor, 2009; Wegwert, 2012). Traditional forms of grading put
students in competition with their classmates (Morrison, 2003) as they focus singularly on
earning the highest grade in the class, becoming the class valedictorian, or gaining admission to
the most highly selective colleges (Guskey, 2014). Students’ emphasis on grades takes away
from their attention to the school’s and teacher’s goal of increased student learning or the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
42

development of critical and creative thinking skills (Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996; Morrison, 2003;
Romanowski, 2004). Students perform worse and are less interested in the content when they
are being graded on assignments or tasks (Kohn, 1994). In contemplating the use of grades in
schools, Guskey (2014) questioned whether the purpose of educators is to select talent or to
develop talent. If the goal is to develop talent, then why do schools insist on sorting or ranking
students through grades and subsequently, GPAs (Guskey, 2014; Kohn, 1994)? This process of
sorting students is justified by the notion that selective colleges and universities require this
information for admissions decisions. When the primary goal of high schools is to promote and
support student learning, educators should not abandon their organizational mission to help
colleges sort students for admission (Guskey, 2014; Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996). Many of these
concerns speak to the need for schools to maintain their core principles of promoting student
learning over the utilities of a competitive grading system.
Cultural Model Influence 2
One of the reasons teachers may accept the traditional use of grades is a lack of resources
provided by schools to help them effectively assess student performance. Clark and Estes (2008)
suggested that for an organizational change to be effective, the structure and processes of the
organization must align with performance goals. If a school district wanted to change the
traditional model of grading to one that better supported student learning, it would need to
properly train and support staff, which requires a significant commitment of time and financial
resources. Employees must be provided with the proper materials and equipment to do their jobs
effectively and subsequently create strong and productive organizations (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999). While leaders’ beliefs about how to allocate resources often determine the path
for an organization, they can also can put constraints on the decision-making process that could
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
43

lead to viable alternatives (Schein, 2010). When these resources and processes do not get
apportioned to a high priority area, in this case classroom assessment, there is often a gap
between organizational culture and defined performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teacher training on effective assessment practices. Stiggins (2014) suggested that
teachers may spend between a quarter and a third of their professional time on assessment-
related activities without proper training to assess effectively. It is clear that little time is spent in
pre-service teacher training programs (Deluca & Klinger, 2010) or ongoing professional
development (Mertler, 2009) to ensure that teachers have the understanding and skills necessary
to implement effective classroom assessment. Teachers who have completed pre-service
measurement courses showed significant gains in confidence regarding assessment theory and
practice (DeLuca et al., 2013; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010). In addition to gaining confidence,
teachers who went through more extensive training demonstrated increased knowledge about
assessment strategies (Levy-Vered & Nasser-Abu Alhija, 2015; Mertler, 2009). Therefore, it is
important for school administrators to be more knowledgeable about classroom assessment so
that they can provide ongoing professional development and effective support for the teaching
staff (Allen, Ort, & Schmidt, 2009; Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer, & Lichon, 2015; Stiggins, 2002).
If teachers are to develop clear assessment systems that drive instruction and promote student
learning, there needs to be a systemic focus on teacher training and development in the area of
classroom assessment.
Cultural Setting Influence 1
Time is another resource that needs to be properly allocated if meaningful change is to
occur. In organizations, time is often taken for granted, but how time is used creates a social
order and communicates priorities and values (Schein, 2010). Teachers have many
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
44

responsibilities that take up a great deal of time, and frequently there is little time allotted by
schools for teacher collaboration. This lack of organized communication between colleagues
often leads to a disjointed, isolated, and stagnant teaching staff. Organization into work groups
and improvement teams combats this inertia of informal groups and prioritizes ongoing learning
and development (Hendry, 1996). This professional communication between teachers can often
be a positive impetus for organizational change within a school (Berger, 2014). Further,
Organizational Development perspective holds that employees are more effective when the
organization acknowledges that people value interpersonal interaction with peers as well as
personal growth and development (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Time must be carefully
allocated to provide greater collaboration between teachers if positive communication and
personal growth are organizational priorities.
Teacher collaboration on grading and assessment practices. Classroom assessment
practices can vary widely among teachers in the same school because of the traditionally
independent nature of teacher grading (Cizek et al., 1995; O’Connor, 2009). These discrepancies
may be potentially explained by the lack of a mechanism within the school to facilitate and
support teacher collaboration on assessment and grading (Cizek et al., 1995). School
administrators are responsible for creating and cultivating a school culture that encourages and
supports teacher collaboration (Gajda & Koliba, 2008), which can be done through the allocation
of common planning time or professional development time focused on collaboration (Ketterlin-
Geller et al., 2015). Recent research on effective professional development has emphasized the
concept of communities of practice, where teachers expand their knowledge and expertise
through intensive collaborative work with colleagues (Glazier, Boyd, Hughes, Able & Mallous,
2016). Enhanced teacher collaboration has not only been found to support student learning
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
45

(Gideon, 2002), but also positively impacted teacher morale, collegiality, and perceived
efficiency (Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2014). Studies on classroom assessment have
demonstrated that teacher collaboration helped familiarize teachers with alternative ways of
assessing student learning and learning how to connect theories with practice in classroom
assessment (Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2015; Lyna, Hung, & Chong, 2015). The facilitation of
enhanced communication through collaborative teacher communities is a key element in any
effort to improve teacher grading and assessment practices.
Cultural Setting Influence 2
Within organizational cultures, stakeholder goals that are not aligned often create
performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). In traditional grading systems, students’ primary
goal is to earn a good grade rather than prioritizing their own learning and growth. Schools often
operate with a performance orientation where students compete for high grades rather than
embrace a learning orientation, where the goal is mastery of content. These polarities are
typically not well managed in schools, where the competitive nature of grades tends to get more
attention from students, parents, and administrators (Johnson, 1998). If teachers make efforts to
move the continuum toward mastery of content, and grades decline, there is significant
discontent among and pressure from students and parents. What is then created is an unwritten
rewards system that motivates teachers to assign good grades because it keeps all stakeholders
happy (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen, 2002). As long as this systemic pressure on teachers to
manufacture good grades exists, schools will have difficulty in moving grading to more honest
and authentic means of assessment.
Pressure on teachers to inflate students’ grades. The current trend in high schools is for
students and parents to focus primarily on grades as the most important student outcome.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
46

Therefore, it is not surprising that the average grade point average (GPA) of a high school
graduate has increased from 2.68 in 1990 to 2.98 in 2005, despite only slight increases in ACT
scores and decreased performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(Goodwin, 2011). The increasingly competitive college admissions process, where students’
grades are scrutinized at selective institutions, has exacerbated this emphasis on student GPA
(Williford, 2009). Others cite grade cutoffs such as that of the HOPE scholarship in Georgia as a
potential reason for the increased attention to student grades (Applerouth, 2013; Ghezzi, 2003).
Because of these substantial implications of student grades, teachers feel increased pressure to
inflate student scores. This pressure expectedly comes from students and parents, but can be
strongest from school administrators (Applerouth, 2013; Cowan, 2006; Ghezzi, 2003; Jesness,
1999). Teachers note feeling direct pressure from administrators to keep grades high so that
students look good to potential colleges (Applerouth, 2013) as well as prevent lower achieving
students from failing and having to be held back (Cowans, 2006; Ghezzi, 2003; Jesness, 999;
Taylor, 2003). When teachers do inflate grades, they are met with positive student relationships
with minimal complaints, parental cooperation, and support from the administration (Jesness,
1999; Stanoyevitch, 2008). Those teachers who choose to genuinely assess their students are
“harassed, proselytized, or purged” (Jesness, 1999, p. 42). If organizations continue to allow
teachers to be pressured into inflating student grades, it is unlikely that any changes in classroom
assessment practices would be sustainable.
Summary

Teacher’s grading practices in high schools across the United States have remained
largely unchanged for decades, yet are commonly seen as viable means of assessing student
performance (Alm & Colnerud, 2015). Despite recent criticism of the various nonachievement
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
47

related elements that are included in students’ final grades (Muñoz & Guskey 2015), teachers
continue to utilize grading practices that obfuscate the meaning of final grades (Brookhart et al.,
2016). Furthermore, teachers’ use of assessment has little impact on classroom instruction and is
missing a powerful opportunity for feedback on student performance. There are several
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that impede teachers’ ability and desire
to change their traditional grading practices. It is important to apply the information gleaned
from previous research in understanding what specific influences are most significant to the
teachers at Mountaintop High School. By doing this, Mountaintop can work towards achieving
its goal of providing meaningful grades that drive instruction, and subsequently, promote student
learning.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context

A conceptual framework operates as a working theory of the phenomena that is being
studied and helps drive the design of the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
framework helps to structure a research study by providing key concepts and factors and
establishing the relationships between them (Maxwell, 2013). While each of the influences is
presented independently, they do not operate in isolation of one another. This study will
elucidate how the influences interrelate with one another and impact teachers’ grading practices.
The conceptual framework identifies teachers as the key stakeholder and at the center of
this analysis of the meaning and value of grades within a traditional grading system. Teachers
grading practices are substantially impacted by their schools’ grading philosophies as well as
policies and procedures, which is conveyed by the direct impact of schools on teachers in the
framework. Additionally, the amount of professional development in the form of training and
focused collaboration influences teachers’ grading practices and perspectives (Ketterlin-Geller et
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
48

al., 2015). Within schools, however, teachers often have significant autonomy with regard to
grading and are the most important stakeholder in the determination of a student’s final grade
(The College Board, 1998). Because of this autonomous nature of grading, teachers directly
impact both the meaning and value of student grades through classroom decisions. The
relationship of these elements to the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences is
depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework on the meaning and value of grades
In the conceptual framework, teachers’ knowledge and motivational influences play an
important role in shaping what grades mean and the purpose they carry. Teachers need to
understand and reflect on what their grades convey within traditional grading systems. As noted
in the framework, traditional grading systems often include extraneous factors in the final grade
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
49

and merge these factors into a single grade (Cizek et al., 1995). Muñoz and Guskey (2015)
suggested that if teachers and schools want to make grades meaningful and valuable, grades
should only convey student attainment of specific learning objectives as done in standards based
grading systems. Enhanced teacher knowledge in these areas would influence both the meaning
of teacher grades as well as the value they provide for students. If teachers are to be motivated to
utilize effective grading practices, they must see the impact of these strategies as well as feel
self-efficacious enough to implement them in the classroom. One way that this can occur is
through teachers seeing the utility value of how assessment, primarily formative, can be used in
the classroom to modify instruction and enhance student learning. The arrows that emerge from
the influences at the bottom of the framework demonstrate how teachers’ knowledge and
motivation directly impact the meaning and value of grades, which is the organizational goal of
the study.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
50

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This study examined teacher practices within a traditional grading system in an effort to
clarify the meaning of teacher grades and the value that they hold. The purpose of this chapter is
to elucidate the methodology for the research study, including the data collection and data
analysis procedures. In collecting this data, the purpose is to answer the research questions for
the study:
1. To what extent do teachers at Mountaintop High School use clear and consistent
assessment and grading practices that drive instruction?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving
the organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
The chapter explains what methods were utilized to collect data and criterion of the sample
population for each of those research methods. Chapter Three also clarifies how the instruments
were administered and what incentives were provided to encourage participation in the study.
Information is included regarding efforts of the researcher to ensure the validity, reliability,
credibility, and trustworthiness of the research. The chapter concludes with the ethical
considerations for the teachers who participated in the study, along with limitations and
delimitations of the research.
Participating Stakeholders
This study focused on the teaching staff of Mountaintop High School in all content areas.
While teachers in the arts, physical education, and other non-core academic subjects were
included in the initial survey, the focus groups concentrated on teachers of the core academic
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
51

subjects: Math, English, Social Studies, Science, and World Languages. It was important to
include perspectives from each of the content areas to examine if there is a difference in the way
different departments at Mountaintop approach grading. Furthermore, the sample included a mix
of novice and veteran teachers to determine if years of experience plays a role in teacher grading
practices. Lastly, the sampling of participants in the focus groups was purposefully selected to
include teachers who have taught varied academic levels including special education and
Advanced Placement classes. The goal of using this criterion for selection was to analyze the
impact of academic level on grading practices.
Sampling
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The individual must be a teacher at Mountaintop High School with the
responsibilities of instituting and implementing grading procedures for students. The librarian,
nurse, secretaries, and counselors were not part of the sample as they do not have teaching
assignments and subsequently do not grade students.
Criterion 2. Only high school teachers participated in the study, as district teachers from
the middle and elementary schools were not included. The rationale for this was that one focus
of the study is how grades are used to convey student achievement to outside stakeholders such
as colleges and universities, which is not applicable to the lower schools.
Criterion 3. Teachers at Mountaintop were selected for this study because of the school’s
reputation for continued excellence in instruction. This study focused on grading practices of
many effective teachers in an environment where the main objective for students is to gain
admission to a highly selective institution of higher education.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
52

Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
For the survey portion of the study, the goal was to have the entire teaching staff of 72
teachers participate in the anonymous survey. At faculty meetings, the primary researcher
discussed the purpose of the study and invited all teachers to participate in the survey. To help
achieve maximum participation, incentives in the form of gift card drawings and food at faculty
meetings were implemented to increase the response rate. It was unlikely that all teachers would
participate, so reminders were sent out regularly via Qualtrics to encourage teachers to take the
time to complete the survey. The survey captured the heterogeneity of the population and
represented the myriad views and opinions of grading among the teaching staff. To facilitate
this, the survey took place at the onset of the data collection process to help identify themes
concerning grading. The survey also illustrated the differences between departments and
teachers when it comes to grading. It was important to gather the various perspectives and
practices of the whole staff about grading to guide the focus groups.
Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Focus group participants were selected from the English, Social Studies,
Math, World Language, and Science departments along with one special education teacher and
one English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. There is a greater emphasis placed on
grading practices and the importance of student performance in these core academic areas. This
is not to say that the perspectives of teachers of the arts, technology, and physical education are
not important, but for the purposes of this study were less relevant than teachers in the core
classes.
Criterion 2. The sample of teachers for focus groups have taught various grades and
levels of students and have varied years teaching experience. The rationale for diversifying the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
53

sample in this way was to capture the possible influences of the grade and academic level
(special education, accelerated, honors, AP) of students on teacher grading practices.
Additionally, it was important to examine whether a teacher’s years of experience in the
classroom impacted grading practices.
Criterion 3. Teachers selected for the sample focus groups demonstrated proficient
instructional skills in the 2015-2016 school year. This was determined by only including
teachers who earned a teacher practice score of 2.65 or better using the Achieve NJ scale adopted
by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) displayed in Table 5 below.
Table 5
NJDOE AchieveNJ Teacher Evaluation Scale
Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective
1.0 1.85 2.65 3.5
The teacher practice score is derived by multiple classroom observations performed by trained
administrators utilizing the Danielson model. Teachers are then assigned a score based on their
performance planning instruction, creating a positive classroom environment, delivering
effective instruction, and demonstrating professionalism. The purpose of the study was to
determine whether teachers in a traditional grading system develop clear and consistent grading
practices that drive instruction. If ineffective teachers were included in the focus groups, it may
skew the data to reveal more about the insufficiencies of the individual rather than the
organizational grading issues.
Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The focus group sampling strategy was primarily purposeful selection. At a faculty
meeting, the primary researcher explained the purpose of the study and asked for volunteers to
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
54

participate. A follow up email was sent out to the entire staff inviting them to participate in the
focus groups. For each focus group, there were six volunteer participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016), one from each core academic subject and a special education teacher in one and an ESL
teacher in the other. For some of the departments, additional emails were needed to just the
department to ask for a volunteer for the focus groups. There were two focus groups to flush out
grading perspectives and practices of teachers. The teachers in the focus groups had completed
the initial survey and were provided the opportunity to expand on their responses through the
focus groups. The purpose of these focus groups was to get the rich data from teaching
professionals who should have superior knowledge of assessment and are confident enough to
share their practices without fear of judgment (Maxwell, 2013). Table 6. below provides
information about the teachers who participated in the focus groups for the study.
Table 6
Focus Group Participant Information
Teacher Focus Group Subject Taught Teaching Experience
Teacher A 1 Social Studies 2
Teacher B 1 Science 7
Teacher C 1 Math 15
Teacher D 1 English 12
Teacher E 1 World Language 3
Teacher F 1 ESL 3
Teacher G 2 Social Studies 22
Teacher H 2 Science 24
Teacher I 2 Math 18
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
55

Teacher J 2 English 5
Teacher K 2 World Language 18
Teacher L 2 Special Education 26

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized surveys, focus groups, and document analysis to collect data on
teachers’ assessment practices. These methods were selected because they revealed accurate and
meaningful data about how teachers at Mountaintop assess student performance. The survey
portion of the study gathered information from the entire teaching staff on their assessment
practices and perspectives. Information gathered in the surveys was used to inform focus group
questions, which yielded even more in-depth, rich data. The document analysis focused on
teacher gradebooks and what they revealed about assessment practices. The triangulation of the
study across these methods ensured validity by producing data that was generally aligned (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
Surveys
Surveys were administered online using Qualtrics through the University of Southern
California. A link was sent out to all teaching staff members of Mountaintop High School that
directed them to the survey. Prior to asking questions, the survey explained the purpose of the
study and informed participants that they could cease participation at any time. The survey was
comprised of 53 multiple-choice items that were organized into four sections. The first section
asked questions about school and district policies and procedures. Questions in the next section
pertained to teacher practices regarding grading and assessment. The third section surveyed
teachers about their grading and assessment perspectives. The last section gathered background
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
56

information and asked teachers to evaluate their preparation, training, and professional
development regarding grading and assessment. The questions in these sections were
specifically chosen to elicit information regarding teachers’ knowledge about various grading
practices, motivation to use such practices, and organizational influences that drive them to grade
in the manner that they do. The goal of the survey was to use this sample of teachers to
generalize (Creswell, 2008) the practices and perspectives of high school teachers in high
performing schools with similar characteristics to Mountaintop. To ensure validity and
reliability, the questions were field-tested (Creswell, 2008) by current and former teachers. The
survey was also checked for validity and reliability by college professors that are experienced
researchers.
Focus Groups
Two different groups of six volunteer participants engaged in single-session focus groups
at Mountaintop High School in an isolated location. Each focus group had one representative
from every core academic department (English, Math, Science, Social Studies, and World
Language). Focus groups occurred in a group study room in the media center on the same day to
accommodate the outside researcher’s schedule. One focus group was held during the school
day for 45 minutes and one focus group was held after school for one hour according to teacher
preference and availability. The focus groups were semi-structured with guiding questions, with
the potential for follow up questions if necessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions
helped guide the focus group to make sure that the data collected aligned with research questions
and knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. However, if there was a response that
lead to a line of questioning that deepened the understanding of one topic, the interviewer
pursued that line of thought for more information. The focus group questions asked teachers to
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
57

describe their assessment practices and what factors are considered when providing students
grades. These questions were aligned with the conceptual framework in that their goal was to
discover what teachers’ grades mean and the value that they carry for students. Furthermore, the
questions elicited what teacher assessment practices are used within a traditional grading system
and how effectively those practices drive instruction and promote student learning. To ensure
validity and reliability, the focus group responses were triangulated with survey results and
document analysis. The focus group questions were also checked for validity and reliability by
college professors that work with local doctoral students.
Documents and Artifacts
All teachers’ gradebooks from the first and second marking period were analyzed to
identify what types of assessments teachers used to create a final grade. Since gradebooks are
official records of student grades that demonstrate teacher practice, they represent a more valid
assessment of teacher practices than teacher perception. Teachers’ gradebooks were accessed
electronically, with assistance from, the district information specialist, to determine what
percentage of students’ final grades is comprised of different categories of assessments. This
document collection helped elucidate the meaning of teacher grades by unpacking a marking
period or final grade to determine how it is calculated. The respective weights of various
categories of assignments were recorded and analyzed. For example, some teachers counted
tests more heavily than projects, while other teachers emphasized homework or class
participation by assigning points to it daily. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested using content
analysis to reveal authentic and accurate data within a study. By using content analysis of the
composition of a final grade in a gradebook, it was possible to provide clarity on the meaning of
different teachers’ grades, which is a key element of the conceptual framework. Also, examining
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
58

gradebooks allowed for triangulation of data from survey responses where teachers were asked
about what comprises a student’s final grade. It is important to note that student grades were not
included in the research study, but rather teachers’ weighting of various grading categories to
create a marking period grade. Additionally, because administration have access to teacher
grades and have a responsibility to view them regularly, this portion of the data collection was
not anonymous.
Data Analysis
After all survey data was collected using Qualtrics, the survey was closed and a
distribution report generated information about responses, without identifiable information. Of
the 72 surveys sent out by email, there were 63 responses for a response rate of 87.5%, which
meets National Center for Educational Statistics guidelines of at least 85% response rate
(Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016). Of the returned surveys, 58 were completed surveys
and 5 were partially completed. Additionally, none of the questions were required responses, so
the number of responses per question varied on occasion. Qualtrics generated a downloadable
report that provides the frequencies of responses for each question. This report is attached in its
entirety in Appendix F. The information was also exported into an Excel spreadsheet for another
way to view the data. Because all the survey questions used nominal or ordinal scales, the mode
was the most important and only measure of central tendency considered in data analysis (Alkin,
2011). Further analysis of the data was completed, comparing responses about teacher practices
to those about teacher beliefs.
The first data gathered after IRB approval was archival data from online teacher
gradebooks. Using the school student information system with help from the district information
specialist, teacher gradebooks were accessed to generate reports on whether teachers used
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
59

category weights or total points to calculate student grades for the first marking period of the
2016-2017 school year. The data was gathered separately, as the process for discovering
category weights was different then calculating how many points were assigned to each category
for teachers who used total points. The data was then compiled into one Excel spreadsheet for
analysis. The data was organized by academic department then by teacher. The first attempt at
data analysis focused mainly on the weight given to each category by teachers and compared
across content areas. After reviewing the data, I recorded my impressions in an analytic memo
and noted that further analysis about the differences between departments needed to be
completed. The data was later analyzed to note how grade calculations differed by content area.
Focus groups were administered by an outside interviewer and the audio transcripts were
sent out immediately for transcription to Rev.com by the outside interviewer. The transcripts
were scrubbed of identifiable information and returned to the primary researcher, which allowed
for data analysis on the focus group data to begin. The outside interviewer kept the audio files
on his computer in case there were questions about the audio in the transcript. Using the
transcripts, I first open coded the focus group data, using both empirical codes and axial codes
derived from my conceptual framework. As I coded, I drew upon personal experience, (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008) as both an administrator in the building and a former teacher, to help decipher
what teachers were trying to communicate about grading. After reviewing focus groups
transcripts for the first time, themes were identified through open coding and a codebook was
created using the initial codes (See Appendix E). The transcripts were then reviewed again to
see if any data was missed on the first pass and whether the data was categorized properly in the
codebook. One example of an a priori code from the codebook would be teachers’ use of
formative assessment. The codebook also displays emergent codes such as the use of an online
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
60

gradebook as well as the use of marking periods in grading. The columns in the codebook
indicate the frequency for each code in the data. This use of a codebook for the data helped me
decipher typicality and consequently enabled me to create categories or themes within that begun
to answer the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness

To increase the credibility of the study, three different methods of data collection were
utilized: survey, focus groups, and document analysis. These multiple methods helped determine
if the data is congruent with reality and that the study measures what it is intended to measure
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The focus group protocol was peer reviewed by colleagues within
secondary education to maintain credibility of the questions. After the data was collected, the
researcher searched for discrepant evidence and negative cases that did not follow typical
findings. Negative cases can be particularly helpful when examining to what extent the
researcher’s biases or assumptions impacted the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In this study, the researcher was an administrator of the school and had certain biases
and assumptions about the grading practices utilized in the school. As noted in the name of the
study, the research assumed that most teachers use traditional grading practices to determine
students’ final grades. To counter this bias, I sought out cases where teachers were using
practices that did not align with expected findings such as alternative means of assessment that
align with the current research. Colleagues in the education field reviewed the findings of the
study to ensure that they were both credible and trustworthy.
Validity and Reliability
For this study, the sample was the entire teaching staff of Mountaintop High School,
which is comprised of 72 teachers. I sought a 100% response rate but received 81% (58/72)
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
61

response rate of surveys fully completed and 87.5% (63/72) response rate including partially
completed surveys. Because over three quarters of the staff responded, I can claim with
confidence that the responses are representative of the overall group. While the survey contained
over 50 questions, they were understandable and to the point (Fink, 2013), which limited the
amount of time needed to complete the survey. The survey was administered online and all
results were anonymous as no identifiable information was collected. This enhanced the validity
of the study as teachers were more likely to answer honestly without fear of reprisal. Reminders
were sent to any staff member who has not yet completed the study and I provided incentives
(Fink, 2013) such as the chance to win a gift card and food at a faculty meeting to encourage
participation. Non-responses were presumably teachers who did not feel that they had the time
to complete the survey or are not interested in answering questions about their grading practices
and perspectives.
Ethics
Because this study involved human subjects, I was responsible for protecting the
participants by ensuring no harm is done during the research process. The IRB process helped to
ensure that the study was ethical in all manners and protected the human subjects that participate.
At the onset of the study, all participants were informed of the nature of the research, that their
participation was completely voluntary, and they could stop participating in the study at any time
as suggested in any formal research project (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). For the survey
portion of the study, teachers were informed in writing of the purpose of the study prior to
completing the online survey. When administering focus groups, the researcher explained the
procedures at the beginning of the focus group and gave the participants an open opportunity to
step away at any time. Rubin and Rubin (2012) recommended that all data collected be scrubbed
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
62

of any identifiable information to ensure confidentiality of participants, which occurred in the
survey and focus group segments of this study. Confidentiality was maintained regarding digital
audio files of focus groups, which were kept by the interviewer until they were sent for
transcription. After the transcription of the recordings and removal of all identifiable
information, the files were deleted. The audio files were not reviewed by the primary researcher,
who only received the transcripts once they were scrubbed of identifiable information.
The study was performed in the high school of which I was an administrator, so I was
particularly interested to learn about my teachers’ grading practices and perspectives. My role as
researcher and administrator could have been confusing to teachers who might have felt
pressured to participate due to my position of power. My information sheet and presentation to
the participants made it abundantly clear that they could refuse to participate in the study without
any negative reprisal (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I emphasized my role as a researcher and
explained that I was only interested in gathering data about their grading practices and
perspectives. To protect their anonymity in the study, I did not collect names in the survey nor
was I the one who conducted the focus groups. An outside researcher who has a doctorate and
understands the content, but does not have any connection or oversight to the teachers in the
school, facilitated the focus groups. Any demographic information was collected for analysis
purposes only.
As I gathered and analyzed data, I acknowledged that I do have some assumptions and
biases about my teaching staff. While we are a professional and experienced staff, our school,
teachers, and administration, myself included, tend to be very traditional in our academic beliefs
and practices. To make sure I was cognizant of my biases and assumptions, I kept notes in
analytic memos to document my ongoing perceptions. As the leader of the school, I was clearly
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
63

interested in the results of the study and what they suggested about grading practices.
Limitations and Delimitations
Some of the limitations of the study included the power dynamic in the study and how
that might have impacted the honesty of respondents. The teachers in the study were all
employed at the school where I was an administrator, and might have been hesitant to be
completely honest when answering survey or focus group questions. The information form
clearly indicated that the study is anonymous and there was no possibility of relation or reprisal,
however, this may have not convinced respondents to be completely truthful. There was also a
possibility that the length of the survey could have led to teachers just clicking any response to
be finished with the survey more quickly. This does not appear to have been the case, but it is
impossible to be certain.
Grading is a nuanced and multifaceted concept that can be analyzed from many
perspectives and approaches. There were several delimitations in the study to limit the study to
the practices and perspectives of certain teachers in a traditional grading system. The focus
group portion of the study was limited to teachers within the core academic areas, thus did not
provide as rich data on teachers of the arts, technology, physical education or special education.
Furthermore, it did not take into consideration the perspectives of students or other important
stakeholders nor did it explore the impact of grades on students in much depth. The study
focused primarily on teachers’ ability to create clear and consistent grading practices that drive
instruction. As explained in the conceptual framework, the study was bound to the meaning and
value of grades as a product of teachers’ practices and perspectives. Teacher practices were
substantially impacted by the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences displayed
in the framework. As teachers are the key stakeholder in the study, further research is necessary
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
64

to investigate traditional grading systems from the perspective of a high school student and other
important stakeholders.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
65

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Overview of Purpose and Questions
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the degree to which teachers at Mountaintop
High School utilized clear and consistent grading and assessment practices to drive instruction.
The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that impact
teacher grading practices and perspectives. While a complete performance evaluation would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, this study only focused on teaching staff
members at Mountaintop High School.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. To what extent is Mountaintop High School meeting its goal of all teachers developing
clear and consistent assessment and grading practices that drive instruction?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving
the organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Data collection to answer these questions included surveys, focus groups, literature review,
document analysis, and content analysis. Research-based solutions are proposed and assessed in
a comprehensive manner in Chapter Five.
Participating Stakeholders
The sample for the survey was the entire teaching staff of Mountaintop High School,
comprised of 72 teachers. Fifty-eight teachers completed the entire survey and an additional five
teachers partially completed the survey. The teachers who participated in the survey represented
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
66

all academic departments as well as a range of teaching experience. The breakdown of the 58
teachers by department is displayed in Figure 2 below and by teaching experience in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Participants in survey organized by content area.

Figure 3. Participants in survey by years of teaching experience.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0-4 years
5-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
25-30 years
31+ years
Teaching Experience of Survey Participants
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Design & Technology
English
Mathematics
Physical Education
Science
Special Education
Social Studies
World Language
Visual & Performing Arts
Academic Department of Teachers Who Completed
Survey
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
67

While teachers in the arts, physical education, and other non-core academic subjects were
included in the initial survey, the focus groups concentrated on teachers of the core academic
subjects: Math, English, Social Studies, Science, and World Languages. The focus group
sampling strategy was primarily purposeful selection as it was important to include perspectives
from each of the content areas to examine if there was a difference in the way different
departments at Mountaintop approach grading. Furthermore, the sample included a mix of
novice and veteran teachers to determine if years of experience played a role in teacher grading
practices. Lastly, the sampling of participants in the focus groups was purposefully selected to
include teachers who have taught varied academic levels including special education and
Advanced Placement classes. The goal of using this criterion for selection was to analyze the
impact of academic level on grading practices. For each focus group, there were six volunteer
participants, one from each core academic subject and a special education teacher in one and an
ESL teacher in the other. The participant information for teachers in the focus groups is
provided again in Table 7 below for reference purposes.
Table 7.
Focus Group Participant Information
Teacher Focus Group Subject Taught Teaching Experience
Teacher A 1 Social Studies 2
Teacher B 1 Science 7
Teacher C 1 Math 15
Teacher D 1 English 12
Teacher E 1 World Language 3
Teacher F 1 ESL 3
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
68

Teacher G 2 Social Studies 22
Teacher H 2 Science 24
Teacher I 2 Math 18
Teacher J 2 English 5
Teacher K 2 World Language 18
Teacher L 2 Special Education 26

Findings
This section presents the findings of the study and is organized by research question.
Within each research question, the findings are organized by theme. For the first research
question, the themes emerged from the data collection and analysis process to provide possible
answers to the research question. For research question two, the findings are organized using the
Clark and Estes (2008) model where knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are
explored in relation to the organizational goal. Chapter Four culminates with a synthesis section,
which summarizes the findings and explains the significance of the research. Chapter Five will
address research question three and provide recommendations for organizational practice.
Research Question One
The first research question in the study asked to what extent MHS met its goal of all
teachers developing clear and consistent assessment and grading practices that drive instruction.
This section uses the following three themes to explore the extent to which MHS teachers have
met the organizational goal:
• Teachers understood formative assessment principles, but sometimes struggled to
effectively implement them.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
69

• Teachers placed significant emphasis on student effort, sometimes even over mastery of
content.
• There were unforeseen organizational barriers that hindered teachers from creating clear
and consistent assessment practices.
The section culminates with a synthesis of the findings for the first research question.
Using Formative Assessment in Grading Practices
The organizational goal of using grading practices that drive instruction relied heavily on
teachers’ effective use of formative assessment. During the focus groups, teachers revealed
declarative knowledge about formative assessment. At the same time, however, teachers
mentioned including formative assessments into their summative grades, which is contradictory
to research-based assessment principles. This section explores these two subthemes: teachers’
knowledge about formative assessment and their grading of these assessments.
Teachers have declarative knowledge about formative assessment. In the survey,
95% (58/61) of teachers reported using formative assessment in the classroom. In both focus
groups, teachers discussed their frequent use of formative assessment to provide feedback to
students and to modify instruction. It was clear in teachers’ discussion of formative assessment
that they understood what formative assessment was, how to use it in the classroom, and the
value of using it to drive instruction. One teacher noted the following:
So I use it a lot. I mean, a lot as benchmarks of, “Do they get this yet? Let’s revisit this.
Let’s add a new element to it and see if they can build upon that last skill,” and you know
when you can move forward or you have to move backwards. It’s pretty easy, I use it a
lot.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
70

The teacher provided an example of how teachers use formative assessment in the classroom to
take the pulse of the class and gauge student understanding. One math teacher explained another
example of how formative assessment is used by noting,
I find that I’m always spiraling through things, and so as we go through a unit I’m always
re-asking questions on content that we had that’s important for the next step, and I can
tell if they’ve mastered it…Often times I’ll ask them on the way out just give me an exit
ticket...What are things that are still giving you trouble? Then I could look through those
things, and I can tell if half my class is still having trouble with this one topic, I better do
something about that, so we use that all the time.
The teacher suggested one strategy for using formative assessment, an exit ticket, which elicited
information about the level of student understanding, and explained how this piece of
information would be used to modify instruction. An English teacher described a specific
example of modifying instruction based on student understanding:
“Okay, they’re still not getting this,” or, “The majority of the class still didn’t integrate a
quote correctly, I need to do another lesson on that.” With English, it’s very easy to see,
“They’re still not getting this part, they’re still not getting this part,” and go back and do
it again.
This example of modifying instruction based on formative assessment demonstrated that teachers
understood how to use feedback from students to modify instruction. What was challenging for
teachers, however, was how to integrate formative assessments into their grading schemes.
Teachers include formative assessments in final grades. While formative assessments
provide important feedback that teachers can use to drive instruction, researchers recommend
that they should not be included in final grades. However, 80% (45/57) of teachers in this study
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
71

reported using formative assessments in a final grade. In one of the focus groups, there was a
pointed discourse between two teachers regarding grading formative assessments. The first
teacher directly asked a colleague:
Do you give grades? Does that end up in your grade-book? Because that’s where I think
I struggle. I don’t want to give them grade-book grades on the formative, because it
makes them feel, like, “Well, I got a C on this, and I’m not a C student.” I’d rather give
them feedback on it, and then grade them on the test.
This teacher seemed to understand that including formative assessments in a final grade can be
problematic for students, but still struggled with applying the concept. The other teacher replied,
I have two kinds. One is informal, formative assessment, and the other one is formal. So
formal would be typical quiz, where you have just a couple of topics, you don’t have
huge amount, but they will be able to actually do open-ended questions where they can
demonstrate what they know. So that goes into the grade-book, so I call it formal.
Informal would be daily interactions with the kids. So when they actually work
individually in class, I have a chance to circulate and be able to see where they’re
understanding, not understanding. So that I do not grade because again, as you said, you
want to encourage them to be able to make mistakes and be able to learn from mistakes,
but if I seize that and say, “This is C, B, D,” I’ll kill their spirit. So that happens all the
time.
This teacher also saw how formative assessment could provide negative experiences for students,
but included “formal” formative assessments in the gradebook. This dialogue between teachers
elucidated some of the challenges of providing critical feedback to students using letter grades.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
72

One of the most common examples of teachers grading formative assessment was seen in
the practice of teachers grading practice homework, as 80% (48/60) of teachers in the survey
reported using practice homework in a final grade. This was supported by the document analysis
of teacher gradebooks, which found that all core content teachers included homework as a
category in students’ final grades, although they varied in category name and weight. Discussion
during the focus groups of including formative assessments in final grades highlighted the
emphasis placed by teachers on student effort, rather than increased mastery of content.
Emphasis on Student Effort Over Mastery of Content
The school goal of clear and consistent assessment and grading practices required
teachers to address grading situations in a similar manner aligned with school norms. It was
evident through survey, focus group, and archival data that teachers valued student effort and
included it in some capacity in their grading systems. How that occurred varied among teachers
in the study, including teachers rewarding student effort in final grades and teachers utilizing
grades to motivate students for compliance with desired behaviors. This section will explore
these two concepts using data from the study.
Teachers frequently rewarded student effort in final grades. The findings in this
study were consistent with previous research that indicated that many teachers strongly
considered student effort when calculating grades (Cheng & Sun, 2013). Survey results
indicated that 48% (28/58) of teachers “always” or “often” and 31% (18/58) of teachers
“sometimes” considered effort in determining marking period grades, while only 21% (12/58) of
teachers “rarely” or “never” included effort in final grades. Figure 4 demonstrates that 51%
(29/57) of teachers indicated that they “sometimes” (26%), “often” (19%) or “always” (5%)
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
73

assigned higher marking period grades for students who showed greater effort, and 49% (28/57)
replied that they “rarely” (16%) or “never” (33%) raised marking period grades.
The 24% of teachers who noted that they “often” or “always” assigned higher marking period
grades for students who showed high levels of effort was consistent with Cross and Frary’s
(1999) results where 25% of teachers admitted to frequently awarding higher grades based on
high levels of student effort. Teachers in this study were split on whether they would submit a
passing grade for a failing student if the student demonstrated proficient effort. As shown in
Figure 5, 29 out of 58 teachers stated that they “rarely” (31%) or “never” (19%) passed failing
students based on effort and 29 out of 58 teachers “sometimes” (36%), “often” (9%), or “always”
(5%) submitted a passing grade. In the focus groups, teachers were presented with a scenario of
a student who put forth mediocre to poor effort, was pleasant to have in class, participated, and
was clearly capable of passing.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
74

The teachers were then asked whether they would adjust the student’s grade to a passing grade
and how they would justify their decision. The focus group discussion highlighted that when
determining whether to pass a borderline student, teachers focused on the effort expended by the
student:
Participant: Do I think the kid ‘deserves it’? Do I think the kid put in the effort and
really wants [the grade] to be where it is?
Participant: That makes sense.
Participant: Yes. I think you hit the key word though. What effort did they show, right?
Participant: Yeah. If the kid just shows no effort, doesn’t care, why should I care?
Participant: Exactly.
Teachers in both focus groups saw the passing grade as a “reward” for extra effort, and noted
that it could serve as a lesson for later in life. There was no mention by teachers in the focus
groups, however, of whether the student had demonstrated proficient understanding of the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
75

content. McMillan and Nash (2000) suggested that overemphasis on effort could give students a
false sense of competence or a belief that they are being rewarded for trying, not actually
achieving the goal. Or, as Randall and Engelhard (2010) offered, effort is not always explicitly
rewarded, however, but rather sometimes implicitly rewarded through homework or class
participation.
Teachers used grades to motivate students and elicit compliance. Consistent
throughout all forms of data collection was the notion that because students valued grades, they
could be utilized to elicit certain behaviors, namely effort. In the survey, 96% (55/57) of
teachers indicated that grades could encourage or motivate students to perform better. While
only 80% (48/60) of teachers stated in the survey that they included practice homework
assignments in the calculation of marking period grades, it was determined through analysis of
gradebooks that every teacher of core academic content included homework as a category in
their gradebook. Teachers who did not include homework taught Visual and Performing Arts,
Physical Education, English as a Second Language, or Special Education. According to the
survey, 98% (46/47) of teachers who included practice homework assignments in the final grade
indicated that they graded homework to ensure the assignment was completed compared to only
31% of teachers who checked for accuracy. A teacher expanded upon the reason for grading
homework for completion during the focus groups:
Well, for me, you’ve got to hold their feet to the fire somehow. I do not have the time to
grade homework everyday, so there’s no way I’m going to collect and grade if they’re
correct, so I want to see if they gave it a try, and I also don’t want them to be afraid of
trying… if I said homework wasn’t worth anything you’re going to lose a lot of students,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
76

in terms of because they’re just pulled in so many different directions they’re going to
choose the class that doesn’t check on their homework, [that] doesn’t give them a grade.
Many teachers in the focus group agreed with the notion that students were only motivated to
complete an assignment if it was counted in the final grade. Because teachers felt that
homework assignments benefitted student learning, they used whatever tools they have,
specifically student grades, to get students to complete the assignments.
Teachers treated class participation in a similar manner to homework, just not to the same
extent. The survey revealed that 69% (41/59) of teachers included class participation in
students’ marking period grades. Teachers in the focus groups also discussed the idea of using
class participation grades to gauge student effort. As one teacher described,
That’s where the class participation comes in. You can come in and you can speak to me,
and you could have a conversation with the entire class about what you didn’t like about
what you’ve read, and that proves to me that you’ve read it and that you understand it.
Even if you don’t understand it. You come in, you ask me a question. That proves to me
the effort that you put in for certain disciplines I believe.
Class participation, in this teacher’s perspective, was a way for the student to demonstrate their
efforts both outside and inside the classroom. Another teacher who did not assign a class
participation grade even noted, “I can see why people do, because I think sometimes it’ll help a
student that maybe is struggling somewhat to show that there is some, quantify their effort
somehow.” Again, teachers felt the need to ensure that students are putting forth adequate effort
to their studies, rather than assessing the results of their efforts on mastery of content. Because
effort is difficult to measure and even more challenging to merge into a single grade, educational
measurement specialists’ advocate against including effort in student grades (Blount, 1997;
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
77

Cheng & Sun, 2013; McMillan, 2001; Randall & Engelhard, 2010). Despite this research, it is a
common practice that teachers choose to employ in the absence of organizational structure that
restricts or prohibits it.
Lack of Organizational Supports for Teacher Grading Practices
The third, and perhaps most significant theme that surfaced when assessing the level of
goal achievement was that teachers lacked organizational support to implement clear and
consistent grading practices. The four organizational influences introduced through the KMO
model were anticipated as important concepts to teachers achieving the goal, and will be
discussed in the findings for research question two. During the study, however, there were three
emergent themes regarding organizational structure that significantly impacted teachers’ ability
to create effective grading systems. First, there was substantial variance between individual
teachers and between academic departments. Second, teachers found standards to be malleable
based on the student population. Third, the established marking period structure and use of an
online gradebook influenced the way teachers graded students. These elements of grading,
which were influenced by lack of organizational supports, are explored in this section.
Substantial variety in the methods teachers used to grade students. This study found
that many teachers saw few guidelines provided by the school and often had different grading
systems from their colleagues who were teaching the same courses and content. In this study,
74% (45/61) of teachers indicated in the survey that the school did not specify what categories
teachers are permitted to use when determining a student’s marking period grade and 8% (5/61)
said they were not sure. Similarly, 70% (43/61) of teachers noted that the school did not specify
what weighting could be placed on different categories and 8% (5/61) stated that they did not
know.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
78

Document analysis of teacher gradebooks confirmed the variety in teacher categories in
addition to the way in which the categories were tallied. Within the gradebook in the student
management system, teachers could choose to organize their grades into “weighted categories”
or “total points”. In the first marking period of the 2016-2017 school year, 63% (41/65) of
teachers used weighted categories and 37% (24/65) used total points to calculate student grades.
While categories enabled teachers to fix the weighting of any given group of student grades
(tests, projects, homework, etc.), total points were more fluid and could result in categories being
overly or insufficiently weighted. An example of this from the gradebook analysis was
displayed through six instances in core academic classes where a teacher allocated between 35-
45% of the students’ total points to classwork or homework. Most teachers using categories
weighted homework or classwork between 10-20%, which means that the high allocation of total
points to homework or classwork was unlikely intentional, and highlighted the potential for
teacher variance in grades based on how they choose to setup their gradebook.
Teachers teaching the same courses did not indicate that they were always consistent with
their colleagues. When asked whether teachers teaching the same courses used the same
categories to determine students’ marking period grades, 41% (24/59) of teachers said “yes”,
39% said “no” (23/59), and 20% (12/59) replied “I don’t know”. When asked about whether all
teachers teaching the same courses used the same weighting to determine students’ marking
period grades, 36% (21/59) of teachers said “yes”, 44% (26/59) said “no”, and 20% (12/59) did
not know. While there was some consistency between the grading systems of teachers teaching
the same courses, most teachers could not confirm that they have the same categories (59%) or
the same weighting (64%) as other teachers teaching the same classes. Document analysis of
teacher gradebooks revealed that most of the teachers who aligned their gradebooks were either
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
79

science or math teachers. A potential explanation for this finding is that both departments had
been supervised by the same administrator at some point, and he prioritized consistency in
grading within his departments. This supported the idea that the extent to which the organization
is involved in guiding and supporting teachers can have a significant impact on the consistency
of grading systems.
Teachers applied standards to their grading systems in flexible ways. In schools with
traditional grading systems, standards exist to guide teachers in planning instruction, but are not
applied as consistently to the grading of students. Sixty-five percent (40/61) of teachers noted in
the survey that they determined students’ marking period grades by evaluating students’
achievement against a set of performance standards. In standards-based grading systems, student
performance is always compared to explicit standards rather than the performance of peers
(Reeves, 2016) and teachers use grades to communicate solely student mastery of learning
criteria (Vatterott, 2015). Traditional grading systems can also lead teachers to use norm-
referenced grading systems where students are compared to their peers or their own potential.
One teacher described this in the focus groups, stating,
They’re not necessarily standards and more guidelines. I think the most important thing
that I see is I want to make sure that not that my students have met mastery of a standard,
but that they have met mastery of their own understanding of what they’re able to do.
This idea that students should be assessed based on the teacher’s perception of the student’s
potential rather than a set standard was supported by other teachers in the focus group. For
example, a teacher noted:
To me it’s much more important that they’re self-aware of what their capabilities are and
how they can improve them, so if I’m looking at a paper and I see that it’s gotten, met
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
80

certain standards, and I’m seeing now this kid can do one step better…Maybe I’ll alter
that person’s standards, to make sure that they can reach the next step.
Other teachers in the focus groups also supported the idea that the standards could be altered or
“self-created” based on the teacher’s understanding of where the students needed to be at the end
of the year. When discussing the use of standards across classrooms, one teacher noted, “The
only thing I really don’t like is it tends to make assessment uniform, because disciplines have
different issues, levels have huge issues, teachers have different styles.” With the exception of
Advanced Placement classes, where standards were established and tested at the end of the year,
teachers felt that they could modify the standards based on class year. As one person noted,
“Some classes are better than others. Sometimes I can push them or sometimes I can’t, and I can
change those things.” Teachers in the study, working in a traditional grading system, felt that
while standards guided them in what is important, they had the ultimate authority to establish the
norm against which students are assessed. Without organizational support to establish agreed-
upon norms or standards, the meaning of student grades could potentially become unclear or
inconsistent.
Organizational constructs, such as marking periods and online gradebooks,
impacted teacher grading systems. While teachers had the autonomy to determine how a
student’s marking period grade is constructed, the calculation of the final grade was established
by administration by averaging the marking periods and the final exam. One unanticipated
finding in this study was that teachers felt that this structure created pressure for them to have a
certain number of assigned grades for each marking period in their online gradebooks. One
teacher explained this perception of organizational expectations by explaining,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
81

The practical aspect of it as well, as teachers we are being criticized or praised, whatever
the case may be, for not having enough grades, so if a kid gets a C in the marking period,
the parent calls up and said, “You only gave him four things you grade it on. That’s not
fair to my child, because they do bad at one they get a C,” and our administrators are
looking at us and they evaluate us by how many assignments we give. They want to be
seeing ... I don’t know what the number is, but they want to be seeing X number of
assignments per week on PowerSchool. We don’t have those assignments in, so I put
homework in there, to cover yourself and everything. All right. I’ve got 25 grades [this]
marking period.
This teacher suggested that they felt that administration had an expectation, whether explicit or
implicit, that there should be a certain number of grades per marking period which led them to
including formative assessments, such as homework, in the final grade. These marking periods,
which had dates that were set well in advance of the school year, created deadlines for teachers
to create, assign, and grade student assessments. One teacher challenged whether this was an
educationally sound practice, noting,
It’s an artificial benchmark that forces teachers to say I’ve got to get one more test in
before grades, because sometimes we’ll rush things or sometimes we’ll say all right.
There’s a vacation coming up. We’ve got to get a test in here because I don’t have it, and
so sometimes it’s from an educational standpoint it’s not the best thing. In terms of
pedagogy and making sure that we’re giving ample time for students to prepare or
whatever, but instead we have this artificial deadline. Like I’ve got to get the test in.
Otherwise their entire marking period grade is going to be based on one task or two tasks
or something like that, versus more a body of work. It’s a little bit of deadlines too.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
82

According to this teacher, requiring teachers to adhere to strict deadlines to generate marking
period grades led to grading practices that were potentially detrimental to students. One teacher
even suggested that “one marking period is kind of somewhat unrelated, in a sense, to another. In
that case, I think overall, looking at their year-average really gets you a better picture of them
just by marking period, then.” By breaking the year into marking periods that were averaged
together, MHS created an unnecessary and unnatural structure to assess student performance.
Prior to online grading software, marking periods were designed to provide benchmarks
for teachers to calculate student grades and report out to students and parents about student
progress. With the technology used at Mountaintop, grades were updated daily and were
accessible to parents and students. One teacher explained how using marking period grades and
online gradebooks seemed contradictory:
I think the problem or part of the issue, to piggyback on that, is with the current metrics
that we use now, the current technology we use now with PowerSchool and everything
else, it’s being updated almost regularly, right?…If the students are able to track or if
we’re able to track the student’s progress almost in real time…the quarter grades almost
become extraneous, right? I’m not saying we should remove them, but it’s almost as if
they can track their progress throughout, then the final grade at the end of the quarter
almost seems superfluous.
As students and parents had access real-time to student grades, quarterly reports did not appear to
serve any real purpose aside from keeping external stakeholders, such as colleges, in the loop
about student performance. Online gradebooks were also seen as a potential influence on
teachers’ ability to be flexible with student grades. Because grades were live and accessed by
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
83

students, parents, and administrators, teachers felt that there was constant monitoring of grades.
One teacher suggested,
They’re looking over our shoulders all the time. Gone are the days when we used to be
able to change grades in our gradebook. You can’t do that anymore, and now it’s like
every time I put in Powerschool, if I change it for whatever reason someone’s going to
see it and somebody’s going to call [administration]. I have to go justify it.
Because students and parents had immediate access to grades, some teachers felt that they could
not go back and alter a student’s grade, even if he or she deserved it, for fear of judgment from
outside stakeholders. The unintended consequences of organizational constructs that were
initially designed to enhance communication with students and parents about grades could be
potentially detrimental to both teachers and students.
Research Question One Findings Synthesis
The study revealed that teachers understood and valued assessment practices in the
classroom that used student feedback to drive instruction. When it came to integrating these
practices into their grading systems, however, teachers struggled to reconcile this with other
elements of a traditional grading system. Teachers felt the need to include formative
assessments in a student’s final grade both to motivate students to put forth sufficient effort, and
to ensure that administrators saw enough grades in their gradebook for a marking period. This
led to practice assignments such as homework, classwork, and class participation receiving
consideration in a student’s marking period grade. When effort is included in a student’s grade,
the grade is no longer clearly communicating student mastery of the content, but also academic
behaviors. Additionally, assigning a summative grade to an assignment that is intended to be
formative in nature negates the purpose of formative assessment as an instructional tool. This
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
84

common practice is understandable considering the importance of effort in academic and
professional success, but is nevertheless problematic within a traditional grading system.
Teachers did not bear much of the responsibility for limited achievement of the goal as
they were doing their best within an organizational structure and system that lacked consistency
and clarity. There appeared to be little guidance from organizational leadership when it came to
grading practices, leading to disparities in grading systems, especially between departments. In
some cases, teachers were left to apply vague guidelines, and procedures without direction and
then support from administration. This led to varied application of standards, fluctuating
weighting of categories, and variance in the construction of student grades. In other cases, there
was unnecessary organizational structure, such as marking periods, that inhibited teacher grading
practices. By creating artificial deadlines and monitoring the number of assignments,
administrators pressured teachers to grade assignments that they may not have felt comfortable
including in the final grade. Thus, there was not structure and support where it was needed and
there was structure where it was not needed. This lack of organizational support was not
conducive to achieving the organizational goal of clear and consistent assessment and grading
practices that drive instruction.
Research Question Two
The second research question in this study explored what knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences impacted achievement of the organizational goal. While some of the
knowledge and motivation influences were validated by the findings, others were not supported
by the data. All the organizational influences, however, were validated by data collected in the
study. These findings were aligned with those discussed in the first research question that state
that the most significant influences on teachers’ ability to achieve clear and consistent grading
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
85

practices are organizational. The application of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was
instrumental in identifying important influences related to achieving the organizational goal.
This section details findings related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
in this study.
Knowledge Influences on Grading Practices
As discussed in the findings of research question one, it was evident that teachers
possessed declarative knowledge about assessment principles but sometimes lacked the
procedural knowledge to implement them in their grading systems. Two other knowledge
influences were validated by the data collected in the study. First, teachers sometimes lacked
declarative knowledge of the meaning of their final grades. Second, teachers displayed limited
metacognitive knowledge of how their assessment practices affected student learning. Both
influences will be discussed in this section.
Inclusion of various factors created an unclear understanding of the meaning of
final grades. Muñoz and Guskey (2015) suggested that teachers combine scores from students’
quizzes, tests, essays, projects, presentations along with homework scores, punctuality in
completing work, class participation, and work habits into a final letter grade, which makes the
meaning of the grade unclear to any interested party. The findings from this study supported
previous research that multiple factors in addition to student achievement were included in a
student’s final grade. When asked what percentage of a student’s final grade was based purely
on students’ academic achievement, 14% (8/58) of teachers indicated that “100%” of students’
grades reflected student achievement. The mode for the question was “80-99%” of a student’s
grade based on academic achievement, with 25 teachers (43%) selecting that response. As
indicated in Figure 6, 28% (16/58) of teachers said “60-79%”, 10% (6/58) of teachers said “40-
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
86

59%”, and 5% (3/58) said “less than 40%” of a student’s grade is based purely on academic
achievement.
In the survey, 79% (46/58) of teachers stated that they sometimes, often, or always
consider effort, 72% (42/58) of teachers indicated that they sometimes, often, or always consider
improvement or growth, and 36% (21/58) of teachers noted that they sometimes, often, or always
consider behavior in a student’s final grade. Additionally, 92% of teachers indicated that they
averaged student scores on tests, quizzes, papers, and projects to determine a marking period
grade. When these assignments, along with the attributes needed to complete them, were
combined into a final grade, the meaning of that single letter became difficult to clarify and
justify. One teacher in the focus group described that experience, noting:
I'm not that consistent year round, so maybe they deserve an extra point on a test that for
whatever reason they just didn't give. It could make a difference, and sometimes I'll go
through the grade book and I'll say what if they had gotten one extra point in this test,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
87

what would it do to their average? If it comes down to one or two points for the entire
year I'm not that good of a grader, so for me it's an easy call. I'm going to move them up.
As seen in this example, when averaging assignments, the letter grade that was produced was not
always an appropriate indication of the level of student achievement, but rather a combination of
many inputs that teachers deemed important. This made it challenging for a teacher to use letter
grades to meaningfully communicate student understanding.
Teachers were somewhat reflective on the impact of their assessment practices on
student learning. The practice of assessing students’ academic performance through grades is
an ongoing process where teachers constantly gauge student understanding and modify
instruction. According to Blount (1997), some teachers want to distance themselves from the
subjectivity of grades by considering themselves “keepers of numbers” rather than a teacher who
must make value judgments on student learning. This sentiment was evident in the focus groups,
as noted by a teacher who described how grading had changed over the years:
In the old days, we had a whole lot more flexibility, because we didn't have someone
looking over our shoulder at every single grade we put on the computer, because as soon
as you move up somebody's grade somebody's going to knock at your door and say, you
did that? Why didn't you give it to me? You've got to be able to justify everything you
do.
This hands-off approach to grading was not the only view held by teachers in the study however.
The majority of teachers (59%) indicated in the survey that they reviewed student performance
on assessments prior to returning graded assignments. Also, teachers in the focus groups
suggested that they felt that they did have the flexibility to change final grades based on the
bigger picture. A teacher in one of the focus groups stated,
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
88

At the end of the year I do that for every one of my kids. I look at their final grade and I
look at how close were they to going to that next level? If they're within one or two 10ths
a point I'll go back and look at their body of work, and I'll say you know what? I have
the discretion to make that difference.
As noted earlier, however, teachers were more likely to go back and evaluate the level of a
student’s effort rather than their level of understanding when deciding what grade to assign. One
teacher suggested, “What I do is I go through and look at their homework grades for the year,
and I say ‘How many homeworks did they not do?’ If it's more than a couple I stop looking,
because if they don't care…”. This statement supported the idea that a student’s grade
substantially reflects the level of effort and compliance in addition to academic achievement.
Teachers suggested that they provided ongoing opportunities for students to demonstrate
effort as evidenced through 88% of teachers indicating that they sometimes (22/59), often
(15/59), or always (15/59) allowed students to turn in work after the due date. When asked if
they allowed students to retake tests to demonstrate understanding, only 55% of teachers (32/58)
answered that they sometimes, often, or always engaged in this practice. Wormeli (2006) noted
that grading policies such as not accepting late work, assigning zeros for missed assignments,
and not allowing student to redo assignments and assessments provide an inaccurate picture of a
students’ understanding of the content. When considering the impact of grading overall on
student learning, 60% (34/57) of teachers agreed and 9% (5/57) strongly agreed that grading has
a positive impact on learning. This was contradictory to research that indicated that students
perform worse and are less interested in the content when they are being graded on assignments
(Kohn, 1994). While the teachers at Mountaintop were somewhat reflective on the impact of
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
89

their assessment practices, a gap appeared to exist in when it came to their awareness of how
their practices affected student learning.
Motivation Influences on Grading Practices
There were two assumed motivation influences at the onset of the study. The first was
that teachers needed to feel self-efficacious using non-traditional assessment strategies to assess
students. The second was that teachers needed to see the utility value of using assessment to
drive instruction rather than just as a summative measure. The findings revealed that teachers
valued formative assessment, and even felt a certain level of comfort using non-traditional
assessment strategies, but were only somewhat successful in implementing them within a
traditional grading system.
Teachers saw the value of using assessment to drive instruction. Teachers in the
focus groups referenced the frequency of use of formative assessment as “all the time”, “a lot”
and “every day”, which suggested that they saw the value of using formative assessment in their
classrooms. This was confirmed by teacher responses in the survey, as 93% (54/58) of teachers
in the survey either agreed (29/58) or strongly agreed (25/58) that using formative assessment
was helpful in modifying and improving instruction. One teacher described what this process
looked like in his/her classroom:
I do kind of a formative assessment every day…and I put just my essential questions of
the day on there. Then, at the end of every day, the kids answer their essential questions,
then I have them rate on a scale of one to five how confident they feel in it. I find that the
answers to the questions are helpful, but the confident part really helps me. Because, like
you guys are saying, I can look at it. If I look at it once, I can see that everyone gave it a
two on Tuesday. That tells me then, "Okay, well I need to circle back around, take
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
90

another day to solidify the cause of the Mexican/American war," or whatever it is,
because a lot of kids are expressing that they don't get it.
The information generated by this assessment provided feedback to the teacher about student
understanding and allowed the teacher to modify the instruction accordingly. Almost all teachers
also saw formative assessment as beneficial for students as 90% (52/58) of teachers agreed
(41/58) or strongly agreed (11/58) that using formative assessment helped students identify areas
for improvement in a content area, displayed in Figure 7.
This is consistent with research indicating that formative assessment helps students self-assess
and identify what they need to do to improve (Underwood & Burns, 2014). While teachers saw
the utility value of feedback, they also acknowledged challenges with finding the time to give
thoughtful and productive feedback rather than just assigning a grade.
Teachers felt comfortable using non-traditional assessment strategies but found the
actual implementation challenging. The findings of the study revealed that teachers were
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
91

generally comfortable with using non-traditional assessments, but still found them to be
challenging to include within their traditional grading systems. As displayed in Figure 8, the
survey revealed that 20% (12/61) of teachers felt very comfortable, 46% (28/61) felt
comfortable, 20% (12/61) felt uncomfortable, and 15% (9/61) felt very uncomfortable using
assessment strategies such as performance-based or authentic assessment.
While the majority of the teachers (40/61) suggested in the survey that they were comfortable or
very comfortable with using these assessment strategies, there were several teachers in the focus
group who expressed challenges. One teacher noted, “I struggled with it last year, I didn't think I
was very comfortable with it. I was trying to figure out how to make sure the assessment was
accurate.” Another teacher expanded on the difficulty of implementation:

It's difficult to do. In sciences it's natural to have lab assessments and see, watch a kid
perform a lab or something like that, and I have done that in the past but it's not easy. It's
very hard to implement, especially in time constraints, or either class periods or final
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
92

exams and things like that, so I have done it but I don't do it very often. It is effective,
because I think it goes to being able to assess kids through different skills, so put them
together. Can they actually do it? It's good but it's difficult.
The discomfort expressed by these teachers was consistent with research that teachers see the
knowledge and competence required to effectively utilize these types of assessment (Ören et al.,
2014), and do not always feel self-efficacious enough to implement them. Buldur and Tatar
(2010) expounded that teachers are hesitant to dedicate the time needed to adapt their traditional
methods of assessment. A teacher explained his/her attitude toward authentic assessments,
noting,
I love them, especially on paper. How often do I use them in my classroom? I can think
of one that I do. The project specifically is research the recent history of a developing
country, then create a four-step plan with details of the suggestion you would make to
improve that country. So say you were going to make a presentation to their government.
I find that they're awesome, but it takes a certain classroom culture that I think has to be
consistent throughout the year. Before I started teaching, every assessment was going to
be authentic assessment. Once you start to realize the realities of the classroom, it's like,
"All right, we're taking a test and then tomorrow we're doing the next thing."
This teacher’s comments suggested that teachers wanted to expand on their use of authentic and
performance-based assessments, but did not have the proper training, support, and structure to do
so. Without proper training and education, teachers might not feel efficacious enough to persist
in implementing performance-based or authentic assessments (Buldur & Tatar, 2010).

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
93

Organizational Influences on Grading Practices
This study investigated four potential organizational influences, two of which were
cultural models, and two cultural settings. The first cultural model influence assumed that
teachers favored the utility of grades over a focus on learning, which was a key component of the
conceptual framework. The second cultural model influence held that teachers were not
provided with the proper training, resources and support to establish effective grading systems.
The first cultural setting suggested that teachers did not have enough collaboration specifically
on grading practices. The other cultural setting assumed that teachers were under significant
pressure from stakeholders to inflate students’ grades. Each of these organizational influences
was validated by the findings of the study, and will be discussed in this section.
Teachers tended to emphasize the utility of grades over a focus on learning. As
discussed in the findings for the first research question, the theme of teachers using grades to
elicit effort emerged throughout the study. While 32% (18/57) of teachers disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement “Grading has a positive impact on students’ learning”, 68% (39/57)
of teachers agreed that grading positively impacted student learning. One potential explanation
for this was that teachers saw how grades motivated students to put forth effort, which could lead
to increases in learning. Ninety-six percent of teachers agreed (43/57) or strongly agreed (12/57)
that grading can encourage or motivate students to perform better. A teacher in the focus group
noted, “Students are so grade driven, right? I think you guys know that. They’re completely
grade driven. If it’s going to affect my grade I’m going to do it. If it’s not going to affect my
grade…”. Another teacher highlighted the intense focus on grades stating that students “check
their grades instantaneously. The second I give them back the quiz they're on their calculators,
they're on their phones. Checking the grade and then punching it in. It's so grade driven.” The
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
94

issue that arises is that students become so focused on the actual letter grade or number that they
ignore the feedback or learning component to the grade. A teacher elucidated that students
“worried about the GPA's that the colleges look at. ‘I have to have to get to this college.’" The
grade then becomes a tool for sorting students rather than improving the learning process.
Guskey (2014) suggested that using grades to sort rather than develop talent is contradictory to
promoting and supporting student learning, which is the primary goal of high schools.
Teachers were not provided with sufficient training, resources, and support to
effectively assess students. Teachers in the survey were somewhat split on the how well they
were prepared coming out of college to effectively conduct student assessment. Fifty-eight
percent of teachers agreed (28/57) or strongly agreed (5/57) and 42% of teachers disagreed
(20/57) or strongly disagreed (4/57) that they were well prepared by formal education training to
effectively assess and grade students. Comments from the focus groups were decidedly negative
about college preparation for grading. One teacher noted about her preparedness level,
Not at all. Absolutely zero… I think they don't do anything to tell you ... Even setting up
a grade-book, like, your assignments and how many assignments per quarter will
accurately reflect. And the weighting of things. I'm an English teacher, I don't do math.
Like, weighting things so that they know, "Is this an accurate representation of this child's
effort and ability?"
While teachers’ pre-service experience may have varied depending on the school they
attended or the program that they were enrolled in, they shared a common experience in terms of
ongoing professional development at Mountaintop. As indicated in Figure 9, the majority of
teachers disagreed that the school/district provided sufficient professional development and
training on grading, summative assessment, and formative assessment. Overall, 68% of teachers
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
95

disagreed or strongly disagreed that the school/district provided sufficient professional
development and training on grading; 67% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the
school/district provided sufficient professional development and training on summative
assessment; and 63% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the school/district provided sufficient
professional development and training on formative assessment.
In addition, teachers in the focus group felt that leadership was “hands-off” and did not provide
training or support until something happened. This was consistent with previous research that
suggested that professional development (Mertler, 2009) and proper training (Stiggins, 2014)
was lacking in schools.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
96

Teachers varied in their level of collaboration with colleagues about grading and
assessment practices. Survey results indicated varying levels of collaboration among teachers
about grading and assessment practices as displayed in Figure 10.
While 28% (16/57) of teachers said they conferred weekly with colleagues, 18% (10/57)
indicated they met once a marking period, and 25% (14/57) stated they met with colleagues once
or twice a year. A teacher in the focus group noted that “It depends on the department. I can see
the English one, they're very tight.” Depending on the department and the courses that a teacher
was assigned, the level of collaboration appeared to fluctuate from very rarely to very frequently.
There were a few participants in the focus group that indicated that they had almost daily
discussions with their colleagues about grading. One teacher noted about the frequency of
collaboration,
I was going to respond to you initially and say, "Daily." It doesn't have to be a long
conversation, but it could be, where I stop and with somebody who teaches the same
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
97

grade level as me, and we talk about the assessment that's coming up and we talk about
our focus. "Hey, how are you grading this? How many points? What are we focusing
on?" We really work at that, but because there's a lot of comparison when it's subjective
like that. So we think we have to be on the same page a little bit more.
Teachers who did not meet as frequently, however, suggested that other required collaboration
took away from departmental discussions about grading. A teacher noted,
I feel it's lately I don't know if you'll agree with me, we have the PLC's and all these
things, and you are not discussing really. I think it becomes a little piece of work, it's just
showing I need to be in three different groups and do sort of things.
While there was no overt agreement in the focus groups with this statement, it is a potential
explanation for the significant number of teachers who indicated in the survey that they rarely
collaborated with colleagues about grading. This finding was significant because research
indicated that that teacher collaboration helped teachers learn alternative ways of assessing
student learning and how to connect theories with classroom assessment practices (Ketterlin-
Geller et al., 2015; Lyna, Hung, & Chong, 2015).
Some teachers felt significant pressure from students, parents, and administration
to inflate students’ grades. While only 26% of teachers in the survey agreed that
administration pressured teachers to award students higher grades, there was more agreement
that students and parents placed pressure on teachers to give higher grades. As noted in Figure
11, 55% of teachers agreed (23/58) or strongly agreed (9/58) that they felt pressure from parents
to give students higher grades than they earned and 47% of teachers agreed (18/58) or strongly
agreed (9/58) that they felt pressure from students to give higher grades than the student earned.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
98

The sentiment of pressure from students and parents was echoed in the focus groups, as one
teacher stated,
I'm constantly terrified. I've been waiting to say that this whole week. As a newer
teacher, every time I enter a grade in the grade-book, I feel massive amounts of anxiety. I
know I graded it thoughtfully, I know you earned a B, but I know also you are going to
come to me the next day and say, "Why did I get a B? Why not an A?"
The competitive nature of grades and the pressure students feel to earn high marks so that they
can get into a competitive college can impact the grading process for a teacher. Another teacher
explained that the pressure is not always direct, noting,
I think what I see sometimes is a lot of second hand pressure. I got a lot of the kids ‘I
need to fix this grade, can we fix this grade? My mom is or my dad is,’ something like
that. Sometimes I hate to say, sometimes I get contacted by guidance and say so and so's
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
99

mom is breathing down my neck, so and so's dad is in my office. What do we do? Not to
pressure me to change a grade or to alter a grade, but it's there in the background. There's
this parent hovering about this one kid and about this one assignment, so I can either
stand my ground and make life miserable for three people, or meet with this parent for
the answer to what I needed. It becomes almost an ethical problem, because how much
trouble am I willing to cause myself and other people because of the grade?
Teachers, especially newer ones, must decide to what extent they want to remain firm on grades,
despite pressure from students and parents. Jesness (1999) and Stanoyevitch (2008) found that
when teachers do inflate grades, they are met with positive student relationships with minimal
complaints, parental cooperation, and support from the administration. Teachers in the study
discussed the negative impact that inflation of grades has had on the quality of student learning
over the years, noting that today’s honors students were not on par with those in years past.
Research Question Two Findings Synthesis
Similar to the findings in Research Question One, the data revealed that most teachers
had a solid knowledge of effective grading practices and saw the value in using assessment to
drive instruction. Where teachers had difficulty, according to the findings, was understanding
procedurally how to implement this knowledge within a traditional grading system. Teachers
found themselves working against a system in which students and parents did not value the
feedback component of a grading system. Students and parents, especially at a school like
Mountaintop, saw the grade as a vehicle to creating a transcript that would get the student
admitted to a selective college. This emphasis on the utility of a grade superseded a focus on the
formative nature of grades that could benefit student learning. To get teachers to avoid this
competitive, utility-driven use of grades, schools need to provide leadership, training, and
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
100

support for teachers on how to implement their grading system in a way that promotes student
learning.
Summary
The findings from the analysis of the survey, focus groups, and gradebooks demonstrated
the variety in teacher perspectives and practices about grading and assessment. It was clear from
the findings in all three instruments that teachers at Mountaintop possessed significant levels of
autonomy within the grading system. Depending on what department, course, or level the
teacher taught, the meaning of the teachers’ grade varied. The study revealed that teachers
understood and used formative assessment in class, but also frequently used it as a summative
measure rather than solely as a tool to enhance student learning. Two reasons emerged in the
study as to why teachers included formative grades as a summative measure. First, teachers felt
pressure to have a certain number of grades in a marking period to justify a student’s grade.
Second, teachers graded formative items such as practice homework, classwork, or class
participation to get students to put forth the effort required to learn the content. Teachers
indicated that because students valued the utility of a grade that allowed them to gain admission
to a college, they complied with teachers’ assignments that were included in the final grade.
Teachers used this as a motivational tool because they were trying to get the students to learn
through the homework or class participation and were aware that students valued the grades
attached to them.
Grading is an element of high school that is rarely discussed by stakeholders and has
remained mostly unchanged for almost a century. Teachers do not feel a necessity to change
their grading systems because students and parents appear do not have a problem with the
combining of multiple components into a single letter grade. As long as that letter grade is in the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
101

A or B range and will create a GPA that will gain them admission into college, students do not
really care what it represents. When there is no push from outside stakeholders to do this
because their current goal of successful college admissions is being met, there is little impetus to
drive grading reform. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the school administration to insist
that a grade is used to develop, rather than sort, talent (Guskey, 2014). This, however, would
require a large scale organizational and cultural change over time. This challenge will be
discussed in Chapter Five with recommendations to address the obstacles to creating grading and
assessment practices that drive instruction and promote student learning.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
102

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the previous chapter, the assumed influences in the study were validated through
qualitative and quantitative data analysis and organized into knowledge, motivation, and
organizational challenges. Chapter Five will discuss the significance of these findings with
regard to theoretical principles and provide recommendations to address areas in need of
improvement. Like Chapter Four, the recommendations are organized into categories of
validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Recommendations are context-
specific and research-based to increase the likelihood of successful implementation. The
remainder of the chapter describes how the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be used to implement the recommendations and evaluate the impact. The
model has four levels and will be utilized in reverse order: results, behavior, learning, reaction.
Effective use of the Kirkpatrick model will provide important information about whether the
recommendations are providing the desired results in teachers’ grading systems at Mountaintop
High School.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Table 9 represents the assumed knowledge influences and whether they
were validated through information gathered in document analysis, surveys, and focus groups.
The first influence was not validated by data as teachers displayed knowledge of research-based
assessment principles and standards. The other three listed in Table 8 were a priority for the
study and are accompanied by recommendations to address these knowledge influences.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
103

Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to know
research-based
classroom assessment
principles and standards.
(D)
N N Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is available
or known. (Clark, 2008).
Not a priority.
Teachers should have a
clear understanding of
the meaning of their
final grades. (D)
Y Y Increasing germane
cognitive load by engaging
the learner in meaningful
learning and schema
construction facilitates
effective learning
(Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006).
Provide training that
utilizes case studies
and familiar situations
to demonstrate the
disparities between the
meaning of teachers’
final grades.
Teachers need to
understand how to use
assessment to guide
instruction. (P)
Y Y Acquiring skills for
expertise frequently begins
with learning declarative
knowledge about individual
procedural steps (Clark,
2008)

To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned
(McCrudden, Schraw, &
Hartley 2006).
Provide a job aid that
includes techniques on
how to use formative
assessment to guide
classroom instruction.

Provide ongoing,
content-specific, job-
embedded training on
using formative
assessment to modify
instruction.
Teachers need to reflect
on how their assessment
practices affect student
learning. (M)
Y Y The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning
(Garrett, Mazzocco, &
Baker, 2006).

Teachers will review
examples of
assessment practices,
including their own,
and talk aloud with
peers or their PLC to
reflect on how various
strategies to affect
student learning.

As noted by Clark (2008), the increase of declarative knowledge facilitates growth in procedural
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
104

knowledge and potentially acquiring skills for expertise. Thus, the growth of teachers’
declarative knowledge about the meaning of assessment could improve teachers’ procedural
knowledge on how to effectively grade students. The context-specific recommendation explains
how this declarative knowledge will be delivered to the teaching staff as well as a plan for the
conveyance of procedural knowledge. These recommendations, when delivered through
effective training modules, will help address the validated knowledge influences in the study.
Declarative knowledge solutions. Teachers should have a clear understanding of the
meaning of their final grades. This is an important knowledge influence because it is at the core
of teachers developing clear and consistent assessment and grading practices. Kirschner,
Sweller, and Clark (2006) found that engaging the learner in meaningful learning and schema
construction both increases cognitive germane load and facilitates effective learning. This would
suggest that the use of concrete, real world examples or case studies would help increase
germane load (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). With this principle in mind, teachers should be
provided training that utilizes grading case studies and practical scenarios to elucidate the
meaning of teachers’ final grades.
To understand the meaning of grades, teachers should have an opportunity to analyze
how process, product, and progress are used as criteria indicators in teachers’ grades (Guskey,
2006a). Teachers need to cultivate and demonstrate a clear understanding of what that letter
grade conveys about student learning for the grade to be meaningful (Deddeh et al., 2010).
Increased understanding of the meaning of a letter grade could occur through training that is
designed to increase germane cognitive load through meaningful learning. Mugford, Corey, and
Bennell (2013) found benefits to applying cognitive load theory to police training. They cited
the use of worked examples to minimize extraneous load and lay a foundation for higher order
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
105

thinking. To increase germane cognitive load, the researchers suggested offering a range of
different training case studies to improve the transfer of skills to the work environment and
explicitly prompting trainees to engage in a deeper processing of the materials (Mugford et al.,
2013). Like the police officers who benefitted from training based in cognitive load theory, the
teachers in this study would learn about the meaning of grades through analyzing concrete
examples.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Teachers need to understand how to use assessment
to guide instruction. Clark (2008) found that acquiring skills for expertise frequently begins with
learning declarative knowledge about individual procedural steps. This knowledge could be
demonstrated in the form of a job aid that suggests steps based on available information. A list
of techniques or strategies could be provided to assist teachers struggling with the use of
formative assessment to modify instruction. While this would provide teachers a starting point,
McCrudden, Schraw, and Hartley (2006) noted that to develop mastery, individuals must acquire
skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. Skills that
require a greater level of procedural knowledge may require more than understanding the
individual steps, but rather opportunities to utilize the steps in various scenarios. A
recommendation for teachers could be to provide ongoing, job-embedded training on how to use
formative assessment to guide instruction.
Wei (2011) provided operational components of formative assessment that could serve as
a job aid for teachers. To utilize formative assessment to drive instruction, teachers must engage
in needs analysis, instructional goal setting, formulating the assessment plan, distributing and
explaining the plan, implementing the plan, evaluating and revising the plan. This would help
teachers understand the necessary steps to utilize formative assessment to guide instruction, but
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
106

further training would be required for teachers to implement that plan. Stewart and Houchens
(2014) discovered in a case study at one middle school that teachers who participated in an
ongoing series of workshops experienced a growth in their capacity to use and teach others
various formative assessment strategies. The focus of the workshops was developing a
professional learning community focused on increasing formative assessment strategies to use in
the classroom. All of the teachers who participated in the workshops reported increases in their
own formative assessment strategy practice (Stewart & Houchens, 2014). This type of ongoing,
job-embedded training is an exemplar for the type of professional development needed for
teachers to understand how to utilize formative assessment to guide instruction.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Teachers need to reflect on how their assessment
practices affect student learning. Garrett, Mazzocco, and Baker (2006) found that metacognitive
strategies such as self-monitoring and self-assessment facilitate learning. This principle suggests
that providing learners with opportunities to debrief the thinking process upon completion of a
learning task or talking out loud to assess strengths and weaknesses would be beneficial for
learning (Garrett et al., 2006). To facilitate metacognition, the recommendation would be for
teachers to review examples of various assessment practices, including their own, and talk aloud
with peers to reflect on how different strategies affect student learning.
For some teachers, grading has become a rather mechanized process instead of one with
substantial teacher reflection on the impact of classroom assessment practices (Kitiashvili, 2014).
Grading policies such as not accepting late work, assigning zeros for missed assignments, and
not allowing student to redo work are not conducive to student learning and provide an
inaccurate picture of a student’s understanding of the content (Wormeli, 2006). It is important
for teachers to engage in the metacognitive process of determining what their assessment
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
107

strategies reveal about student learning needs (Atjonen, 2014). Ku and Ho (2010) studied the
impact of metacognitive strategies on students’ critical thinking as they performed thinking
tasks. Researchers asked participants to use the think aloud procedure, where they verbalized all
the thoughts running through their mind, while completing the tasks. The study found that the
better critical thinkers utilized more metacognitive activities, specifically high-level planning and
high-level evaluating strategies. Taking this into consideration, the recommendation that
teachers reflect on and evaluate assessment practices aloud with their peers could lead to a
deeper understanding of the impact of their assessment practices on student learning, and
potentially impactful changes in their practices.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that indicators of motivation include the
stakeholder’s choice to partake in the activity, how much effort to commit, and whether they
want to persist in achieving the goal. Of the two motivation influences introduced in the study,
only self-efficacy was validated and viewed as a priority. Data from the study revealed that
teachers sometimes choose to pursue non-traditional grading practices, but lack the mental effort
and persistence required to follow through completely with the process. As indicated in Table
10, the reason for this is not that they do not see the utility value of using assessment to drive
instruction, but rather that they lack confidence in implementing grading systems that are
different than what has traditionally been utilized for many years. Table 9 suggests
recommendations for addressing these influences based on the noted theoretical principles.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
108

Table 9
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy - Teachers
need to feel capable using
non-traditional assessment
strategies to assess
students.
Y Y Individuals with higher self-
efficacy, great belief in their
own competence, and higher
expectancies for positive
outcomes will be more
motivated to engage in,
persist at, and word hard at
a task or activity (Rueda,
2011).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors, then
enacting it overtly
(Ambrose, Bridges,
DiPietro, Lovett, &
Norman, 2010).
Provide workshop or
training where non-
traditional assessment
strategies are modeled,
then teachers can
develop potential
examples with
colleagues, and lastly
implement the
assessment. After
implementation, the
teacher will meet with
their colleagues to
discuss their
confidence level and
further revise the
assessment.
Utility Value - Teachers
need to see the value of
using assessment to drive
instruction rather just as a
summative measure.
N N Not a priority

Self-Efficacy. Teachers need to feel capable using non-traditional assessment strategies
to assess students. Rueda (2011) found that individuals with higher self-efficacy, great belief in
their own competence, and higher expectancies for positive outcomes will be more motivated to
engage in, persist at, and work hard at a task or activity. This would suggest that teachers need
to be able to be provided opportunities to increase their self-efficacy prior to engaging in a
difficult task. Furthermore, Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, and Norman (2010) found that
effective observational learning is achieved by first organizing and rehearsing modeled
behaviors, then enacting it overtly. Following these principles, teachers need to be provided
opportunities to plan and practice behaviors that are modeled prior to implementation.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
109

The recommendation is to provide teachers with training where non-traditional
assessment strategies are modeled. Then, teachers would have an opportunity to develop, plan,
and rehearse with colleagues before finally implementing the strategies with students. After
implementation, teachers can meet with colleagues to discuss self-efficacy levels and make
adjustments to the assessments based on reflection.
Rueda (2011) noted that self-efficacy is especially important when people are engaging
in a difficult task or activity. Clark and Estes (2008) found that “as confidence increases,
commitment to performance goals also increases” (p. 90). Despite recognition of the value of
non-traditional assessment strategies, such practices are often not frequently used by teachers
because they are difficult to implement and require a high level of self-efficacy to persist at the
task (Buldur & Tatar, 2010). Several studies on pre-service teacher education in the area of
assessment indicated that specific training on assessment methods resulted in an increase in self-
efficacy (Buldur, 2009; Coklar & Odabasi, 2009; Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2009; Sahin & Ersoy, 2009).
Higher self-efficacy in the area of alternative assessment theory can increase the likelihood of
assimilation of these theories into classroom assessment practices (DeLuca et al., 2013; Levy-
Vered & Nasser-Abu Alhija, 2015; Ören et al., 2014). From this theoretical approach, it would
appear that increasing teacher self-efficacy through training on specific assessment methods
could lead to increased and improved teacher use of non-traditional assessment practices.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 11 represents the organizational influences validated through the
data analysis process. Clark and Estes (2008) found that performance problems are likely to
occur when organizational goals and policies conflict with organizational culture. To describe
organizational culture, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) utilized the concept of cultural models
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
110

and cultural settings. Cultural models are shared norms of how things are supposed to work
whereas cultural settings are how these behaviors occur. Rueda (2011) suggested that cultural
models and settings have a reciprocal relationship that is dynamic and intertwined and that help
explain why organizational policies, structures, and practices exist. Table 10 indicates two
cultural models and two cultural settings as organizational influences that have a high probability
of being validated and carry a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 10 also
lists the recommendations for these influences derived from theoretical principles.
Table 10
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
There is a general
acceptance among teachers
that grades are a necessary
component in the school,
favoring the utility of
grades over a focus on
learning.
Y Y Adults are more motivated
to participate (and
learn) when they see the
relevance of
information, a request, or
task (the “why”) to
their own circumstances.
They are goal oriented
(Knowles, 1980).
Administrators will
create procedures to
help teachers align
grading policies and
practices with the
vision and mission of
the organization,
which is student
learning. Workshops
will be provided to
clarify vision and
goals. Administrators
will reinforce the
significance on an
ongoing basis.

Teachers are not provided
with the proper training,
resources, and support to
help effectively assess and
evaluate student
performance.
Y Y Organizational performance
increases when processes
and resources are aligned
with goals established
collaboratively (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Provide teachers with
ongoing professional
development,
resources on effective
grading techniques
and improved
administrative support
in implementation.
Teachers often develop
grading practices in
isolation or do not have
many opportunities to
discuss grading and
Y Y Organizational performance
increases when individuals
communicate constantly and
candidly to others about
plans and processes (Clark
Provide teachers
opportunities through
Professional Learning
Communities to
collaborate with
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
111

assessment practices with
peers.
& Estes, 2008) colleagues specifically
about grading and
assessment practices
and then assess the
impact on the
implementation of
their revised practices.
Teachers are under
tremendous pressure from
students, parents, and
administration to inflate
students’ grades.
Y Y Organizational performance
increases when individuals
communicate constantly and
candidly to others about
plans and processes (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

Organizational culture is
created through shared
experience, shared learning
and stability of membership.
It is something that has been
learned. It cannot be
imposed
(Schein, 2004).

Administration needs
to clearly
communicate the goals
of grading practices
and policies to
teachers to ensure that
teachers are supported
when implementing
these practices.

Create mechanisms for
teachers to share
concerns about any
pressures to
manipulate grades,
especially those from
administration.

Cultural Model Influence 1: Communication. There is a general acceptance among
teachers that grades are a necessary component in the school, favoring the utility of grades over a
focus on learning. Knowles (1980) suggested that adults are more motivated to learn when they
see the relevance of information, a request, or task to their own circumstances. They are goal
oriented and need to understand “the why”. This suggests that teachers need to see the
connection between their grading practices and the vision and mission of the school. If the
“why” for teachers is to help all students to learn, teachers need to see how effective assessment
practices promote learning over utility. The recommendation would be for administrators to
work with teachers in aligning grading procedures and practices with the organizational mission
of student learning. Conversations between administrators and teachers about grading practices
would center around “the why” and keep student learning at the forefront of all grading practices
and procedures.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
112

Clark and Estes (2008) stated that when policies and procedures are aligned and
communicated from the top with all stakeholders, organizational performance increases.
Grading practices and procedures are established at the school level and teachers are tasked with
implementing them within the established framework. Guskey (2014) suggested that if the goal
of schools is to develop rather than sort talent, then schools should not insist on essentially
ranking students through the use of letter grades. Students’ emphasis on grades takes away from
their attention to the goal of improved student learning or the development of critical and
creative thinking skills (Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996; Morrison, 2003; Romanowski, 2004). Kohn
(1994) found that students perform worse and are less interested in the content when they are
being graded on assignments or tasks. If the goal of high schools is to promote and support
student learning, educators should not abandon their organizational mission to help sort students
for college admission (Guskey, 2014; Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996). Thus, the recommendation
would be for the organization to align grading procedures and practices with the organizational
mission of student learning, and center future discussions about grading around student learning
as the key concept.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Lack of Resources. Teachers are not provided with the
proper training, resources, and support to help effectively assess and evaluate student
performance. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that organizational performance increases when
processes and resources are aligned with goals established collaboratively. This principle
purports that if teachers were provided with the necessary procedures, professional development,
and resources, they would be able to more effectively achieve the organizational goal of
establishing grading practices that drive instruction and promote student learning. The
recommendation is for administration to provide teachers with ongoing training, resources on
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
113

effective grading strategies, and increased supervisor support in implementation.
Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) noted that meeting staff resource needs is
correlated with increased student learning outcomes. In the case of teacher’s grading practices, it
is evident that minimal time is spent in pre-service teacher training programs (Deluca & Klinger,
2010) or ongoing professional development (Mertler, 2009) to ensure that teachers have the
understanding and skills necessary to implement effective classroom assessment. Teachers who
went through more extensive training demonstrated increased knowledge about assessment
strategies as well as self-efficacy in implementing them (Levy-Vered & Nasser-Abu Alhija,
2015; Mertler, 2009). It is important for school administrators to understand classroom
assessment so that they can provide ongoing professional development and effective support for
the teaching staff (Allen et al., 2009; Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2015; Stiggins, 2002). Increased
training that provides improved assessment strategies along with additional support from
administration in implementing them should lead to more effective grading practices that
promote student learning.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Lack of collaboration. Teachers often develop grading
practices in isolation or do not have many opportunities to discuss grading and assessment
practices with peers. Clark and Estes (2008) found that organizational performance increases
when individuals communicate constantly and candidly to others about plans and processes.
This would suggest that if teachers had opportunities for constant communication with each
other and administration about assessment, teacher grading practices would align with
organizational standards and become more effective. To achieve this, the recommendation
would be to provide teachers opportunities through Professional Learning Communities to
collaborate with colleagues specifically about grading and assessment practices. To assess the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
114

impact of their revised practices, teachers would work collaboratively to see how their
implementation of new grading practices affected student learning.
Organizational Development perspective holds that employees are more effective when
the organization acknowledges that people value interpersonal interaction with peers as well as
personal growth and development (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). This professional
communication between teachers can often be a positive impetus for organizational change
within a school (Berger, 2014). School administrators are responsible for creating and
cultivating a school culture that encourages and supports teacher collaboration (Gajda & Koliba,
2008; Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2015) and the lack of mechanisms to facilitate collaboration can
lead to wide disparities in grading practices (Cizek et al., 1995). Recent research has highlighted
the concept of communities of practice, where teachers expand their knowledge and expertise
through regular collaborative work with colleagues (Glazier, Boyd, Hughes, Able & Mallous,
2016). Enhanced teacher collaboration has not only been found to support student learning
(Gideon, 2002), but also positively impacted teacher morale, collegiality, and self-efficacy
(Vangrieken et al., 2014). Studies on classroom assessment have demonstrated that teacher
collaboration has helped teachers learn alternative assessment theories and how to implement
associated strategies in the classroom (Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2015; Lyna, Hung, & Chong,
2015). The recommendation to provide teachers with opportunities to further their learning
through collaboration with colleagues and assess the impact on student learning would increase
teacher and organizational performance.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Communication. Teachers are under tremendous
pressure from students, parents, and administration to inflate students’ grades. Teachers do not
get much feedback about their grading procedures until there is a complaint by a student or
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
115

parent, at which point administration communicates with a teacher to make a judgment of their
assessment practices. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that organizational performance increases
when individuals communicate constantly and candidly to others about plans and processes.
Schein (2004) added that organizational culture must be learned rather than imposed. These
principles suggest that open lines of communication to help people learn about plans and
procedures create an organizational culture that emphasizes cooperation rather than an exercising
of will. The recommendations to address this organizational influence are for administration to
clearly communicate the goals of grading practices and policies to teachers to ensure that
teachers are supported when implementing these practices and to create mechanisms for teachers
to share concerns about any pressures to manipulate grades, especially those from administration.
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized the importance of clear and candid communication in
building trust and helping employees adjust their behavior in unexpected situations. Infrequent
and vague communication between administrators and teachers about grading practices leads to
teachers feeling uncertain about whether their practices will be supported by administration.
Stewart-Banks, Kuofie, Hakim, and Branch (2015) found in their study that principals' abilities
to communicate and be approachable contributed to the commitment level of school staff and
that the principals' abilities to motivate teachers was dependent upon their ability to take input
from school employees. Furthermore, Stipek (2012) found that teachers’ perception of the
administrative support they receive predicts their self-efficacy in promoting student learning. If
administration wants to see changes in grading practices to align with the organizational vision,
principals and supervisors need to clearly communicate goals, support teachers in implementing
practices and listen to feedback about emergent concerns and issues.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
116

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan utilized in this section is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick model
suggests that evaluation plans begin with the desired results, or Level Four, and work backward
from that to the other three levels. These “leading indicators” can be either external or internal
and help to monitor progress of implementation plans, identify barriers to success, focus
employees on desired behavior, and provide important data connecting training to job
performance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Once the goals or outcomes are set, it is easier
for an organization to determine what critical behaviors are necessary to achieve those goals,
what learning occurred during the training activity, and the satisfaction of organizational
members with the learned strategies. By viewing the evaluation plan upside-down, with a focus
on results, an organization is less likely to waste time and money on training and change that has
no real focus or purpose. Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) ensures that training is directly connected to performance and then results for programs
that are vital to an organization.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Mountaintop High School is to work together as a staff to improve the
collective ability to successfully prepare students for college and careers. One of the key aspects
used in evaluating student progress toward successful post-secondary plans is student grades. In
a traditional grading system, teachers can include a variety of factors in a student’s grade, which
can lead to wide disparities in the meaning of student grades. This study examined the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that contribute to inconsistent grading
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
117

practices that emphasized the utility of grades over student learning. The recommendations to
address the problem are a comprehensive training program, increased teacher collaboration
through professional learning communities, revised organizational policies and procedures, and
enhanced communication. These proposed solutions should produce the desired outcome, which
is teacher grading practices that align with organizational standards and drive instruction.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 indicates the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading indicators, noting internal
and external outcomes, metrics, and methods for Mountaintop High School. If the internal
outcomes are achieved because of the proposed recommendations, it will lead to the fulfillment
of the external outcomes indicated.
Table 11

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Student learning increases,
making students better
prepared for college and
career.
Student performance on
standardized tests.
Analyze data from PARCC, AP, SAT
and ACT scores.
2. Reduction in student
failures.
Number of students failing courses
in each year.
Compare data from current school year
to previous school years regarding
percentage of students failing
academic courses.
3. Parents have greater
understanding of student
mastery of content.
3a. Positive/negative feedback about
new grading practices.

Set aside time for groups of parents to
share feedback about grading
practices, potentially at Home and
School Association meetings.
3b. Survey results on questions
about grades communicating
understanding.
Survey parents on how new grading
practices are helping them understand
about their student’s academic
performance.
4. Reduction in the
competitive, pressure-
driven, nature of grades.
4a. Teachers feel less pressure from
students, parents, and administrators
to inflate grades.
Survey teachers twice a year on the
extent to which they feel pressure to
assign higher grades.
4b. Reduced stress level for
students, especially those getting
Discussions with student leaders,
focusing on high-pressure
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
118

ready to apply to college. upperclassmen students. Survey
students to compare stress levels to
previous years.
Internal Outcomes
1. Teacher grades are aligned
with organizational
standards and the
organizational mission.
Number of documents collected
indicating that teacher grading
practices follow district policies,
procedures and philosophies.
Administrators will review gradebooks
as a part of the formal evaluation
process and discuss teacher grading
practices at post-observation
conferences.
2. Teachers grades are
consistently structured
within and across
disciplines.
2a. Number of teachers within
academic departments that have
grading systems and practices that
are closely aligned.
Supervisors will review gradebooks of
teachers as well as discuss alignment
in monthly department meetings.
2b. Number of teachers in each
department that are consistent with
colleagues’ grading practices.
Principal and assistant principal will
review teacher gradebooks across
departments each semester and elicit
data from teachers at faculty meetings.
3. Classroom instruction is
improved because of
improved formative
assessment strategies.
Number of uses of formative
assessment to modify instruction by
teachers during lessons.
Administrators will note the impact of
changes in instruction based on
formative assessment.
4. Increased focus on using
grades to promote student
learning rather than elicit
compliance.
Number of teacher gradebooks with
grading practices that emphasize
improving student mastery of
content rather than motivating
student effort.
Administrators will review teacher
gradebooks to assess the level to which
teachers are using grades to promote
student learning as well as how they
are using grades to motivate
compliance. This will be determined
through the weighting of categories
and the types of assignments included
in the gradebook. Administrators will
also sit in on professional learning
community meetings to assess the
focus of discussions.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the teachers who are being trained on
assessment strategies that emphasize student learning. The specific critical behaviors, metrics,
methods and timing for each critical behavior are included in Table 12.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
119

Table 12

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Use formative
assessment daily
to drive
instruction.
The observed frequency of
formative assessment.
1a. Administrators will note
the frequency and quality of
formative assessment in
classroom observations.
During 3 yearly
classroom observations.
The percentage of teachers
with modified lesson plans
as a result of formative
assessment.
1b. Administrators will
review lesson plans and see
how often and how well
teachers modified instruction
based on formative
assessment.
Monthly when lesson
plans are submitted.
2. Align grading
practices with
colleagues and
organizational
standards.
The number of teachers
who have gradebook
setups that are vastly
different than colleagues.
2a. Supervisors will meet
with teachers in their
departments and review
teacher gradebooks.
Monthly as part of
department meetings.
The number of teachers
who use grading practices
that do not follow
organizational policies and
procedures.
2b. Principal, along with
supervisors, will track
grading practices through
online gradebooks.
Quarterly, in
conjunction with
administrative team
meetings.
3. Use grading
practices that
emphasize student
learning.
The number of teachers
allowing students to
complete redos and retakes
of assessments.
3a. Survey of teaching staff
and principal review of
gradebooks.
Once each semester.
The percentage of teachers
grading practice formative
assessments.
3b. Principal and supervisor
review of gradebook.
Quarterly.
The number of
performance based or
authentic assessments used
by teachers.
3c. Supervisor conference
with teacher on grading
practices.
Monthly as part of
department meetings.

Required drivers. Teachers require the support of administrators and their colleagues to
reinforce acquired learning from training and encourage them to implement new strategies in the
classroom. Administrators will need to monitor teachers’ online gradebooks to assess progress
toward performance goals and provide rewards when goals are achieved. Table 13 shows the
recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of new reviewers.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
120

Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid that includes techniques on
how to use formative assessment to
guide classroom instruction.

Ongoing 1, 3
Faculty meetings to provide job-
embedded training on using
formative assessment, non-traditional
assessment strategies, and strategies
that promote student learning.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Department meetings to align
practices across content areas and
discuss concerns or struggles with
colleagues.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Professional Learning Communities
for teachers to discuss strategies after
reviewing student assessments.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Professional Learning Communities
where teachers can discuss grading
practices in a supportive
environment.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and support from content
area supervisor.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement at a faculty
meeting to recognize grading
practices that are innovative and
worth emulating.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

Monitoring
Supervisor and Principal will monitor
teacher gradebooks online to evaluate
practices.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Supervisor can ask teachers to
discuss recent grading practices and
show examples at post-observation
conference and final evaluation.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Supervisor can note formative
assessment practices during formal
and informal classroom observations
as well as through lesson plan
review.
Monthly 1

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
121

Organizational support. To support teachers’ critical behaviors, the organization will
prioritize professional development time to focus on supporting teachers in their efforts to
improve their grading practices. This will include training at faculty meetings, department
meetings, and ongoing communication with colleagues in professional learning communities.
Additionally, there will be increased two-way communication between supervisors and teachers
about concerns that emerge during the change process. Organizational support is pivotal for
teachers to be able to apply the knowledge required during training and achieve measurable
results.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. After completion of the recommended solutions, especially the initial
training, the teachers will be able to:
1. Recognize district grading policies and school grading procedures with 100%
accuracy, (D)
2. Identify grading practices that are aligned and not-aligned with the organizational
mission of promoting student learning, (D)
3. Correctly identify various forms of formative assessment that can be used in the
classroom to drive instruction, (D)
4. Apply the procedures to utilize formative assessment to modify instruction daily, (P)
5. Create goals for their Professional Learning Community to implement grading
practices, (P)
6. Plan and monitor their grading practices to align to school and district regulations, (P,
M)
7. Indicate confidence that they can implement grading practices effectively
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
122

(Confidence)
8. Value the importance of using grading practices to promote student learning, (Value)
9. Value the planning and monitoring of their work. (Value)
Program. The learning goals indicated in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program that thoroughly examines revised grading policies, procedures, and practices.
The learners, teachers, will learn about various topics related to effective grading and how to
implement them in the classroom. The program is blended, with one introductory in-person
workshop, one e-learning module, and multiple follow up application trainings during meetings.
The entire training will take place over the period of one school year and will last 600 minutes
(10 hours).
During the introductory in-person training, there will be two distinct sections:
philosophical principles and policies/procedures. The training will take place for the entirety of
an in-service day and will be broken into a morning session and an afternoon session. The
morning session will focus on the philosophy of grades, reviewing the purpose of grades and
clarifying the mission and goals of the organization. This portion of the training will focus
strongly on the “why” and provide open opportunities for discussion and activities where
participants can share questions or concerns. Because traditional grading practices have
remained unchanged for many years, it is expected that there will be concerns and barriers to
proposed changes. The afternoon session will introduce teachers to new organizational policies
and procedures that are aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. There will also be
time during that training for participants to discuss potential issues with colleagues that might
emerge when these practices are implemented. Any potential barriers or challenges will be
brought forth and discussed as a group.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
123

After the initial training session, teachers will be required to complete an e-learning
module. During the module, teachers will be provided with a job aid of key policies and
procedures that will drive their grading practices. Another job aid will provide a list of formative
assessment strategies that teachers could use to assess student understanding and drive teacher
instruction. The strategies will be demonstrated using video and will present classroom
scenarios of successful implementation. After each video, the learners will be asked questions to
check for understanding. At the end of the entire module, teachers will be presented with
multiple choice questions that assess teacher understanding of the main principles of the training
module.
During the ongoing trainings during faculty and department meetings, the focus will be
for teachers to apply information from the initial training session and follow up e-learning
module. These trainings will utilize role-playing, collaborative discussions, and peer modeling
to reinforce newly acquired grading strategies. Master teachers who have demonstrated
successful implementation will discuss the value of utilizing these strategies in promoting
student learning as well as model how to strategically plan to use these practices to effectively
assess students. Teachers will reinforce these strategies by supporting one another in their
ongoing professional learning community meetings.
Components of learning. Before learners can apply knowledge to solve a problem,
he/she must demonstrate acquisition of the necessary declarative knowledge. During trainings, it
is then essential to assess learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge. Learners also
need to value the training as an important initial step to using their acquired learning and skills in
their job. The training is important in building the learner’s confidence that they can
successfully implement the knowledge and skills that were taught as well as their commitment to
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
124

using them on the job. Table 14 indicates the evaluation methods and timing for these
components of learning.
Table 14
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. After videos in the e-learning module as well
as at the end of the entire module.
Checks for understanding through pair and
small group discussions as well as online
backchannel discussions.

From time to time during the initial training as
well as follow-up implementation trainings.
Documented by notes and recorded
backchannel responses and questions.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Multiple choice questions using scenarios
in asynchronous module.
At the end of module.
Demonstration in groups of using the
guiding principles and job aid strategies to
successfully perform the skills.
During the workshops.
Responses and feedback from teachers
during the training, especially during small
group sessions.
During the workshops.
Individual application of the skills in the
classroom as documented in observations.
At the end of the workshop.
Pre- and post-test assessment survey asking
participants about their understanding and
level of proficiency before and after the
training.
At the end of the workshop.
Collaborative analysis and report out of
goals created for Professional Learning
Communities.
At the end of the workshop
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observation of participants’ feedback and
actions to the value of newly introduced
strategies and practices.
During the workshops.
Discussions of the value of what they are
being asked to do in the classroom.
During the workshops.
Pre- and post-test assessment item. After the initial training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the
job.”

Survey items assessing confidence levels Following each video in the e-learning module
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
125

after seeing videos or live modeling of
strategies.
as well as through backchannel during in-
person training sessions.
Discussion after practice and feedback.

During the workshops.
Pre- and post-test assessment item. After the initial training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions after practice and feedback.

During the workshops.
Create an individual action plan as well as
goals for professional learning community.

During the workshops.
Pre- and post-test assessment item. After the initial training.
Level 1: Reaction
After a training takes place, it is important to get immediate feedback about the quality of
the program and instructor. Table 15 below lists the methods or tools used to evaluate all three
components of Level 1 Reaction: engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of online backchannel
questions
Ongoing during synchronous portion of the
course.
Completion of e-learning module Ongoing during asynchronous portion of the
course.
Observation by instructor/administrator During the workshops.
Training course evaluation Immediately after workshop and two weeks later.
Relevance
Check in using questions during online
module and backchannel during
workshops
After every video/module and after major
workshop activities.

Training Course evaluation Immediately after workshop and two weeks later.
Customer Satisfaction
Check in using questions during online
module and backchannel during
workshops
After every video/module and after major
workshop activities.

Training Course evaluation Immediately after workshop and two weeks later.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
126

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the initial and follow-up
workshops, teachers will have access to an online backchannel which will be used both to answer
multiple choice survey questions and as a discussion board. This data will indicate engagement
with the content of the training. Additionally, the instructor or administrator responsible for the
training will observe engagement and discuss with the teachers the relevance of the content to
the teachers’ work. After the initial training and the e-learning module, a survey will be
administered that assesses satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1) and their
knowledge, confidence, and value of the training (Level 2). The instrument can be found in
Appendix G.
During the asynchronous part of the training, there will be set times for teachers to pause
and answer questions about the relevance of the material as well as their overall satisfaction with
the content and means of delivery of the training. The learning management system will provide
data about the amount of time spent on the learning modules and when they are completed by
participants. This information will reveal the engagement with the training content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. About eight weeks after the
initial training, and then again at 16 weeks, administration will distribute a survey containing
both open and scaled items utilizing the Blended Evaluation Approach. The goal of the survey is
to glean information from the participant regarding: satisfaction and relevance of the training
(Level 1), the participant's confidence in applying the training and the value assigned to it (Level
2), application of the training to their grading practices (Level 3), and the extent to which
teachers’ grading practices align with organizational standards and drive instruction (Level 4).
The instrument can be found in Appendix H.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
127

Data Analysis and Reporting
The level 4 goal for teachers is measured by the level of adherence to grading policies
and procedures and the quantity and quality of formative assessment use in instruction. Each
week, administration will track assignments entered in teacher gradebooks as well as the use of
formative assessment during observations. The report card below in Table 16 will report the data
on teacher grading practices as a monitoring and accountability tool, including elements from all
four levels of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model.
Table 16
Teacher Grading Practices Accountability Report Card.
100-90% 89-80% 79-65% <65%
Level 4 - Results
Gradebooks aligned with district policies
promoting student learning.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Gradebooks aligned with school procedures
promoting student learning.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Lessons where formative assessment used to
effectively modify instruction.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Level 3 - Behavior
Alignment between teacher gradebooks
teaching similar courses.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Lesson Plans with modifications based on
formative assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Gradebook weightings are within suggested
percentages.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Gradebooks including evidence of redos and
retakes.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Lesson plans and gradebooks including
performance-based and authentic assessments.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
128

Level 2 - Learning
Teachers that demonstrated knowledge of
district policies and procedures in post-
assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating they can implement
newly acquired knowledge on the post-
assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating value of grading practices
in post-assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating confidence that they can
implement grading practices in post-
assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating commitment to
implementing practices in post-assessment.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Level 1 - Reaction

Teachers indicating engagement in the initial
training program.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating that the initial training
was relevant.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽
Teachers indicating that the training was
useful.
◽ ◽ ◽ ◽

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the
recommendations for Mountaintop High School to achieve its goal of grading practices that drive
instruction and promote student learning. The model is useful in that it focuses on whether the
training met expectations for all four levels of evaluation: results, behavior, learning, and
reaction. Furthermore, the model emphasizes that it is not necessary to wait until after the
training is completed to begin collecting data to assess the impact of the program, but rather to
do so in an ongoing fashion. In doing this, one can modify and adapt the training to ensure that it
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
129

is meeting the expectations of both the organization and the participants. This systematic data
analysis will both increase the potential success of the program and enable organizations to
maximize the impact of future trainings and initiatives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By
continuously evaluating the effectiveness of the school’s professional development and training
on assessment and grading, the school will see an increase in the effectiveness of teacher grading
practices. The achievement of the stakeholder goal of grading practices that drive instruction
predicates the achievement of the organizational goal of using grading and assessment to
promote student learning.
Limitations and Delimitations

This study used a mixed method approach that included document analysis, survey, and
focus groups. As noted in Chapter Three, I, the principal researcher, served as an administrator
in the school used in the study. To avoid any potential pressure on focus group participants, a
CITI certified administrator from a different school conducted the focus groups. The data from
the focus groups was scrubbed of identifiable information by a transcription service to protect the
anonymity of the participants and to ensure that they felt safe in sharing their perspectives about
grading. Using an outside researcher for anonymous qualitative data collection impacted the
study in two ways. First, the outside researcher, while knowledgeable, sometimes asked follow-
up questions that interested him but did not elicit additional information that could be used in the
study. For example, when inquiring about the amount of teacher collaboration about grading, the
researcher spent valuable time discussing common assessments instead of exploring reasons why
teachers did not have enough time to collaborate about grading. The second problem was no
fault of the researcher, but a product of the anonymous nature of the focus groups. Because
teachers’ responses were anonymous, it was not clear what comments were attributed to what
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
130

teachers. This limited the ability to disaggregate the data by department or teacher level of
experience. Anonymous focus groups also prevented me from following up with teachers to
member check the meaning of some of their statements in the focus groups. While it was
necessary to protect teachers by providing anonymity and removing myself from the focus
groups, it was a significant limitation of the study.
Data collection was completed over a two-month period and limited to teacher
perspectives. These delimitations were necessary to complete the study in the allotted time
frame, but impacted the study. Administration, parents, and especially students would have
provided different and important perspectives about grading and assessment that were not
included in the study. Furthermore, the study was limited to a small, suburban high school in an
affluent community. Because teacher perspectives and practices on grading and assessment vary
between schools (Cizek et al., 1995), the recommendations of this study could be implemented
by other schools only if they had a relatively similar demographic population to Mountaintop
High School.
Future Research

Considering the limitations and delimitations of the study, several recommendations for
future research emerged. The first recommendation would be to conduct a longitudinal study
that includes teachers, administrators, students, and parents in multiple school settings on the
topic of grading and assessment. This research would allow for more in-depth research that
would be individualized through interviews and observations that occur over time. This would
create added value through multiple perspectives on grading, especially that of students, who are
the most directly impacted by grades. It is both important and interesting to understand what
grades mean to students and how they use grades to improve their performance in school. The
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
131

recommendations in this study suggest that improving teacher grading and assessment practices
would benefit student achievement. To determine the actual impacts of grading reform, it would
be necessary to collect additional data on the effectiveness of increased formative assessment on
student learning.
Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal findings that formative assessment positively impacts
student learning is approaching twenty years old at the time of publication of this dissertation.
Little has changed, however, in the past twenty years regarding the overemphasis on summative
assessment within traditional grading systems. If future research continues to support that
formative assessment has a positive impact on student learning, additional research on how to
increase the use formative assessment in schools will be necessary. This departure from an
emphasis on summative assessment to a greater reliance on formative assessment would be
significant grading reform and would require a substantial change in culture within schools. It
remains to be seen whether students and parents would welcome changes in grading systems or
whether they prefer the current system.
At schools like Mountaintop High School, where upwards of 95% of students attend
college, students and parents appear most concerned about whether a student’s grades are high
enough to gain them admission into a desired college or university. In this study, teachers
indicated feeling pressure to assign higher grades so that they do not harm a student’s chance of
getting into a good college. If grading systems were modified to emphasize a focus on learning
but made it harder for colleges and universities to sort and rank students for admission, there
would be substantial discord among students and parents. Thus, it is important that future
researchers seek to identify and explain how colleges and universities interpret student grades.
College admissions offices review student transcripts from schools across the United States and
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
132

are tasked with using high school grades to evaluate students’ academic ability. If the most
selective colleges and universities prefer high schools that employ traditional grading systems
rather than standards based grading systems, then it is highly improbably that schools like
Mountaintop would ever want to overhaul the traditional use of grades.
Conclusion
At Mountaintop High School, and other high schools across the country, effective
grading practices are essential to the student learning process. This study set out to evaluate the
clarity and consistency of teacher grading practices and to what extent assessments drove
instruction. Teachers were selected as the primary stakeholder as they are ultimately responsible
to determine a student’s grade. To assess where a potential performance gap may exist, Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was used to generate and analyze knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on teachers. Using this framework, data revealed that teachers
possess the knowledge and motivation to utilize effective assessment practices, but lack the
organizational supports required to implement them in their grading systems. Recommendations
to address these organizational issues include improved and increased training, enhanced
communication, increased supports for collaboration, and evaluation of the implementation plan
to ensure success.
This study has helped Mountaintop High School assess the grading practices of teachers
within the organization as to the meaning of grades and the value that assessment added to
student learning. It identified gaps in performance within the organization that could be
addressed through future collaborative efforts surrounding assessment. Furthermore, the results
of this study could impact high schools across the state and the nation that struggle with the
complexity of traditional grading systems. Since grading practices have hardly changed over the
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
133

last 100 years, this study, and future studies on the nature of grading, could potentially encourage
educators to think critically about the purpose and function of grades in today’s schools. Related
literature as well as the data collected in this study suggest that the way that we traditionally
grade students is not optimal for student learning. If we continue to combine a hodgepodge of
assignments into a single letter grade that means something different to each stakeholder, we are
accepting the fact that the true purpose of high school is to get a student admitted to college
rather than to promote student learning. Rather than perpetuate an outdated method of assessing
student achievement, it is the responsibility of school officials across the United States to
consider the impact of our practices on students’ academic, social, and emotional well-being. If
we eliminate the competitive element of student grades in school, and focus on helping students
achieve mastery of the content, we are fulfilling our true purposes as educators by helping
students grow and learn.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
134

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Alkin, M. C., & Vo, A. T. (2011). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. Guilford Press.
Allen, D., Ort, S. W., & Schmidt, J. (2009). Supporting classroom assessment practice: Lessons
from a small high school. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 72-80.
doi:10.1080/00405840802577650
Allen, J.D. (2005). Grades as Valid Measures of Academic Achievement of Classroom Learning.
The Clearing House, 78(5), 218-223. doi:10.3200/TCHS.78.5.218-223
Alm, F., & Colnerud, G. (2015). Teachers' experiences of unfair grading. Educational
Assessment, 20(2), 132-150. doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1028620
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Applerouth, J. (2013). When A is for Average: the High Cost of Grade Inflation. Retrieved from
https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/10/23/when-a-is-for-average-the-high-cost-of-
grade-inflation/
Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific
inquiry: Exploring teachers' practices and student learning. Educational
Assessment, 11(3-4), 237-263.
Atjonen, P. (2014). Teachers’ views of their assessment practice. The Curriculum Journal, 25(2),
238-259. doi:10.1080/09585176.2013.874952
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
135

Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1).
Bishop, J. H. (1992). Why US Students Need Incentives to Learn. Educational
Leadership, 49(6), 15-18.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom
Assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/20439383
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black
box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 86(1), 8-21.
doi:10.1177/003172170408600105
Blount, H. P. (1997). The keepers of numbers: Teachers' perspectives on grades. The
Educational Forum, 61(4), 329-334. doi:10.1080/00131729709335278
Bonner, S. M., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Teacher candidates' perceptions about grading and
constructivist teaching.Educational Assessment, 14(2), 57-77.
doi:10.1080/10627190903039411
Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment. ERIC Digest.
Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 10(1), 35-36. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00182.x
Brookhart, S.M. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993
.tb01070.x
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
136

Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers' grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in
Education, 7(4), 279-301. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0704_2
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The use of teacher judgment for summative assessment in the
USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69-90.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2012.703170
Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., . . .
Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most
common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803-848.
doi:10.3102/0034654316672069
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2014). First, break all the rules: What the world's greatest
managers do differently. Simon and Schuster.
Buldur, S. (2009). Developing literacy and self-efficacy levels of science teacher candidates
toward alternative assessment approaches [Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının alternatif
ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımlarına yönelik okuryazarlık ve öz yeterlik düzeylerinin
geliştirilmesi]. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.
Buldur, S., & Tatar, N. (2010). Development of self-efficacy towards using alternative
assessment scale. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 485-495. doi:10.1007/s12564-
010-9140-y
Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D.M. (2010) Methods for Effective Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Campbell, C. (2012). Learning-centered GRADING PRACTICES. Leadership, 41(5), 30.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
137

Cheng, L., & Sun, Y. (2013). Teachers’ grading practices: meaning and values assigned.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 326-343. Doi:
10.1080/0969594X.2013.768207
Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S. M., & Rachor, R. A. (1995). Teachers' assessment practices:
Preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159-179.
doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0302_3
Clark, R. C. (2008). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance
improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Çoklar, A. N. & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Determining the Assessment and Evaluation Self-
Efficacies of Teacher Candidates Regarding Education Technology Standards. [Eğitim
Teknolojisi Standartları Açısından Öğretmen Adaylarının Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Öz-
yeterliklerinin Belirlenmesi]. Selçuk University Ahmet Kelesoglu Education Faculty
(AKEF) Journal, 27, 1–16.
Cowans, J. (2006). Why johnny can't fail. Toronto: Ontario Secondary School Teachers'
Federation.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cross, L.H., & Frary, R.B. (1999). Hodgepodge Grading: Endorsed by Students and Teachers
Alike. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 53-72. doi:10.1207/
s15324818ame1201_4
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
138

Deddeh, H., Main, E., & Fulkerson, S. R. (2010). Eight steps to meaningful grading. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(7), 53-58. doi:10.1177/003172171009100711
DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in
teacher candidates' learning.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 17(4), 419-438. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643
DeLuca, C., Chavez, T., & Cao, C. (2013). Establishing a foundation for valid teacher judgement
on student learning: The role of pre-service assessment education. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 107-126.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2012.668870
Dirksen, D. J. (2011). Hitting the reset button: Using formative assessment to guide
instruction. The Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 26-31. doi:10.1177/003172171109200706
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment:
The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in
education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1-11.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2010). Teachers' classroom assessment practices. Middle Grades
Research Journal, 5(3), 107.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration:
A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133-153.
doi:10.1177/0192636508320990
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
139

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Garrett, A. J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Baker, L. (2006). Development of the metacognitive skills of
prediction and evaluation in children with or without math disability. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 77-88.
Gentile, J.R., & Lalley, J.P. (2009). Classroom Assessment and Grading to Assure Mastery.
Theory Into Practice, 48, 28-35. doi:10.1080/00405840802577577
Ghezzi, P. (2003). Holding on to hope: Alleged grade inflation worries teachers\ critics say
parents, principals apply pressure, cheapen learning. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
(Atlanta, GA)
Gideon, B. H. (2002). Structuring schools for teacher collaboration. Education Digest, 68(2), 30.
Glazier, J. A., Boyd, A., Hughes, K. B., Able, H., & Mallous, R. (2016). The elusive search for
teacher collaboration. The New Educator, , 1-19. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2016.1144841
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goodwin, B. (2011). Grade inflation: Killing with kindness?. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gullen, K., Gullen, J., & Erickson-Guy, N. (2012). CONVERSATIONS about grading. Reston:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students? Educational Leadership, 52(2),
14. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest
.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1290232606?accountid=14749
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
140

Guskey, T.R. (2006). Making High School Grades Meaningful. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9),
670-675. doi:10.1177/003172170608700910
Guskey, T. R. (2006). ‘It Wasn't Fair!’ Educators' recollections of their experiences as students
with grading. Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6, 111 - 125.
Guskey, T. R. (2014). Class rank weighs down true learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 95(6), 15-
19. doi:10.1177/003172171409500604
Guskey, T. R., & Pollio, H. R. (2002). Grading Systems. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 954-962). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw
=w&u=usocal_main&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3403200266&sid=summon&asid=
800de461a48759658c4863611342bfa0
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R., (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee motivation.
Compensation & Benefits Review, 34, 64-72.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships
between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304
Harvey, J. (1988). The Abilene Paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational
Dynamics, Summer, 17-43
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relation to
achievement. New York; Routledge.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621-641.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
141

Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? The Phi
Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. doi:10.1177/003172170708900210
Imperial, P. (2011). Grading and reporting purposes and practices in Catholic secondary
schools and grades' efficacy in accurately communicating student learning. University of
San Francisco.
Jesness, J. (1999). Why Johnny Can't Fail. New York: Harper's Magazine Foundation.
Johnson, B. (1998). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press, 1-16.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baumer, P., & Lichon, K. (2015). Administrators as advocates for teacher
collaboration: 1. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(1), 51.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kitiashvili, A. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes toward assessment of student learning and teacher
assessment practices in general educational institutions: The case of georgia. Improving
Schools, 17(2), 163-175.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised and updated). New
York: Cambridge.
Kohn, A. (1994). Grading: The issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership, 52, 38-38.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
142

Krumboltz, J. D., & Yeh, C. J. (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(4), 324-326.
Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking.
Metacognition and learning, 5(3), 251-267.
Levy-Vered, A., & Nasser-Abu Alhija, F. (2015). Modelling beginning teachers' assessment
literacy: The contribution of training, self-efficacy, and conceptions of assessment.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(5), 378. doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1117980
Lyna, Loong Hung, D. W., & Chong, S. K. (2016). Promoting teachers’ instructional practices in
alternative assessment through teacher collaboration. Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 15(2), 131-146. doi:10.1007/s10671-015-9189-9
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, Va: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J. (2010). Formative Assessment and Standards-based Grading. Bloomington, IN:
Marzano Research.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
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
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
143

McMillan, J. H. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision
making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 22(4), 34-43. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00142.x
McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000). Teacher Classroom Assessment and Grading Practices
Decision Making.
Mertler, C. A. (2009). Teachers' assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of
classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101-113.
doi:10.1177/1365480209105575
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Miller, J. J. (2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered
assessment. English Journal, 103(1), 111-118. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
442779325?accountid=14749
Morrison, K. (2003). Is grading doing what we wanted it to do?. Brandon: Holistic Education
Press.
Mugford, R., Corey, S., & Bennell, C. (2013). Improving police training from a cognitive load
perspective. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 36(2), 312-337.
Muñoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve
education: making clear linkages between standards, assessment, grading, and reporting
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
144

that are concisely reported work for the betterment of ALL students. Phi Delta Kappan,
96(7), 64.
Nitko, A.J., & Brookhart, S.M. (2011). Educational Assessment of Students. (6
th
ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
O’Connor, K. (2009). Reforming grading practices in secondary schools. Principal’s Research
Review, 4(1), 1-7.
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2009). Assessing assessment: Examination of pre-service physics teachers'
attitudes towards assessment and factors affecting their attitudes. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(1), 1-39. doi:10.1080/09500690701630448
Ören, F. S., Ormanci, Ü., & Evrekli, E. (2014). The alternative assessment-evaluation
approaches preferred by pre-service teachers and their self-efficacy towards these
approaches. Egitim Ve Bilim, 39(173)
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference
/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3)(REL 2016–164). Washington, DC: US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &
Islands. Retrieved from http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/edlabs.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback.Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13.
doi:10.1002/bs.3830280103
Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). Examining the grading practices of teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1372-1380. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.008
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
145

Reeves, D. (2016) Elements of Grading: A Guide to Effective Practice (2
nd
ed.). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press
Romanowski, M. H. (2004). Student obsession with grades and achievement. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 40(4), 149-151. doi:10.1080/00228958.2004.10516425
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18(2), 119-144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student
learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Şahin, Ç. & Ersoy, E. (2009). The Perceptions of Pre-Service Classroom Teachers Towards The
Proficieny Levels Related to Measurement and Evaluation at New Primary Education
Curriculum. Cukurova University, Journal of the Institute for Social Sciences, 18 (2),
363-386.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Learning when and how to lie: A neglected aspect of organizational and
occupational socialization (Introduction by Hugh Gunz and Paul Willman). Human
Relations, 57(3), 259-273.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schimmer, T. (2016). Grading From the Inside Out: Bringing Accuracy to Student Assessment
Through a Standards-Based Mindset. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
146

Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and cimate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics 24(4), 7-19.
Stanoyevitch, A. (2008). Controlling grade inflation. Thought & Action.
Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1912). Reliability of the grading of high-school work in english. The
School Review, 20(7), 442-457. doi:10.1086/435971
Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1913). Reliability of grading work in mathematics. The School
Review, 21(4), 254-259. doi:10.1086/436086
Stewart, T. A., & Houchens, G. W. (2014). Deep impact: How a job-embedded formative
assessment professional development model affected teacher practice. Qualitative
Research in Education, 3(1), 51-82.
Stewart-Banks, B., Kuofie, M., Hakim, A., & Branch, R. (2015). Education leadership styles
impact on work performance and morale of staff. Journal of Marketing and Management,
6(2), 87-105.
Stiggins, R. J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instructional priority. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 363-368.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. doi:10.1177/003172170208301010
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success
in standards-based schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
doi:10.1177/003172170508700414
Stiggins, R. (2014). Improve assessment literacy outside of schools too: teaching and assessment
have become separated, which has kept teachers from developing the assessment skills
they need to truly enhance learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 67. Retrieved from
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
147

http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A384544243/BIC1?u=usocal_main
&xid=c3928c1b
Stipek, D. (2012). Context matters: Effects of student characteristics and perceived
administrative and parental support on teacher self-efficacy. The Elementary School
Journal, 112(4), 590-606.
The College Board. (1998, May). High school grading policies. Research Notes, RN-04, New
York: Author. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default
/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1998-4- high-school-grading-policies.pdf
Underwood, J. B., & Burns, E. (2014). The disconnect between college and reality: With
formative assessments, teachers can more accurately determine student interests and
aptitudes and drive achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 80.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
Vatterott, C. (2015). Rethinking grading: Meaningful assessment for standards-based learning.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership. Aurora, CO: McREL.
Wegwert, J. C. (2012). Grading and student learning: Ideas for practice. Childhood
Education, 88(6), 413.
Wei, L. (2011). Formative Assessment in Classrooms: Operational Procedures. Journal of
Language Teaching & Research, 2(1).
Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve
student performance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
148

Williford, A. M. (2009). Secondary school course grades and success in college. College and
University, 85(1), 22-33. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search
.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/225605624?accountid=14749
Wormeli, R. (2006). Accountability: Teaching through assessment and feedback, not
grading. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 14-27.
Zoeckler, L.G. (2007). Moral Aspects of Grading: A Study of High School English Teachers’
Perceptions. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 83-102. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/41406291

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
149

APPENDIX A
Survey Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The purpose of the study is to assess the
meaning and value of grades in a traditional grading system. This survey asks questions about
your grading practices and perspectives on grading. Your responses will be anonymous and any
questions with identifiable information are purely for analysis purposes and will not be
published. You may stop participating in the study at any time should you choose. This survey
should take you approximately 20 minutes to complete. Thank you again for your contributions
to further the research on grading. For purposes of this study, grades are “the numbers or letters
reported at the end of a set period of time as a summary statement of evaluations made of
students” whereas assessments are “vehicles for gathering information about students’
achievement or behavior.” (Marzano, 2000, p. 12). In this survey, questions will be asked both
about students’ marking period grades at the end of a quarter and final grades at the end of the
school year. This survey is revised based on original surveys by Imperial (2011) and Remesal
(2011).

Policies and Procedures

1. Does your district have a specific policy on grading?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
2. Does your school specify what categories you are permitted to use when determining a
student’s marking period grade?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
3. Does your school specify what weighting you can place on different elements when
determining a student’s marking period grade?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
4. Does your school delineate the methods that are allowed or required for calculating a
student’s final grade (ie. Averaging student grades, standard weighting of various elements)?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know

Teacher Practices

5. Do you determine students’ marking period grades by averaging their performance on
assessments such as tests, quizzes, papers, and projects?
a. Yes
b. No
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
150

6. Do you determine students' marking period grades by evaluating the student’s achievement
against a set of performance standards?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Do you feel comfortable using assessment strategies such as performance-based or authentic
assessment (application of knowledge, skills, and work habits through the performance of
meaningful real-world tasks)?
a. Very uncomfortable
b. Somewhat uncomfortable
c. Comfortable
d. Very comfortable
8. Do you use formative assessments (i.e., work designed to guide student learning and inform
instruction)? (If you answer NO please skip to #13.)
a. Yes
b. No
9. Do you ever include formative assessments from class in a student’s final grade?
a. Yes
b. No
10. Do you include practice homework assignments in the calculation of marking period grades?
(If you answer NO please skip to #13.)
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you ever grade practice homework for its accuracy?
a. Yes
b. No
12. Do you ever grade practice homework assignments to ensure they are completed?
a. Yes
b. No
13. Is class participation used to determine your students’ marking period grades?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Are extra credit assignments provided for your students to improve their grade?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
15. Do all teachers teaching the same courses use the same categories to determine students’
marking period grades?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
151

16. Do all teachers teaching the same courses use the same weighting to determine students’
marking period grades?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
17. Are your students permitted to turn in work after the due date? (If no, please skip to #19)
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
18. Are the grades of late assignments (that are not excused due to absence or illness) reduced?
a. Yes
b. No
19. In your system of determining students’ final grades, what percentage of the grade is based
purely on students’ academic achievement?
a. 100%
b. 80-99%
c. 60-79%
d. 40-59%
e. Less than 40%
20. Do you consider student effort in determining marking period grades?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
21. Do you assign higher marking period card grades for students who show greater effort?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
22. Will you submit a passing grade for a failing student if they put forth sufficient effort?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
23. Do you consider improvement or growth in determining a student’s marking period or final
grade?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
152

24. Do you consider a student’s innate ability in determining a student’s marking period grade?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
25. Do you consider a student’s behavior in determining a marking period grade?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
26. Do you consider a student’s home life in determining a marking period or final grade?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
27. Do you offer a student who has failed or done poorly on a test an opportunity to retake the
test?
a. Always
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
28. Do you consider the overall grade distribution for a class on an assessment prior to posting
grades?
a. Yes
b. No
29. Which of the following best describes you confer with colleagues regarding grading criteria?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Every Marking Period
e. 1-2 times a year
f. Never
30. I feel pressure to give students higher grades than they have earned. (If NO, please skip to
#34.)
a. Yes
b. No
31. I feel pressure from administration to give students higher grades than they have earned
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
153

32. I feel pressure from parents to give students higher grades than they have earned.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree

33. I feel pressure from students to give students higher grades than they have earned
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree

Teacher Perspectives

34. Grading has a positive impact on students’ learning.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
35. Formative assessment can help me modify and improve instruction.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
36. Grading can encourage or motivate students to perform better.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
37. Formative assessment is a good method for helping students identify their weaknesses in a
content area.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
38. Grading can keep students informed about their progress.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
39. Grading provides information about student achievement.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
154

40. High grades can motivate students to learn.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
41. Grading helps me categorize students as above average, average and below average.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
42. Grading provides meaningful feedback to students.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
43. My grading practices are effective measures of student achievement.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
44. My grading practices are effective measures of student learning.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
45. How would you categorize the process of grading in terms of its relative difficulty when you
consider your responsibilities as a teacher?
a. Hardest part of my job.
b. Harder part of my job, but not the hardest.
c. Easier part of my job, but not the easiest.
d. Easiest part of my job.

Background Information

46. In what content area do you teach the majority of your courses?
a. Design & Technology
b. English
c. Mathematics
d. Physical Education
e. Science
f. Special Education
g. Social Studies
h. World Language
i. Visual & Performing Arts

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
155

47. What is your age?
a. 21-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50-59
e. 60-69
f. 70+
48. How many years experience do you have as a teacher (in any district)?
a. 0-4 years
b. 5-10 years
c. 11-15 years
d. 16-20 years
e. 21-25 years
f. 25-30 years
g. 31+ years
49. What is your highest level of formal education?
a. Bachelor’s
b. Masters
c. Doctorate
50. I was well prepared by formal education training to effectively assess and grade students
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
51. My school/district provides sufficient professional development and training on grading.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
52. My school/district provides sufficient professional development and training on summative
assessment.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
53. My school/district provides sufficient professional development and training on formative
assessment.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
156

APPENDIX B
Focus Group Protocol
First off, thank you for volunteering to participate in this research study on the meaning and
value of grades. Your time and efforts are much appreciated. My name is ________, and I am
conducting today’s focus group for Scott Neigel so that you can provide honest feedback about
the topic. Your feedback is crucial to the study and will augment current research on grading
practices.

If at any time you wish to stop participating in the study, you are free to do so. I will be
recording today’s conversation for the sole purpose of collecting an accurate record of your
responses. The data will be transcribed and all identifiable information will be scrubbed from
the transcript to protect your anonymity. Are there any questions? Ok, let’s begin.

1. Let’s start with a general question about the topic: How do you feel about the process of
assigning students marking period and final grades?
a. Is it something that comes easily or something you struggle with?
b. Why?
2. When you first became a teacher, how well prepared were you coming out of college to
grade students effectively?
a. How would you describe your grading practices as a new teacher?
b. How would you describe your grading practices now?
c. How well prepared or trained are you now?
d. If you feel more prepared, why? Have you received professional development on
assessment or grading or learned from experience?
3. What do you feel is the purpose or value of assigning traditional grades?
a. (Important distinction here between grades and feedback)
b. How do grades help students learn?
c. Is there anything detrimental to assigning students grades?
d. In the survey, many of you indicate that you grade homework for completion and
assigned scores for class participation or effort. Why do you choose to include
those grades in a student’s marking period grade?
4. Formative assessment is used by teachers to monitor student learning while it is in
progress, to provide ongoing feedback to students (Burden & Byrd, 2010; Nitko &
Brookhart, 2011) and to modify the teaching and learning activities in which students are
engaged (Black & Wiliam, 1998). What do you think is the value of formative
assessment in the classroom?
a. Can you give an example a time you recently used formative assessment?
b. How did you use this to modify your instruction?
c. Did you feel that it was helpful to you in facilitating student understanding?
d. Did you grade the formative assessment?
5. In the survey many of you indicated that you evaluate student achievement
against a set of performance standards. Can someone explain what standards you used
and what that looks like in action?
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
157

6. Here is a scenario: It is days before graduation and a senior in your class has earned a
59% as a failing final grade. He or she needs to pass your class to graduate. The student
put forth mediocre to poor effort, but is pleasant to have in class, participates, and is
clearly capable of passing. Would you adjust the student’s grade to a passing grade?
Why or why not?
7. After you administer and grade an assessment, what kind of formal or informal analysis
do you do on student performance?
a. What do you do with that information?
8. Which non-traditional assessment strategies are you familiar with?
a. For example: Performance-based learning and assessment represent a set of
strategies for the acquisition and application of knowledge, skills, and work habits
through the performance of tasks that are meaningful and engaging to students.
Authentic Assessment is a form of assessment in which students are asked to
perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential
knowledge and skills
b. Can you give me an example of a time where you used non-traditional assessment
strategies such as performance based assessment or authentic assessment?
c. How confident did you feel implementing these strategies?
9. How often are you able to meet with colleagues to discuss grading and assessment?
a. With whom do you meet?
b. What do you discuss?
c. What do you do?
d. What are the results of this collaboration? How do you use this information?
10. To what extent do you feel pressure to assign students higher grades than they have
earned? If so, from whom do you feel pressure?
11. Is there anything else that you thought of about grading that I didn’t ask about?

That is all the questions for today. Thank you again for your time.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
158

APPENDIX C
Documents and Artifacts Protocol

Class:

Grade Level:

Marking Period:

Total Points or Weighted Categories:

Categories included:

% Weight or points allocated

Noteworthy observations (ie. Extra credit, class participation):
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
159

APPENDIX D
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

ASSESSING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF TRADITIONAL GRADING SYSTEMS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study will be assessing the role of teachers in a traditional high school grading system. It
will examine teachers’ grading practices and perspectives on the values of grading and
assessment. The knowledge gained will be used to take a larger more systematic look at
traditional grading practices in high schools. The study is being conducted because grades are
such an important, yet often controversial, part of a high school students’ academic experience.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to take an online survey that will take
about 20 minutes. You will not be required to answer any questions that you do not want to.
After taking the survey, you may volunteer to participate in a focus group that will last no longer
than one hour. The focus group will be audio-taped and you do not need to respond to any
questions that you do not want to. If you do not want to be audio-recorded, you may not
participate in this segment of the study, but can still complete the survey.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
If 85% of the staff complete the online survey, refreshments will be provided at the subsequent
faculty meeting. All survey respondents will be entered into a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift
card. If you volunteer to participate in the focus group portion of the study, you will receive a
$10 Starbucks or Dunkin Donut gift card.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in the study. Your status and relationship with the
researcher will not be affected in any way if you choose or do not choose to participate in the
study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information collected in this study that will make you identifiable as a
participant. The online survey will be anonymous and a trained interviewer will conduct the
focus groups to protect confidentiality. Your names and any other identifiable information will
be removed from the transcripts when the audio-tapes are transcribed. After the audio-tapes are
transcribed, they will be destroyed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
160

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Scott Neigel via email at Neigel@usc.edu or phone at (908)204-1930
ext.2108 or Co-Investigator Vincent Przybylinski at vincent.przybylinski@plps.org or Faculty
Advisor Dr. Kathy Stowe at kstowe@rossier.usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
161

APPENDIX E

Codebook
Axial
Codes

Frequency

Focus
Group
1
Focus
Group
2

Learning
Component

Formative
Assessment
6
4

Homework
-‐‑
Practice
2
5

Feedback
3
3

Modify
Instruction
2
3

Utility
Component

Motivate
students
1

Effort
6
14

Compliance
5
4

Meaning
of
Grades

Variance
between
teachers
4
3

Subjectivity
2
7

Teacher
Autonomy
1

Rubrics
4
5

Teacher
reflection/metacognition

Learn
from
experience

5

Experience
as
a
student

2

Item
Analysis
2
2

Year
to
Year

2

Standards

Common
Core
3
2

AP
1
3

Personal
standards
3
1

Standards
change
–
Norm
referenced
2
6

Traditional
Grading

Letter
Grades
1
3

Marking
periods
3
9

Grades
per
marking
period
1
1

Effort
included
(utility)
(utility)

Non-‐‑Traditional
Grading

Self-‐‑Efficacy
1
2

Time
and
difficulty
1
3

Organizational
Supports

Admin
Support

4
4

Pressure
from
Students
4
7

Pressure
from
Parents
1
8

Collaboration
3
2

Training/PD
2
1

Online
Gradebooks
0
5

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
162

APPENDIX F

Survey Results

1 - Does your district have a specific policy on grading?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 62.30% 38
2 No 19.67% 12
4 I don't know 18.03% 11
Total 100% 61
2 - Does your school specify what categories you are permitted to use when
determining a student’s marking period grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 18.03% 11
2 No 73.77% 45
3 I don't know 8.20% 5
Total 100% 61

3 - Does your school specify what weighting you can place on different
elements when determining a student’s marking period grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 21.31% 13
2 No 70.49% 43
3 I don't know 8.20% 5
Total 100% 61

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
163

4 - Does your school delineate the methods that are allowed or required for
calculating a student’s final grade (ie. Averaging student grades, standard
weighting of various elements)?

# Answer % Count
1 Yes 45.90% 28
2 No 44.26% 27
3 I don't know 9.84% 6
Total 100% 61

5 - Do you determine students’ marking period grades by averaging their
performance on assessments such as tests, quizzes, papers, and projects?

# Answer % Count
1 Yes 91.80% 56
2 No 8.20% 5
Total 100% 61

6 - Do you determine students' marking period grades by evaluating the
student’s achievement against a set of performance standards?

# Answer % Count
1 Yes 65.57% 40
2 No 34.43% 21
Total 100% 61

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
164

7 - Do you feel comfortable using assessment strategies such as performance-
based or authentic assessment (application of knowledge, skills, and work
habits through the performance of meaningful real-world tasks)?
# Answer % Count
1 Very uncomfortable 14.75% 9
2 Somewhat uncomfortable 19.67% 12
3 Comfortable 45.90% 28
4 Very comfortable 19.67% 12
Total 100% 61

8 - Do you use formative assessments (i.e., work designed to guide student
learning and inform instruction)?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 95.08% 58
2 No 4.92% 3
Total 100% 61

9 - Do you ever include formative assessments from class in a student’s final
grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 78.95% 45
2 No 21.05% 12
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
165

10 - Do you include practice homework assignments in the calculation of
marking period grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 80.00% 48
2 No 20.00% 12
Total 100% 60

11 - Do you ever grade practice homework for its accuracy?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 39.13% 18
2 No 60.87% 28
Total 100% 46

12 - Do you ever grade practice homework assignments to ensure they are
completed?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 97.87% 46
2 No 2.13% 1
Total 100% 47

13 - Is class participation used to determine your students’ marking period
grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 69.49% 41
2 No 30.51% 18
Total 100% 59

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
166

14 - Do all teachers teaching the same courses as you use the same categories
to determine students’ marking period grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 40.68% 24
2 No 38.98% 23
3 I don't know 20.34% 12
Total 100% 59

15 - Do all teachers teaching the same courses as you use the same weighting
to determine students’ marking period grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 35.59% 21
2 No 44.07% 26
3 I don't know 20.34% 12
Total 100% 59

16 - Are your students permitted to turn in work after the due date?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 25.42% 15
2 Often 25.42% 15
3 Sometimes 37.29% 22
4 Rarely 10.17% 6
5 Never 1.69% 1
Total 100% 59

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
167

17 - Are the grades of late assignments (that are not excused due to absence or
illness) reduced?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 82.46% 47
2 No 17.54% 10
Total 100% 57

18 - Are extra credit assignments provided for your students to improve their
grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 6.90% 4
2 Often 5.17% 3
3 Sometimes 34.48% 20
4 Rarely 32.76% 19
5 Never 20.69% 12
Total 100% 58

19 - In your system of determining students’ final grades, what percentage of
the grade is based purely on students’ academic achievement?
# Answer % Count
1 100% 13.79% 8
2 80-99% 43.10% 25
3 60-79% 27.59% 16
4 40-59% 10.34% 6
5 Less than 40% 5.17% 3
Total 100% 58

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
168

20 - Do you consider student effort in determining marking period grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 25.86% 15
2 Often 22.41% 13
3 Sometimes 31.03% 18
4 Rarely 12.07% 7
5 Never 8.62% 5
Total 100% 58

21 - Do you assign higher marking period grades for students who show
greater effort?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 5.26% 3
2 Often 19.30% 11
3 Sometimes 26.32% 15
4 Rarely 15.79% 9
5 Never 33.33% 19
Total 100% 57

22 - Will you submit a passing grade for a failing student if they put forth
sufficient effort?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 5.17% 3
2 Often 8.62% 5
3 Sometimes 36.21% 21
4 Rarely 31.03% 18
5 Never 18.97% 11
Total 100% 58

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
169

23 - Do you consider improvement or growth in determining a student’s
marking period or final grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 13.79% 8
2 Often 31.03% 18
3 Sometimes 27.59% 16
4 Rarely 18.97% 11
5 Never 8.62% 5
Total 100% 58

24 - Do you consider a student’s innate ability in determining a student’s
marking period grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 5.17% 3
2 Often 15.52% 9
3 Sometimes 17.24% 10
4 Rarely 24.14% 14
5 Never 37.93% 22
Total 100% 58

25 - Do you consider a student’s behavior in determining a marking period
grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 1.72% 1
2 Often 6.90% 4
3 Sometimes 27.59% 16
4 Rarely 15.52% 9
5 Never 48.28% 28
Total 100% 58

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
170

26 - Do you consider a student’s home life or personal circumstances in
determining a marking period or final grade?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 1.72% 1
2 Often 22.41% 13
3 Sometimes 34.48% 20
4 Rarely 24.14% 14
5 Never 17.24% 10
Total 100% 58

27 - Do you offer a student who has failed or done poorly on a test an
opportunity to retake the test?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 6.90% 4
2 Often 20.69% 12
3 Sometimes 27.59% 16
4 Rarely 34.48% 20
5 Never 10.34% 6
Total 100% 58

28 - Do you consider the overall grade distribution for a class on an
assessment prior to posting grades?
# Answer % Count
1 Always 13.79% 8
2 Often 18.97% 11
3 Sometimes 25.86% 15
4 Rarely 25.86% 15
5 Never 15.52% 9
Total 100% 58
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
171

29 - Which of the following best describes how frequently you confer with
colleagues regarding grading criteria?
# Answer % Count
1 Daily 1.75% 1
2 Weekly 28.07% 16
3 Monthly 21.05% 12
4 Every Marking Period 17.54% 10
5 1-2 times a year 24.56% 14
6 Never 7.02% 4
Total 100% 57

30 - Do you feel pressure to give students higher grades than they have
earned?
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 36.21% 21
2 No 63.79% 37
Total 100% 58

31 - I feel pressure from administration to give students higher grades than
they have earned.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 26.32% 15
2 Disagree 47.37% 27
3 Agree 21.05% 12
4 Strongly Agree 5.26% 3
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
172

32 - I feel pressure from parents to give students higher grades than they have
earned.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 15.52% 9
2 Disagree 29.31% 17
3 Agree 39.66% 23
4 Strongly Agree 15.52% 9
Total 100% 58

33 - I feel pressure from students to give students higher grades than they
have earned.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 25.86% 15
2 Disagree 27.59% 16
3 Agree 31.03% 18
4 Strongly Agree 15.52% 9
Total 100% 58

34 - Grading has a positive impact on students’ learning.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 1.75% 1
2 Disagree 29.82% 17
3 Agree 59.65% 34
4 Strongly Agree 8.77% 5
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
173

35 - Formative assessment can help me modify and improve instruction.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 6.90% 4
3 Agree 50.00% 29
4 Strongly Agree 43.10% 25
Total 100% 58

36 - Grading can encourage or motivate students to perform better.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 1.75% 1
2 Disagree 1.75% 1
3 Agree 75.44% 43
4 Strongly Agree 21.05% 12
Total 100% 57

37 - Formative assessment is a good method for helping students identify their
weaknesses in a content area.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 1.72% 1
2 Disagree 8.62% 5
3 Agree 70.69% 41
4 Strongly Agree 18.97% 11
Total 100% 58

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
174

38 - Grading can keep students informed about their progress.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 1.72% 1
3 Agree 70.69% 41
4 Strongly Agree 27.59% 16
Total 100% 58

39 - Grading provides information about student achievement.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 3.45% 2
3 Agree 75.86% 44
4 Strongly Agree 20.69% 12
Total 100% 58

40 - High grades can motivate students to learn.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 3.45% 2
2 Disagree 17.24% 10
3 Agree 65.52% 38
4 Strongly Agree 13.79% 8
Total 100% 58

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
175

41 - Grading helps me categorize students as above average, average and
below average.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 3.51% 2
2 Disagree 35.09% 20
3 Agree 50.88% 29
4 Strongly Agree 10.53% 6
Total 100% 57

42 - Grading provides meaningful feedback to students.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 12.28% 7
3 Agree 78.95% 45
4 Strongly Agree 8.77% 5
Total 100% 57

43 - My grading practices are effective measures of student achievement.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 7.14% 4
3 Agree 67.86% 38
4 Strongly Agree 25.00% 14
Total 100% 56

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
176

44 - My grading practices are effective measures of student learning.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 1.72% 1
2 Disagree 10.34% 6
3 Agree 74.14% 43
4 Strongly Agree 13.79% 8
Total 100% 58

45 - How would you categorize the process of grading in terms of its relative
difficulty when you consider your responsibilities as a teacher?
# Answer % Count
1 Hardest part of my job. 9.09% 5
2 Harder part of my job, but not the hardest. 70.91% 39
3 Easier part of my job, but not the easiest. 20.00% 11
4 Easiest part of my job. 0.00% 0
Total 100% 55

46 - In what content area do you teach the majority of your courses?
# Answer % Count
1 Design & Technology 6.90% 4
2 English 13.79% 8
3 Mathematics 15.52% 9
4 Physical Education 6.90% 4
5 Science 17.24% 10
6 Special Education 12.07% 7
7 Social Studies 12.07% 7
8 World Language 12.07% 7
9 Visual & Performing Arts 3.45% 2
Total 100% 58
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
177

47 - What is your age?
# Answer % Count
1 21-29 28.57% 16
2 30-39 26.79% 15
3 40-49 7.14% 4
4 50-59 23.21% 13
5 60-69 14.29% 8
6 70+ 0.00% 0
Total 100% 56

48 - How many years experience do you have as a teacher (in any district)?
# Answer % Count
1 0-4 years 17.54% 10
2 5-10 years 31.58% 18
3 11-15 years 12.28% 7
4 16-20 years 12.28% 7
5 21-25 years 12.28% 7
6 25-30 years 7.02% 4
7 31+ years 7.02% 4
Total 100% 57

49 - What is your highest level of formal education?
# Answer % Count
1 Bachelor’s 17.54% 10
2 Master’s 77.19% 44
3 Doctorate 5.26% 3
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
178

50 - I was well prepared by formal education training to effectively assess and
grade students.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 7.02% 4
2 Disagree 35.09% 20
3 Agree 49.12% 28
4 Strongly Agree 8.77% 5
Total 100% 57

51 - My school/district provides sufficient professional development and
training on grading.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 12.28% 7
2 Disagree 56.14% 32
3 Agree 28.07% 16
4 Strongly Agree 3.51% 2
Total 100% 57

52 - My school/district provides sufficient professional development and
training on summative assessment.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 10.53% 6
2 Disagree 56.14% 32
3 Agree 29.82% 17
4 Strongly Agree 3.51% 2
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
179

53 - My school/district provides sufficient professional development and
training on formative assessment.
# Answer % Count
1 Strongly Disagree 10.53% 6
2 Disagree 52.63% 30
3 Agree 31.58% 18
4 Strongly Agree 5.26% 3
Total 100% 57

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
180

APPENDIX G
Initial Training Workshop Evaluation
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the training provided regarding assessment and grading
policies and procedures. Your input and feedback is important to assess the quality of the
training as well as ongoing supports that are needed to reinforce your learning. Future training
will include consideration of your responses to this survey.

Level 1 - Engagement STRONGLY STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE
1. This program and the instructor held my
interest.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
2. My participation was encouraged by the
facilitator.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 1 - Relevance
3. What I learned from this training will
help me apply new grading practices and
principles
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
4. I am clear about what is expected of me
when I get back to my job.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 1 - Customer Satisfaction
5. I would recommend this workshop to
others
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 2 - Knowledge
6. I clearly understand district and school
grading policies and procedures.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
7. I clearly understand how to apply the
policies and procedures to my content
area and grading system.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 2 - Attitude
MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
181

8. I believe that these grading practices
will make a difference in promoting
student learning.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 2 - Confidence
9. I believe that I can effectively
implement these practices.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
Level 2 - Commitment
10. I will implement the grading practices
daily in all of my classes.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4

11. What did you like about this program?

12. How could it be improved?

13. Please describe the district’s grading philosophy and examples of practices that align with
it.

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
182

APPENDIX H
Program Evaluation
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the ongoing training and professional
development you have participated in regarding assessment and grading. Your responses will
assist us in understanding your level of satisfaction, your level of learning, how you have
implemented the training in your position, and how successful the program has been in helping
you create grading practices that further student learning.
L1: Reaction STRONGLY STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE
1. What I learned in the workshop has been
useful in modifying my grading
practices.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
2. This program has been a good use of my
time.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
L2: Learning
3. I find that the strategies learned in the
workshop help me focus my grading
practices on student learning.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
L3: Behavior
4. In my PLC, I discuss with my
colleagues formative assessment
strategies and grading practices that I
have implemented in the classroom.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4
L4: Results
5. My grading practices help students
develop mastery of the content.
❍ 1 ❍ 2 ❍ 3 ❍ 4

MEANING
AND
VALUE
OF
GRADING
SYSTEMS
183

6. What early signs of success have you noticed from your efforts?

7. How could this program have been improved?

8. What information from this program has been the most relevant to your job?

9. How have you used what you learned in training and professional development on the
job?

10. What has helped you implement what you learned?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the meaning and value of grades within a traditional grading system. Teachers’ grading and assessment practices were examined in terms of clarity, consistency, and to what extent assessment guided instruction. Teachers from a high-performing suburban high school in the Northeast responded to an electronic survey and participated in focus groups regarding their grading and assessment practices. Gradebooks were analyzed to triangulate teacher practices and perspectives regarding the meaning of student grades. Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework was utilized to assess knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on teachers’ grading and assessment practices. The findings of this assessment revealed that teachers possessed knowledge about assessment and the motivation to apply it, but faced organizational barriers implementing effective practices in a traditional grading system. Responses indicated that teachers understood and used formative assessment during class, but also included it in students’ grades to elicit effort and ensure sufficient graded assignments to justify student performance. Organizational constructs such as marking periods and online grading systems, in addition to an overall lack of organizational support and training, were found to be substantial obstacles to teachers achieving the stakeholder and organizational goals. The findings of this study emphasized the need for enhanced training, collaboration, and communication on grading and assessment. The development and implementation of an effective plan to address these organizational issues could shift schools from using traditional grading systems to rank and sort students to assessment programs that promote student learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Practices for assigning academic accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Creation and implementation of a comprehensive active shooter/safety plan: a promising practice study

PDF

Addressing the principal shortage: women teachers

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

The implementation of a positive behavior intervention and support plan to reduce suspension rates in a school district

PDF

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

What teachers in a high-performing high school need to effectively manage workplace stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Neigel, Scott Austin (author)

Core Title Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/06/2017

Defense Date 09/22/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag assessment,formative assessment,grades,grading,meaning of grades,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Datta, Monique (committee member)

Creator Email neigel@usc.edu,scottneigel@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-443118

Unique identifier UC11265517

Identifier etd-NeigelScot-5818.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-443118 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NeigelScot-5818.pdf

Dmrecord 443118

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Neigel, Scott Austin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA