University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

Copyright 2019 Anthoney Lee Roe
1

Implementing Standards-Based Grading in the Era of Common Standards: An Evaluation Study
Anthoney Lee Roe

A Dissertation 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

May 2019

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

2
Dedication
To my family, who have been patient and supportive of me throughout this process. I
thank you for your understanding.
To my grandmother, Bonnie Vaughan, who has set the example for our family of what
hard work and dedication look like. Thank you for always supporting me. Your appreciation for
all things informative and educational is now a part of my character.
To all my students I have taught and will teach. The desire to see you succeed in life is a
great personal and professional motivational influence. Also, to those students who have viewed
grading and assessment negatively. We owe it to you to do better. We will do better.
Finally, to my late mother, Donna Marie. You always told me you thought I would be a
Doctor someday. The confidence you instilled in me as a young child still pushes me to be better
each day. I wish nothing more than that you could be here to share in my accomplishments. I am
just getting started.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

3
Acknowledgments
To complete as mentally and physically challenging as a dissertation takes the support of
many individuals. I am grateful for so much throughout this process. I am grateful to USC and
the truly remarkable professors. I have learned so much beyond just the topic of my research.
The overall wealth of knowledge and experience, and the willingness to share both, has been
much appreciated.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Artineh Samkian and Dr. Darline
Robles. I was extremely delighted when they agreed to be part of my committee, for both
individuals are excellent examples of leadership in action. Above all, I appreciated the time both
took away from their impacted schedules in order to continue to support me outside of the
classroom. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the early role that Dr. Samkian held as
my first chair, before I had to take a short break from the program due to military obligations.
Of course, without the participation of the teachers in this study, no data would have been
gathered. I want to send a special thank you to those teachers who took time away from their
numerous professional obligations to meet with me and share their perspectives regarding this
problem of practice. The work you all do day in and day out is nothing short of inspiring.
In addition, I want to thank my OCL colleagues. I had the unique privilege of being part of two
cohorts. I found the positive energy and willingness to truly collaborate to be a constant among
all in the program. I am proud to be a Trojan because I am proud to serve with all of you.
Finally, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Monique Datta. Even when at times I felt
overwhelmed with the process, she always had positive words to share. Her continued guidance
and support were nothing short of marvelous. I could not have completed this undertaking
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

4
without her expertise, kindness, and above all, patience. You have helped me realize a dream.
Few things are more important than the direct impact you have on the life of others. Thank you.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

5
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 8
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 9
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11
Organizational Context and Mission ..................................................................................... 12
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................. 13
Related Literature .................................................................................................................. 14
Importance of Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups ....................................................................................... 15
Stakeholder Groups' Performance Goals ............................................................................... 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................... 17
Purpose of Project and Questions .......................................................................................... 17
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................. 18
Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 18
Organization of the Project .................................................................................................... 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 21
Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards ............................. 21
Common Core State Standards .............................................................................................. 22
Next Generation Science Standards ...................................................................................... 23
Standards-Based Grading Systems vs. Traditional Grading Systems ................................... 25
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

6
Potential Benefits of Traditional Grading ............................................................................. 29
Potential Pitfalls of Traditional Grading ............................................................................... 30
Potential Benefits of SBG ..................................................................................................... 36
Potential Pitfalls of SBG ....................................................................................................... 38
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ............................................................... 41
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .................................. 42
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context .................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 58
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 59
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 61
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................. 65
Data Collection and Instrumentation ..................................................................................... 65
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 68
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................ 68
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................... 69
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................... 69
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................... 71
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 73
Participating Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 74
Findings ................................................................................................................................. 76
Impact of Organizational Influences on Core Teacher Knowledge and Motivation ............ 99
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 110
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

7
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 112
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................................. 112
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................................. 127
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Approach ........................................................ 141
Future Research ................................................................................................................... 142
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 143
References ................................................................................................................................... 144
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 152
Appendix B: Screener Instrument ............................................................................................... 157
Appendix C: Reflexive Journal Protocol .................................................................................... 162

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

8
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals .............. 16
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment .................... 48
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis ..................... 51
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis ........... 55
Table 5: Pseudonyms of Core Teachers, Subjects Taught, and Years Taught .......................... 75
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ..................................... 115
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ..................................... 121
Table 8: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations ............................... 124
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .................... 129
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ........................... 131
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ........................................................ 132
Table 12: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .................................... 136
Table 13: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ................................................... 138

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for study of core teacher’s ability to implement SBG
integrating knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. ............................ 57
Figure 2. Dashboard chart for use in gauge progress and monitor effectiveness of SBG
implementation over time. .......................................................................................... 140

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

10
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) influences impacting core teacher’s ability to successfully implement a standards-based
grading (SBG) system at a middle school site. Interviews with core teachers, as well as document
analysis, supported the identification of KMO influences affecting core teachers. The findings
showed that although core teachers had a basic understanding of what SBG is and what it is not
and how to implement such a system, significant gaps existed in their knowledge base. Even
without a complete understanding of SBG, as opposed to the more traditional letter-based
grading, (LBG), core teachers at Apex Charter (pseudonym) were still positively motivated to
implement SBG over LBG. The willingness to implement SBG was a direct result of the value
core teachers saw in a SBG approach. Initially, core teachers expressed that they felt confident in
being able to implement SBG, but they soon acknowledged that to feel capable, they would need
a clearer vision and more professional development support from the organization. A positive
cultural mindset regarding change and the willingness to support risk-taking behavior was also
recognized as important to core teacher’s motivation in implementing SBG. Recommendations
on implementing and evaluating a focused and continuous professional development system,
with structured opportunities for coaching and feedback, are provided for organizational leaders
attempting to implement SBG at their school site.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

11
Chapter One: Introduction
This dissertation sought to understand the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
factors involved when educators are asked to implement standards-based grading systems within
K-12 public school sites. Specifically, this study aimed to evaluate teacher perceptions regarding
the link between a standards-based grading approach and the connection to improved student
learning. The practice of standards-based grading, although still controversial and largely
misunderstood, is beginning to gain traction in educational settings (Iamarino, 2014). Standards-
based grading, also referred to as formative assessment, can be described as a system that allows
students and teachers to better understand how well a learner does or does not meet a clear and
consistent group of specifically defined standards (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). It is important
to study this problem because the standards now used in schools across the country, most notably
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),
have changed. Yet, the systems used to assess these new standards, namely traditional letter-
based grading systems, have largely remained unchanged, and the default choice within
educational organizations (Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011). Furthermore, it is not enough to
simply have common standards. Understanding what common standards mean, and how they fit
into a broader standards-based system is essential for improving rigor within the educational
system (Blackburn, 2011). The research points towards standards-based grading as having a
direct impact on improving student learning (Deddeh, Main, & Fulkerson, 2010). Thus, it is
important for educators to understand what standards-based grading is and is not, how it can
benefit the individual teacher and their students, and ultimately, how the implementation of
standards-based grading can impact instruction.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

12
Dweck (2015) claims, it is “a challenge to find any other profession that purports to offer
personal, measurable data in which the numbers can be as warped as we allow them to be in
education” (p. 19). In a New York Times interview, a senior manager at Google in no uncertain
terms claimed that a student’s GPA, as based upon a traditional letter-based grading system, is
wholly useless in determining one’s ability to perform within the corporation (Bryant, 2013).
Quite often, educators include components in letter-based grading systems that do not directly
align to specific academic standards. Rather, grades are often the reflection of a combination of
standards and non-academic components, such as student behavior (Dweck, 2015. In this sense,
one cannot grasp the extent to which students can or cannot meet grade-level specific learning
targets. In contrast, research has shown that organizations that implement grading systems based
upon aligning student assessment of learning with specific standards allow both students and
educators to have an overall better understanding of each individual student's strength and
weakness, as an emphasis is placed on the quality of the learning as opposed to the quantity
(Scriffiny, 2008; VanHook, 2014). Furthermore, by eliminating variables in the learning process
that are often outside of the student’s control, one can allow for both students and teachers to
focus on understanding student learning in context of the standards students are being asked to
master (Dweck, 2015).
Organizational Context and Mission
Apex Charter (pseudonym) is a public charter middle school located in California, in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Apex Charter is an independent charter school and is one of several
middle schools within the district to which Apex Charter belongs. According to the school’s
system for gathering demographic data, the school itself serves over 1,000 students, spanning
grades 6-8. The seventy-person staff consists of certified teachers, non-certified educators
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

13
(resource help), counselors, psychologists, and office and administration employees. The most
common languages spoken at home are English and Spanish, with Spanish being the most
prevalent. The students of Apex Charter come from several different social and economic
neighborhoods surrounding the school, composing a mix of both lower-income, working class,
and middle-class families and their students. Overall, the school is two-thirds free or reduced
lunch, and the majority of students are Hispanic/Latino, followed by White. There are Black and
Asian minority populations as well. In terms of staff, the composition is eighty percent White,
fifteen percent Hispanic, and five percent non-White or non-Hispanic (LCAP, 2017).
As part of their professional development, the staff at Apex Charter is currently in the
process of designing the vision and mission for the school. However, they are doing so under the
umbrella of the district to which the school belongs. One of the primary initiatives district-wide
is a focus on standards-based grading procedures, and how teachers are attempting to align their
grading and assessment methods to both the CCSS and the NGSS (District Website, 2018).
Organizational Goal
Apex Charter’s organizational goal is that by the end of each academic year, Apex
Charter will ensure that all students will receive high-quality instruction in Common Core State
Standards and Next Generation Science Standards from highly qualified teachers in 21st Century
Classrooms. The organizational goal focuses on the instructional component of teaching and
does not directly mention how students are assessed. As of now, Apex Charter, by adhering to
the CCSS and NGSS, is an organization that uses a standards-referenced approach to learning.
As part of a standards-based assessment system, standards-referenced instruction is necessary.
However, standards-referenced instruction is not enough to achieve high-quality instruction
(Marzano 2006; Marzano, 2011). In order to better facilitate student engagement and learning,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

14
educators need to extend standards-referenced instruction into a standards-based assessment
model, in order to create a standards-based system within school sites. An academic school year
begins in August and ends in June. Thus, the 2019 academic school year begins in the fall, and
ends in the summer. Students and teachers are in session for the duration of this time, minus
several holiday breaks in between. There is a one week break in November, two weeks in
December, and two other one week breaks in February and April.
Related Literature
Research has documented the history of traditional grading systems as used in public
school settings over the past half-century (Kirschenbaum, 1971). However, the concept of
standards-based grading is a relatively new system of evaluation that some schools have just
begun to implement (Marzano, 2011). While studies have shown that traditional letter-based
grading can negatively impact student’s perceptions of themselves (Selby & Murphy, 1992;
Wood, 1994), standards-based grading poses its own set of challenges (Gusky & Jung, 2006).
Recent literature explains both the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science
Standards (Pearson & Hiebert, 2013; Penuel, Harris & DeBarger, 2015). In addition, research has
identified that standards-based grading practices is aligned with the new state mandated
standards (Spencer, 2012).
Importance of Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance goal because new standards-
based instruction can be challenging for not just teachers and students, but other stakeholders as
well (Geier et al., 2008). Evaluating the organization’s performance will enable stakeholders to
gather formative data that can be used to assess the organization’s decisions that positively
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

15
impact student progress as viewed through the lens of a systematic approach to assessing student
learning (Clark & Estes, 2008; O’Connor, 2002).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The core teachers at Apex Charter were the main stakeholder group for this study. Core
teachers at Apex Charter were defined as any teacher who taught either English, social studies,
math, or science. Core teachers may have taught only one of these core subjects, or any
combination of the four. In addition, a core teacher at Apex Charter may have taught a core
subject or any combination of core subjects, as well as other subjects that were not within the
four core subjects. Core teachers were tasked with supporting the organizational goal of
delivering curriculum that was aligned with the Common Core State Standards, as well as NGSS.
Aside from state-mandated testing, core teachers had individual control over how they evaluated
student-learning outcomes. While the district system for maintaining grades was a traditional
letter-based grading system, how individual teachers chose to evaluate individual assignments
and how they decided what to do with that data was largely independent of other teachers and
varied widely throughout the site. There had been a push for professional learning community
(PLC) work, but that push was in isolation as opposed to in conjunction with common learning
assessments across grade and content levels.
The students at Apex Charter were another stakeholder group. The student’s themselves
were the group who ultimately would have been affected the most by whatever evaluation
system was in place. While the context of this study focused on Clark and Estes’ (2008)
conceptual framework in regards the teachers at Apex Charter, it was important to note that the
students would have been directly affected by whether the teachers meet the organizational
performance goal.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

16
The administration at Apex Charter was another stakeholder group that could have had a
direct impact on the stated performance objectives. The information from the gap analysis
regarding the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors, could be useful to the
administrators. It was the administrators who were accountable for the site adhering and aligning
to the district mission and goals. Through a better understanding of perceptions and motivation
of the teacher stakeholders in this study, the administrators could have placed themselves in a
position to effectively facilitate organizational change regarding the implementation of a
systematic standards-based grading approach to assessing student learning.
Stakeholder Groups' Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Apex Charter’s mission is to educate individual students to their highest potential, so they are prepared
to succeed in college and career, and the be globally competitive in the workplace.
Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of each academic year, Apex Charter will ensure that all students will receive high-quality
instruction in Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards from highly
qualified teachers in 21st Century Classrooms.
Administration Students Teachers
By the end of the 2018-2019
academic year, administrators at
Apex Charter will offer core teachers
at least two professional
development trainings that focus on
the implementation standards-based
grading.
By the end of the 2019-
2020 academic year,
students at Apex Charter
will be able to accurately
interpret a standards-based
grading report in each of
their core classes.
By the end of the 2019-2020
academic year, all core teachers
at Apex Charter (English, social
sciences, math, and science) will
implement a standards-based
grading systematic approach to
assessing student learning.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

17
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although all stakeholders contribute to the performance goals, the main stakeholder
group for this study focused on the core teachers at Apex Charter. As previously stated, a core
teacher was any teacher at Apex Charter who taught English, social studies, math, or science, or
any combination of those four core classes. Under the guidance of the organizational mission,
teachers at Apex Charter were responsible for educating their students to each students’ highest
potential, by providing high-quality academic instruction in both the CCSS and the NGSS.
Purpose of Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to use the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework,
including the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors, in order to evaluate the degree
to which Apex Charter met its goal of implementation of standards-based grading and
assessment within all of its core classes by the end of the 2019-2020 academic school year.
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder group in this analysis were the core teachers at Apex Charter.
1. What are core teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing a standards-
based grading systematic approach to assessing student learning?
2. What is the interaction between Apex Charter’s culture and setting, and core teacher’s
knowledge and motivation on their ability to successfully implement standards-based
grading?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding teachers at Apex Charter
implementing a standards-based grading systematic approach to assessing student
learning?
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

18
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic and analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
that were adapted to the evaluation model and implementation of the conceptual framework. The
methodological framework is a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. The assumed
influences (knowledge, motivation and organizational) that impact Apex Charter’s key
stakeholder group’s ability to achieve the organizational goal were generated based on personal
knowledge and related literature. Those influences were assessed by using screeners, document
analysis, interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions were
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): The American Association for
the Advancement of Science is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science
for the benefit of all people (AAAS, 2018).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): A set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics
and English language arts/literacy that outline what a student should know by the end of
each grade level (CCSS Initiative, 2018).
Criterion-Referenced Grading (CRG): A system of grading that is also referred to as letter-based
grading LBG, in which teachers assign grades to individual students based upon a scale
that is usually set at 100 as the highest level (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
Formative Assessment (FA): A variety of methods used by educators to conduct in-process
evaluations of student learning and achievement during a unit or course (Glossary
Educational Reform, 2014).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

19
Improving America’s Schools Act (Title I) (IASA): U.S. Department of Education law that gives
schools and districts flexibility in how they implement federal programs, while holding
schools accountable for improved student achievement (U.S. Department of Education,
2018).
Letter-Based Grading (LBG): Any system of evaluating student achievement that assigns a letter
grade to an assignment or student that is not entirely based upon specific measurable
standards that a student is asked to master (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): A U.S. Act signed into law in January of 2001, which was
intended to close the achievement gap using accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that
no child was left behind (U.S., Department of Education, 2018).
Norm-Based Grading (NBG): Also referred to as norm-referenced grading (NRG), is a way of
grading that is often confused with a standards-based system, as it grades students on a
curve relative to how their peers perform (Innovator Instructor, 2013).
National Governors Association (NGA): A bipartisan organization of national governors who
work together for a collective voice on national policy (National Governors Association,
2018).
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): A set of science standards that is aimed at
improving science education through a three-dimensional learning approach: practices,
core ideas, and crosscutting (Next Generation Science Standards, 2018).
National Research Council (NRC): An organization that advises the nation on policies and
practices related to science, engineering, and medicine (National Academies, 2018).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

20
Standards-Based Grading (SBG): A system of instruction, assessment, grading, and academic
reporting that is based on students demonstrating understanding or mastery of knowledge
and skills (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014).
Standards-Referenced (SR): A system that refers to the use of learning standards to guide what
gets taught and tested in schools (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014).
Summative Assessment (SA): A form of evaluating student learning and progress at the end of a
particular project, unit, course, or school year (Glossary Education Reform, 2014).

Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about pedagogy surrounding
traditional letter-based grading and newer standards-based grading models. The organization’s
mission, goals, and stakeholders and the framework for the project were introduced. Chapter
Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of the
history and challenges behind both traditional and standards-based grading, a deeper
understanding of the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, and
how standards can align to student assessment in a systematic way, will be addressed. Chapter
Three details the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences to be examined as well as
methodology when it comes to choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter
Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on
data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

21
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In this chapter, the literature regarding both traditional letter-based grading as well as
standards-based grading practices will be examined. This review will begin by looking at what
constitutes Common Core State Standards (CCSS), as well as Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS). Following a deeper look at both CCSS and NGSS, the focus will then turn to
a comparative discussion of a standards-based grading system and a traditional, letter-based
grading system. A brief history surrounding each approach will be examined, as well as the
composition and current implementation of each approach, where necessary. Getting more in-
depth with the literature regarding this problem of practice, this chapter will also focus on the
common advantages and pitfalls of each specific approach to learning. Finally, this chapter will
conclude by using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to look closely at the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influenced implementation of a standards-
based grading approach, within the context of this problem of practice.
Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards
National Standards have not always simply existed, but the push for implementation of
such standards goes back decades (American Psychological Association et al., 1996). Ravitch
(2011) establishes that although a standard might mean different things to different people, with
regard to education, it is both a goal and a measure. Essentially, it tells the educator and learner
what should be done and provides a means for measuring how well it was done. Aronowitz and
Giroux (2003) explains that the push for a national set of standards largely came as an attempt to
find a way to provide schools with the tools necessary to prepare students for a world that is
changing economically, politically, and ideologically. It was out of the premise that students
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

22
needed to be prepared for a world that would look different than the one in which their parents
and grandparents prepared for that both the CCSS and the NGSS were born.
Common Core State Standards
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have resulted in response to a general belief that
the educational system lacked rigor and was failing to prepare our students for both college and
the workforce (Blackburn, 2011). However, CCSS, just by virtue of existing, do not imply an
increase of rigor in education. It is the copulation of a set of standards, and the implementation of
such standards within a system (such as standards-based grading, as discussed later in this
chapter), among other factors, that help to establish a more rigorous learning environment
focused on student learning outcomes (Blackburn, 2011).
The desire to see a set of common standards began to really gain traction in the early
1990s (Pearson & Hiebert, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). The initial foundation for common standards
began in the Clinton Administration, with the introduction of the Improving America's Schools
Act (Title I). The goal was that there would be a defined set of progressive learning targets that
students were expected to meet, along with a standardized way to test to see if students had
indeed met such standards. While these initial pushes for standardization, including the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of the Bush administration, were federal initiatives, one of the main
differences in the initiation of the CCSS is that they were pushed from the state as opposed to the
federal level. The push for a common set of standards was largely in response to the perceived
inequity of the quality of instruction and the ways in which students were assessed from state to
state. Several states underwent a period of peer benchmarking, looking at other countries with
high academic achievement, and what standards they had in place. During the second half of the
2000s, many states, led largely by the National Governors Association (NGA), attempted to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

23
create a systematic approach to ensuring that students were being prepared for college and the
workforce in a global economy (Pearson & Hiebert, 2013).
The CCSS were written for the English language arts and mathematics content areas, but
also encompass the social sciences, technical subjects, and sciences as well, as all subjects are
required to teach content literacy skills (Gilles, Wang, Smith, & Johnson, 2013). From the
literacy perspective, the goal of the Common Core is to get students to read increasingly complex
texts both closely and independently of the teacher (Brown & Kappes, 2012). Within content
areas, the CCSS divides itself into four components: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In
English language arts, the standards are further separated into informational text and literature.
While the CCSS have clear components and categories, it is not meant to be fully
comprehensive, leaving room for additional concepts to be taught, varying curriculum to be
chosen to meet those standards, and the freedom for states, districts, and school sites to
determine the direction they take to meet the goals set forth in the standards (Pearson & Hiebert,
2013).
O’Connor (2002) points out that without a clear and consistent set of standards, such as
those given within the CCSS, it would be difficult to effectively assess student learning. The
claim is also made that a de-emphasis on a traditional letter-based grading system puts more of
an emphasis on the learning process itself, helping students reach mastery. According to
O’Connor (2002), it is necessary to implement a system that aligns student learning and grades to
the standards schools are holding students accountable to. The use of performance standards,
such as those within the CCSS, is crucial to guiding students learning and should be aligned with
student grading reports.

Next Generation Science Standards
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

24
The Next Generation Science Standards find their foundation in two main authorities:
The National Research Council (NRC), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS). According to the National Research Council (2018), it is necessary to
understand the NGSS, and how they can support students to be ready to explore and understand a
world that is composed of science, innovation, and technology. Penuel, Harris, and DeBarger
(2015) explain that the NGSS are based on the idea that science is a body of knowledge, as well
as a set of practices that tie together in order to further develop scientific inquiry. Essentially, the
NGSS can best be explained as a division of the knowledge students need to gain in this fast-
paced learning environment into three dimensions. The dimensions, as they are called, consist of
the following divisions: science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
The NGSS makes a distinction between science and engineering within the domain by
highlighting that scientific discovery involves the formulation of a question that can be answered
via an investigative process, whereas engineering involves a design process. Yet, the NGSS
stress that these are both forms of inquiry-based learning. Crosscutting is the domain that teaches
students that certain ideas and principles span multiple concepts and are essential foundations
within the inquiry process. Crosscutting is aimed at helping students form scientific schema, or
frameworks, that they can apply to future learning, to make connections between content that
they may have otherwise lacked the framework to build from. Finally, core ideas are the
foundation of the NGSS content knowledge. Core ideas refer to the curriculum, instruction, and
assessment that align with the K-12 standards students are expected to master (National Society
for Science, Engineering, and Math, 2018).
The current body of research points out that there are similarities between standards-
based grading and NGSS. Part of the core composition of the NGSS is the imbedded
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

25
understanding that these standards aim to focus on clarity and rigor, both foundations of a
standards-based system. Beyond clarity and rigor, there is an emphasis within the NGSS that
there should be a direct and concrete link between what students are being asked to learn
(standard), and how students are being assessed on the standard.
Standards-Based Grading Systems vs. Traditional Grading Systems
To better understand the problem of practice of this inquiry, it was important to look
closely at the history and structure of both traditional letter-based grading systems and more
contemporary standards-based grading systems. The literature discussion regarding grading
systems, and the effectiveness of traditional-grading systems, goes back decades (Bending, 1953;
Kirschenbaum, 1971). As it stands, standards-based grading is currently being portrayed in the
literature as an effective replacement to a traditional letter-based grading approach (Hooper &
Cowell, 2014; Iamarino, 2014).
Composition of Traditional Grading Systems
In a traditional LBG system, one letter grade is given to students per assessment. This
grade is an overall value given to a student on the assessment itself, regardless of how many
topics or standards the assessment tests. This is what is referred to in the literature as assessment-
based grading (ABG) (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). This assessment grade is then
calculated as part of an overall course grade, with various degrees of weight as determined by the
individual school or teacher policy (O’Connor, 2002). The criteria for success on student
assessment of learning in a traditional LBG system can often be unclear to the student and other
stakeholders (Marzano, 2011). LBG and ABG can also be referred to as criterion-referenced
grading (CRG), as each student is graded based upon a criterion percentage, based off of a limit
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

26
that students can achieve, which is usually 100 percent or points (U.S. Department of Education,
2018).
Part of the components of a tradition LBG system is that it often includes in the final
course grade a mix of assessment scores, homework grades, grades for extra credit, grades for
effort, and sometimes grades for behavior (Dweck, 2015). Thus, in a traditional LBG system,
there are many smaller components with varying purpose, that factor into the overall course
grade (O’Connor, 2002).
In addition to including many factors within the final course grade, one foundational
component of traditional LBG systems is that unless they are weighted in very specific ways,
they take the average of assessment grades. The score of a student’s assessment is calculated as
part of a series of assessment scores, each of which are often given a certain percentage, as
specified by the organization or individual teacher (Marzano, 2006). If a student scores relatively
higher on an assessment at the end of a course or unit of study but scored relatively lower on a
similar assessment testing similar concepts towards the beginning or middle of a course or unit,
the lower grade is often calculated as part of their overall score. The lower score is traditionally
not replaced by the higher score that resulted in the student showing a higher level of
understanding of the topic (O’Connor, 2002).
Composition of Standards-Based Grading Systems
Research on SBG has helped explain some of the basic components of what a SBG
consists of (Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011; Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011; Spencer,
2012; U.S Department of Education, 2018; VanHook, 2014). One basic component of a SBG
system is that there is one grade given per specific learning goal or performance standard
(Spencer, 2012). As such, the specific standard or goal is clearly presented to the student before
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

27
both instruction and assessment (U.S Department of Education, 2018). Another foundational
principle of SBG is that there is a clear separation of student achievement from student behavior.
The behavior of a student cannot be part of the assessment of student learning because behavior
itself is not one of the clearly defined performance goals that students are asked to show mastery
of under the CCSS or NGSS (Dweck, 2015).
SBG uses varying types of assessments to assess student understanding of a particular
standard (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011). Students may be assessed using more
traditional quizzes and tests, where the quizzes and tests are broken down into sections that focus
on specific standards. Likewise, students may also be assessed, for example, by doing projects,
writing a paper, or having a conversation with the teacher. In a SBG system, assessments are
meant to be varied as to give the learner the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge
regarding a specific learning target (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011).
It is common in SBG systems for assessments that are given towards the end of a course
or unit to completely replace earlier assessments when reporting on student achievement
(Townsley & Buckmiller, 2016). If a student shows a higher level of understanding of a standard
they have previously been assessed on, then the new assessment, in whatever form it took, is not
averaged with the previous assessment as part of the reporting on student achievement. Rather, it
supersedes any earlier assessments, becoming the most recent and accurate report on what the
student can and cannot do regarding a specific learning goal (VanHook, 2014).
Finally, in SBG, there is no extra credit, and homework should not count for part of the
overall student score in a course (Dweck, 2015). Since extra credit often includes non-academic
components, or introduces factors outside of the standard being assessed, they cannot be
considered as adding value to a teacher’s understanding of a student’s acquired knowledge
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

28
(Dweck, 2015). In SBG, homework is meant to be a way for a student to practice mastery of a
particular standard. As such, it is not an assessment tool. Thus, homework is traditionally not
calculated in the reporting of student learning in SBG. Still, there is a noted positive correlation
between homework and student achievement. Research suggests that beginning in middle school,
particularly grade 7 and up, there is a benefit to specifically structured homework (Cooper,
Robinson, & Patall, 2006). SBG does not advocate the elimination of homework, but rather that
homework should be used as practice and not as part of the student’s grade, as it can be
misleading if used in an assessment manner.
More specifically, Ainsworth and Viegut (2006) separate the overall approach of
standards-based grading into six main components: power standards, big ideas and essential
questions, formative and summative assessments, instructional unit design, collaborative scoring
of student work, and data-driven instructional decision making. Initially, power standards need to
be identified at the district, school-site, or collaborative team level. Power standards are those
standards that each grade and content area agree to focus on the most as they provide the best
opportunity for increasing student achievement (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006). These standards
come from common standards, such as the CCS or NGSS. Once the power standards have been
agreed upon, then they need to be aligned with big ideas and essential questions. CCSS and
NGSS are the foundation, but until they are aligned with big ideas and essential questions,
including specific learning targets, instruction cannot be truly standards-based. The next step,
according to Ainsworth and Viegut (2006), is for educators to collaborate create common
formative and summative assessments. Collaboratively creating common formative and
summative assessments allows for educators to better frame their discussions around student
learning. Next, instruction in a SR manner can be planned, so as to ensure that power standards
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

29
are being directly taught, and assessment and instruction clearly align. The final steps in a SBG
system are to collaboratively assess student learning so that data-driven instructional decisions
can be made regarding student achievement (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006).
Marzano (2006; 2011) contributes to the understanding of SBG by explaining that in a
SBG system, the letter grade itself does not have to disappear. Schools can still use letter grades
as their final reporting measure for a course. It is how the reporting of understanding of course
standards are converted to letter grades that is important. Thus, Marzano (2006; 2011)
recommends a 4-point scaled rubric for converting qualitative feedback into more quantitative
reporting of student grades. When using this conversion, then the idea of averages is appropriate,
as the overall course grade would tell the person viewing it the overall understanding the student
possesses based upon all the standards the student is expected to know in a course. Yet, the grade
book itself would still be broken down into very specific, individual standards, as to avoid any
confusion regarding which standard the student may have struggled in (Shippy, Washer, &
Perrin, 2013).
Potential Benefits of Traditional Grading
Comfortability and Structural Consistency
Put simply, traditional-based grading is comfortable within mainstream education. It is
this comfortability that has led to traditional LBG being the main type of instruction and
assessment in schools for over a century (O’Connor, 2009). Most students are currently being
educated in a traditional LBG system, as teachers and parents are often more experienced with
LBG. LBG reports can provide students and families with what they might see as an easy and
straightforward way to understand student progress. Often, families feel that a quick analysis of a
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

30
student’s report card can give them a snapshot at how well their student is doing in class, and
how well students are understanding the necessary course material (Vatterott, 2015).
In higher education, traditional LBG systems is still the norm as well. Colleges and
Universities across the country consistently implement a system of traditional letter-based grades
(Main & Ost, 2014). Not only do they implement a system within their organizations, but they
measure student aptitude and potential for success from a letter-based grading perspective.
Traditional LBG in colleges and universities affects admission, course selection, and student
competition at the post-secondary level (Main & Ost, 2014).
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
One of the potential benefits of LBG is that the system supports, and rewards student
effort as evidenced in student grades, although the way in which LBG supports this type of
student effort is still debated in the literature (O’Connor, 2009). LBG creates an atmosphere of
extrinsic motivational factors, as opposed to intrinsic motivation. Some educators may view the
extrinsic nature of LBG as a positive if they are trying to instill in students the desire to respond
to such factors (O’Connor, 2009). When considering the switch from LBG to SBG, schools need
to consider if they are trying to create an atmosphere where students are motivated extrinsically
or intrinsically.
Potential Pitfalls of Traditional Grading
Poverty Factor
When looking at the poverty factor and its relation to student achievement in schools, the
research has documented that children who live in poverty are:
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

31
Disproportionately exposed to adverse social and physical environments...to name but a
few factors-[these] neighborhoods are more hazardous...Their households are more
crowded, noisy...and they contain a greater number of safety hazards (Jensen, 2009, p. 8).
Even though it is widely acknowledged that some students face more and different obstacles than
other students that are often related to class, race, and poverty, the dominant system for student
assessment still grades all students using the same criteria (Dweck, 2015; Rueda, 2011). This is
why Rueda (2011) informs us that there are still long-held and imbedded differences in student
outcomes, especially when considering ethnicity, race, language, and socio-economic status.
Classrooms are becoming more and more heterogeneous environments, with students from a
wide array of backgrounds. Yet, a traditional letter-based grading system does not allow for a
more personalized way to assess student learning, such as that which exists within a standards-
based system. Because of this, schools and teachers, even with the best intentions in mind, often
foster an atmosphere that perpetuates academic frustrations for at-risk learners. Instead, these
same key stakeholders could potentially improve the mindset and success of students living in
poverty by providing more personalized and alternative methods of assessment of student
learning that do not entail the assignment of a sometimes-arbitrary letter grade (Dweck, 2015).
Non-Academic Components of Grading
The literature on traditional-based grading points to several areas for concern regarding
how traditional letter-based grading is often utilized within a school setting. One such concern is
the use of traditional letter-based grades as a form of punishment. Dweck (2015) highlights that
decades of research have concluded that penalizing students via a reduction of their letter grade
is a much less effective method than creating a system that provides students with feedback and a
more personalized learning experience.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

32
Part of this debate regarding grades as punishment includes the concept of giving a
“zero” on assignments and assessments. From both a mathematical and a responsive perspective,
the idea of giving a zero, as well-established within traditional letter-based grading systems, is
problematic. A zero implies that a student has literally learned nothing regarding the standard.
Yet, too often, zeros are handed out as forms of punishment for students who do not turn work in
by a certain deadline. Such a grade can have a drastic effect when considering it is based on a
percentage scale. A single zero can greatly impact a student’s letter grade. Reeves (2010)
suggests that if there was an equal separation of point values between each letter grade (for
example, an A is worth four points, while a B is worth 3), then the concept of a zero makes
sense, mathematically. However, when one assigns zeros using a 100-point scale, as so often
happens, it is a mathematical error, as there is an enormous difference between a B and a C, or a
D and an F. While it is very feasible that a student might struggle with a specific standard, it is
somewhat unlikely that the student knows nothing at all about the standard. When going back to
considering student self-perception and motivation in learning, or factors outside of the student’s
control, a student may not submit an assignment by a certain deadline (Reeves, 2010). This, in
turn, can greatly lower the student’s percentage (letter) grade, and further increase the risk of the
student becoming frustrated with the learning process.
Beyond the potential for grades to be used as a form of punishment is the notion that
traditional letter-based grading often introduces variables into student assessment that don’t
directly relate to the standards themselves (Dweck, 2015, Marzano, 2011). There is a different
side to the concept of grading as punishment. Dweck (2015) points out that as much as teachers
are inclined to punish students by using grades, they also reward students within the same
grading system. In a traditional LBG system, teachers often combine student achievement and
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

33
behavior into their evaluation of student learning because teachers often feel that such a practice
reinforces what teachers believe should be valued in education (O’Connor, 2009).
This grade inflation can take several forms, but often is seen in practices such as giving
credit to students for showing up to class or raising their hand a certain number of times (Dweck,
2015). None of the mentioned examples relate in any way to assessing student learning based on
clear and defined standards. Without a concentrated effort to base student assessment on
evidence gathered that relates directly to learning standards, students who exhibit positive social
and academic behavior often find this reflected in higher grades in a letter-based grading system
(Dweck, 2015).
Clarity of Meaning
Given the above concerns with systems that follow a traditional letter-based grading
approach, it can be seen how these potential pitfalls can lead to a student receiving a specific
letter grade in a content class that may not clearly reflect the content-specific learning that the
student has or has not shown mastery over (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Essentially, because
letter-based grading systems have incorporated so many factors into assessing students that are
not content or standards-based, the grades themselves are often not an accurate representation of
what a student can or cannot do (Dweck, 2015).
With assessment-based grading (ABG), students are given a percentage value on
assessments, which are then put into a gradebook or other means for reporting student
achievement to the school and families. There is often no clear way to tell what the percentage
value means, thus making the meaning of the grade unclear (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). If a
student received an 8 out of 10 on an assignment, their gradebook entry would reflect an 80%
grade, or a B-. On the assessment itself, an 8 out of 10 is a difference of two points. It is unclear
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

34
if those two points are related to a few errors throughout the assessment, are due to the student
missing a very specific standard being taught within the assessment, or even are related to factors
outside of the standards that were taught (O’Connor, 2002). ABG, in contrast to variations seen
within SBG systems, can be less clear as to what the student actually knows regarding the
standards (Marzano, 2000).
To extend the potential pitfall of reduction of clarity and meaning within a traditional
LBG system, the overall course grade can also be misleading to teachers, administrators,
students, and their families (Scriffiny, 2008). In a LBG system, a student might receive the same
grade of 80% in the course overall. However, due to the nature of traditional LBG systems, it is
unclear if the student understands 80% of the main concepts they were supposed to know based
on the standards. In this scenario, the student may have acquired mastery of more than 80% of
the standards, but their overall course grade was lowered due to some work not being submitted
on time, or homework not being turned in (Townsley & Buckmiller, 2016). Likewise, the student
may understand less than 80% of the course standards, but their grade is inflated due to extra
credit or citizenship grades (Dweck, 2015).
Student Self-Perception
Studies have shown that letter grades can have a negative impact on a student’s
perception of themselves as a learner, as the letter grades themselves created confusion and
uncertainty regarding why the students received the grades they did (Selby & Murphy, 1992).
This situation, in turn, can lead to these students feeling a sense of helplessness, and anger as the
students blames themselves for not achieving the grades they wanted and expected. In this case,
student self-efficacy lowers, as the tensions between student, teacher, and parent increase (Selby
& Murphy, 1992). Furthermore, according to Wood (1994), when students experience this sort of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

35
dissatisfaction with the grading process, it infiltrates the learning process. Students begin by
developing a lower sense of worth due to their grades, and their inability to understand why and
how they receive the grades they do. This lower sense of worth spreads throughout the learning
process.
Traditional LBG promotes competition, as students are driven to receive a higher grade
as reflected in their overall course grade (O’Connor, 2009). However, this competition also
pushes students to compete against their peers. Often, students are motivated to turn in an extra
extra-credit assignment, or in some way try to outdo other students, by receiving as high as a
grade as they can (Scriffiny, 2008). The potential pitfall here is that students, by virtue of this
process, run the risk of forming the mindset that they are competing with others, instead of with
themselves (O’Connor, 2009). When students begin to compare their grades with the grades of
their peers, learning becomes more competition-based, and less focuses on students competing
with themselves to improve their learning and understanding of a standard (Guskey, 2008).
Inflation and High Expectations
Once schools and teachers become accustomed to falling into the pitfalls present within a
traditional LBG system, it is difficult to break from that system (Marzano, 2011). Due to this,
grades within this type of system, as common as it is, tend to become inflated, as student grades
increase without a corresponding increase in student ability (Ehlers & Schwager, 2016). This
inflation leads to a cycle that imbeds expectations that while seemingly beneficial to the
academic pursuits of the students, could be harmful (Dweck, 2015).
Due to the expectation to raise scores in courses by letter grades, the question of how a
student can raise their score often comes up, especially towards the end of a semester or course
(O’Connor, 2002). In a traditional LBG system, the options a student are given typically consist
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

36
or turning in past assignments for partial credit, turning in extra-credit, or doing well on the final
assessment (O’Connor, 2002).
Potential Benefits of SBG
Consistency and Clarity in Discussions on Learning
As part the movement towards a common set of standards, grading and assessing based
on standards begins with providing educators, students, and their families with a clear idea of
what students should know and be able to do at each grade level (Blackburn, 2011). A standards-
based grading approach is focused on clear, consistent standards, that align with clear learning
targets that both teachers and students can generate data from. Given this consistency, it allows
for teachers to meet in professional learning communities (PLCs), where data-driven
instructional decisions can be made regarding student learning. If teachers and students are all
teaching for and assessing on the same set of standards, then discussion regarding student
learning is more consistent and clearer (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014).
The concept of clarity in discussion of student progress extends beyond the school site
itself, as families are provided a more detailed, clearer picture of the progress of their student in a
SBG approach (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011). Once a SBG system is
established within schools, it provides a more accurate and clearer measure of student ability
than more traditional LBG systems (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).
Self-Assessment and Motivation
As part of a standards-based grading system, feedback is central. According to Dweck
(2015), SBG provides students with responsive teaching, valuing the needs of the learners over
the agenda of teachers. By this, Dweck (2015) is claiming that it is less important to deliver a
grade to a student (which for reasons stated above, can include other factors than content
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

37
mastery) than it is to provide feedback that is accurate and specific. In addition, a system that
effectively utilizes standards-based grading provides the structures necessary for students to self-
assess their learning process and outcomes (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). SBG encourages
students to create their own assessments, as the student often has more freedom with a SBG
system to propose the type of assessment that the student feels might best demonstrate learning.
Thus, assessments often become student directed, allow for choice, and create the opportunities
for students to reflect deeper on their learning progress (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).
A SBG has the potential to create a growth-mindset where students are motivated to learn
at high levels (O’Connor, 2009). The focus of a SBG is not on doing, but on knowing (Dweck,
2015). Thus, students are less concerned with doing homework in order to turn it in, doing
makeup work in order to raise their grade, or doing assessments in order to receive a high letter
grade. Rather, students in a SBG are more concerned with demonstrating their understanding of a
clearly defined set of standards. Because students know that they have the opportunity to
constantly show their new learning on a standard, students in a SBG are often more inclined to
continually take risks and revise their learning (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).
Providing effective structures for allowing students to retest and turn in make-up work is
something that educators can sometimes struggle with (Dweck, 2015). Inherent within the
system of standards-based grading is the potential to be flexible with concrete due dates, as well
as allow for retesting of concepts that students do not or cannot master the during the initial
summative assessment (Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011). By doing this, the system itself is
allowing the students to understand that learning is a process and does not conclude with a
summative assessment. Rather, they have the opportunity to continue to work towards mastery
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

38
and pinpoint those standards which they are not yet proficient in (Marzano & Heflebower,
2011).
Potential Pitfalls of SBG
New standards-based instruction can be challenging for teachers to implement (Geier et
al., 2008), as Standards-based grading itself poses its own set of challenges (Gusky & Jung,
2006). Even though there has been a lot of recent discussion regarding SBG approaches, the
specific process of how to implement such a system at the school or district level is still
extremely challenging (Hooper & Cowell, 2014). Furthermore, given the various approaches to
what some consider SBG, there exists the potential for confusion when a systematic attempt at
organizational change regarding a change from traditional LBG takes place (O’Connor,
2017).
A Paradigm Shift
The way in which SBG is documented and reported is a potential for friction when
implementing a new SBG system. Initially, implementing a SBG system entails a cultural shift in
the way educators need to think about their approach to how they work with each other, as well
as their students (Guskey, 2008). As previously mentioned, and paramount to the problem of
practice, is the understanding that a shift from a traditional LBG system to a systematic
standards-based method of assessing student learning might be difficult for many stakeholders,
especially teachers. Even though there is little research to support the merits of LBG, the
dominant grading system used today is still overwhelmingly a traditional letter-based approach
(Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Making this paradigm shift could be difficult for educators,
students, and their families.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

39
Change Process
Closely related to the idea of a paradigm shift, is the research behind the change process
itself. Lewis (2011) states that resistance to change is an ongoing theme within the literature on
organizational change. Extending further, Lewis (2011) warns that resistance to change will
often arise when the process of change becomes viewed through the perspective of a top-down
managerial dynamic, where the stakeholders with the power to make organizational decisions
impose those decisions onto other stakeholders. In the context of a SBG change beginning at the
district level, the process itself could potentially receive resistance from the core teacher
stakeholder group, as well as the student and family stakeholder groups, if the change process is
viewed as a district mandate where all stakeholders were not involved in the implementation
decision.
Unfamiliarity and Confusion
Gusky and Jung (2006) explained that there is a shock factor to consider when
implementing a standards-based report card. As families are largely unfamiliar with report cards
that reflect student learning based upon standards instead of a traditional letter-based grading that
dominated the school systems in the past, there exists opportunity for confusion and frustration.
Just as there was and still is a rippling unfamiliarity with both the CCSS and the NGSS,
including how students have been assessed over the past few years, and what their scores mean,
such is the case with SBG (Hooper & Cowell, 2014).
The concept of what SBG and assessment can be difficult for teachers to understand,
especially without clear and focused professional development, which there is currently a lack of
within education (O’Connor, 2017). The confusion inherent in an organizational change such as
SBG does not just affect teachers, as many stakeholders also need to grasp the concepts that
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

40
support a SBG approach. The confusion about SBG becomes more difficult as the various forms
of student instruction and assessment may be referred to as different things, making it hard for
key stakeholders to communicate on the same level (Guskey, 2008).
One of the most confused concepts when talking about a change to SBG is the distinction
between SBG and reference-referenced instruction (SR) (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014).
These two terms are often used interchangeably, as the terms themselves are very similar, with
only minor differences. With SR, the goal is that what students are taught aligns with specific
standards. A unit or course can be SR, but not necessarily standards-based, as standards-based
includes an assessment component that is also aligned to specific standards. Thus, a unit or
course can be SR, and include CCSS and NGSS, but not be standards-based if it does not include
an assessment component that also clearly aligns and assess for specific standards (Glossary of
Education Reform, 2014).
Norm based grading is one type of assessment that is often confused with a SBG system.
In NBG, educators grade students on a curve, allowing for a certain number of students to
achieve a certain level of mastery (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014). Thus, students in a
NBG system, also referred to as norm-referenced grading (NRG), must compete against each
other to achieve as high of a grade as they can. Often times, teachers think this is part of a SBG
because it deals with the concept of norms, and grades students based on a specific set of
standards. However, the competition that NBG or NRG creates is opposite of the concept of
teaching students to compete against themselves that is a foundation of SBG. In addition, NBG
or NRG can lead to grade deflation, which can confuse the understanding of what students do
and do not know about a particular standard just as much as grade inflation can (Glossary of
Education Reform, 2014).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

41
Another term that can be misunderstood in the context of SBG is the idea of
differentiated instruction (DI). DI refers to a collection of practices such as scaffolding, that
educators use to attempt to maximize student learning (Wormeli, 2006). In DI, the basic concept
is to provide students or whole classes with changes they need in order to be successful in the
classroom. While DI is an important part of good teaching and SBG in general, it does not in
itself constitute a SBG approach to education. DI is good teaching practices that should be part
of how teachers assess student learning (Wormeli, 2006).
Competency-based education (CBE) is yet another term educators might use when they
talk about SBG. CBE refers to a system of instruction, assessment, and grading that is based on
students learning the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn as they progress through
their learning (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014). Such competency is based on state
standards, such as the CCSS and NGSS. In the traditional concept of CBE, students must meet
the prescribed standards before they can advance to the next course, or graduate. CBE and SBG
are very similar, and thus are often used interchangeably in the literature. However, one key
distinction is that true CBE allows for flexibility in when, where, and how students learn, as
students are supposed to advance on to new concepts as soon as they demonstrate mastery. CBE
is an even more individually focused process of learning than traditional SBG (Glossary of
Education Reform, 2014).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
Through the Clark and Estes’ (2008) analytical framework, one can look closely at the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that may contribute to an organization
meeting or not meeting the set forth organizational performance goals. This framework is a
systematic way to analyze organizations, helping them identify possible performance gaps in
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

42
relation to the key stakeholders involved (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002) highlights the
main knowledge and skills categories, those of factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive, which allow stakeholders to influence achievement outcomes within their
respective organizations. Beyond this, Rueda (2011) and Clark and Estes (2008) add to the
motivational concepts of utility-value and self-efficacy as key components in understanding the
drive for stakeholders to reach organizational performance measures. Other motivational
influences, such as goal achievement and active persistence or mental effort, are also considered
when looking closely at organizational performance gaps (Rueda, 2011).
The components of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis were addressed in terms of the
teacher’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs regarding achievement of the
performance goal of implementing a standards-based grading approach that aligns with the new
Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. In the first section, the
assumed influences on stakeholders regarding the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the
performance goal will be discussed. In the next section, motivation and how the assumed
influences there affect the desire of the stakeholders in achieving the performance goal will be
reviewed. Lastly, the impact of assumed organizational influences on the stakeholders in the
context of the organizational goal will be highlighted. Each of these assumed influences, those of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational, were examined through the methodology discussed
in Chapter Three of the study.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
The point of this research was to use a modified form of Clark and Estes (2008) gap-
analysis approach to determine the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

43
(KMO model) that impacted the teacher stakeholder group in reaching progress towards their
goal in relation to the problem of practice. The initial stages of this research centered on a
literature review that focused specifically on the knowledge-related influences of the teacher
stakeholder group. It is important to examine the knowledge and skills that teachers either did or
did not possess because research reveals that the knowledge and skills that key stakeholder
groups possesses had a direct impact on the stakeholder's ability to achieve organizational
performance goals (Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, in terms of a gap-analysis approach using a
KMO model, an understanding of the knowledge and skills an individual and group possesses
can allow an employer to better anticipate how prepared a group may or may not be to
successfully achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge influences. The literature examined was relevant to the teacher stakeholder
goal of successfully implementing a standards-based system within all core classes at Apex
Charter by the end of the 2019-2020 academic school year. Based upon the knowledge
influences presented in Krathwohl (2002), specific influences were categorized into three types:
declarative (factual and conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive. It was important to assess
the impact of these three types of knowledge influences because research explains that the
transfer of knowledge and skills to a problem requires understanding of the problem's context as
well as an understanding of the problem's structures (Willingham et al., 2015). An individual or
group needs to have sufficient background knowledge and skills in order to understand how to
approach and solve organizational problems.
There were three domains of knowledge influences that affected the core teacher
stakeholder group at Apex Charter: declarative (factual and conceptual), procedural, and
metacognitive. It was important to recognize these types of knowledge influences in order to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

44
better understand how Apex Charter could identify the organizational performance gap in
relation to Apex Charter’s organizational performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011).
According to the research, declarative knowledge is broken down into both factual and
conceptual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge is the basic information that a
stakeholder must know to be familiar with a discipline. This type of knowledge includes basic
terminology and definitions, as well as specific elements and details within the topic, referred to
as domain-specific knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). This knowledge type is necessary for the
stakeholder group because it provides the foundation for understanding and is the essential basis
for assessing whether or not a stakeholder group has the information necessary in order to
successfully meet organizational goals (Rueda, 2011).
Conceptual knowledge is more focused on the formation of schema and basic principles
and the connection between topics (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual understanding is best understood
as the understanding of how various factual elements relate, and how these relations work
together. This knowledge type can be described as knowledge of classifications of information,
principles and theories, generalizations, models, and structures (Krathwohl, 2002). When
teachers better understand the research behind the structures surrounding various ways to
monitor and assess student learning, they can better understand how the implementation of such
teaching can benefit the formation of learning schema for students. There is a strong relationship
between factual and conceptual knowledge, as the attainment of the former reinforces the growth
of the latter (Ferrari & Cachia, 2009; Sternberg, 2006). The conceptual knowledge regarding
SBG practices, and how the various components come together to help both students and
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

45
teachers assess clear and consistent learning targets is important. Likewise, it is important for
teachers to show conceptual knowledge of the potential pitfalls of a SBG approach.
Procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge necessary so that an individual can
successfully complete a task (Krathwohl, 2002). Without procedural knowledge, the key
knowledge component of understanding the steps regarding how to do something is missing
(Rueda, 2011). By understanding the procedural components regarding a SBG system, educators
can better understand how to implement such strategies. Once teachers learn that there are very
specific components of SBG that can be implemented, then it is possible to begin the
implementation process. At this step, teachers take the factual and conceptual knowledge gained,
and apply it in a procedural and intentional manner (Rueda, 2011).
The last knowledge type is metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the
awareness and control of one's cognitive processing (Mayer, 2011). It is important for teachers to
reflect on their practice regarding how they assess student learning, and how such assessment
moves their practice forward. Metacognitive knowledge allows an individual to reflect on what
they do and do not know and why they do or do not know it, so that they can fill their gaps in
their lack of knowledge (Rueda, 2011). All three knowledge domains are important to
understand the core teacher’s motivation and ability to meet Apex Charter’s teacher stakeholder
goal of implementing SBG.
Understanding the composition and terminology of LBG and SBG. In terms of factual
knowledge, teachers needed to know the terminology embedded within both traditional letter-
based grading systems, and standards-based approaches. Standards-based grading is a broad
term, that without specific discussion regarding its various components, can be confusing for any
stakeholder group. Being able to distinguish between what constitutes traditional LBG and a
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

46
truly SBG system was an important knowledge factor for teachers. Teachers can learn how to
articulate these distinctions through professional development, understanding of the current
research on the topic, and the opportunity to experience implementation in a supportive
environment. Without this key knowledge piece better explored and understood by teachers, they
could not achieve the stakeholder goal of implementation of SBG within the core subjects.
Understanding potential pitfalls and benefits of SBG. Beyond the factual distinctions
regarding traditional LBG and SBG systems, the conceptual understanding of how implementing
such approaches within the classroom can benefit students was another important knowledge
component. SBG is a shift in the way educators, students, and families think about how learning
is evaluated (O’Connor, 2017). Traditional LBG is easier to conceptualize because the same
teachers who are now responsible for their own classrooms are the same teachers who likely
were educated in a traditional LBG system (O’Connor, 2009). Teachers are more likely to
understand and be comfortable with a traditional LBG system, as their knowledge of such a
system is likely much higher than their knowledge regarding how SBG works (Dweck, 2015).
In contrast to potential pitfalls of SBG, core teachers may not fully understand what the
research says regarding the potential benefits of SBG (Dweck, 2015). Core teachers may make
the mistake of assuming that because their instruction is aligned with CCSS and NGSS, that they
are already implementing a SBG system (Rakow, 2008). Since SBG is a system that includes SR
instruction, core teachers need to be knowledgeable regarding the connection between SR and
SBG (O’Connor 2009; O’Connor, 2017).
Understanding SBG components for implementation. SBG is not an abstract idea that
the research has yet to clearly define (Marzano, 2000; Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011;). In
contrast, SBG as a system has clearly been defined to link SR teaching practices with how we
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

47
grade and assess what students know (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006). Within the system of SBG,
there are crucial foundational components that separate SBG from other assessment models, such
as a traditional LBG system (Dweck, 2015). Furthermore, the components that make up a SBG
system can be implemented in specific and meaningful ways (Miller, 2013). Due to the fact that
SBG can be broken down conceptually and implemented in a clear and consistent manner across
classrooms and content, SBG provides educators with a procedural knowledge base to learn from
(O’Connor, 2017).
Understanding how SBG can help core teachers reflect on their practice. SBG is not
just a system for grading and assessment of student learning. SBG also provides systematic
structures that facilitate a reflection of practice for teachers (Odden, 2014). As part of the process
of SBG, teachers meet in grade and content level teams to discuss student work. These teams,
often referred to as professional learning communities, or PLCs, use common standard-aligned
assessments to better understand what their students can do, where their students need extra
support, and where their students’ learning should go next (Rakow, 2008). This component of a
SBG system is metacognitive by nature, as individual teachers and groups of teachers reflect on
their instructional practices and assessment models in order to improve student achievement
(Rakow, 2008).
Table 2 provides the organizational mission, global goal, and breakdown of the
knowledge influences identified in this literature review that include knowledge type and
knowledge influence assessment examples.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

48
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Global Organizational Mission
Apex Charter’s mission is to educate individual students to their highest potential, so they are prepared
to succeed in college and career, and the be globally competitive in the workplace.
Global Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of each academic year, Apex Charter will ensure that all students will receive high quality
instruction in Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards from highly
qualified teachers in 21st Century Classrooms.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Core teachers need to understand
the domain specific vocabulary
terminology related to a SBG
system.
Declarative
(Factual)
Interviewed core teachers regarding their
understanding of the foundational
terminology related to SBG.
Core teachers need to understand
the potential benefits and pitfalls of
a SBG approach to assessing
student learning.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interviewed core teachers on their
knowledge of the advantages and
disadvantages of LGB and SGB.
Core teachers need to know how to
implement a SBG system for
grading and assessing student
learning in their classroom.
Procedural Interviewed core teachers on their
understanding of how to implement a SBG
system.
Core teachers need to understand
that SBG is attributable to higher
student engagement and improved
learning outcomes.
Metacognitive Interviewed core teachers on their
perceptions regarding how SBG may or
may not allow them to better understand
their students’ learning and improve their
teaching.

Motivation
Along with knowledge influences, the discussion of motivational-related influences on
the teacher stakeholder group was necessary to assess if and how core teachers at Apex Charter
were motivated to achieve the specific stakeholder performance goal. According to Mayer
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

49
(2011), motivation is defined as an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed
behavior. Without motivation, specific stakeholder groups may not persist in their achievement
of performance organizational goals (Rueda, 2011). Following is a discussion of two main
motivational theories and their relevance to the stakeholder group: expectancy-value theory and
self-efficacy theory.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory states that to successfully
accomplish a goal, an individual must put value or worth on the task that they are engaged in
(value), as well as believe that they can complete such a task (expectancy). Expectancy-value
theory is divided into two parts: whether the stakeholder can do the task, and whether the
stakeholder wants to do the task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Rueda. 2011).
Teachers and expectancy-value theory. An understanding of both the utility value and
the attributions teachers place on the implementation of SBG was important because if teachers
did not feel like their efforts would lead to successful student outcomes, then they may not have
persisted in meeting performance goals (Rueda, 2011). To determine the utility-value that
teachers placed on the implementation of SBG, interview questions were used. In the interview
stage, direct questions relating to core teacher expectancy-value in terms of SBG were asked.
Once there is a clearer understanding of the motivational influence of expectancy-value
among core teachers at Apex Charter, the organization can better understand how to provide
professional development that is beneficial to supporting the teachers as they work towards
meeting the performance goal. The literature explains that while there is value in switching to a
SBG system, there are also many barriers that could prevent teachers from being able to make
the switch (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011; O’Connor, 2009). Thus, by analyzing
and better understanding barriers to change that may affect core teacher’s motivation, this study
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

50
aimed to support core teachers overcoming such barriers, as core teachers increase their
expectancy-value in relation to the implementation of SBG.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy theory can be summarized as the judgement an
individual makes of one’s own ability to perform a given task (Grossman & Salas, 2011). The
research supporting this theory explains that when an individual or group has higher self-
efficacy, they are more likely to be motivated to apply their knowledge to a task and persist at
completing a task (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pintrich, 2003). An individual’s self-efficacy is
both an individual and a social construct, as a person’s self-efficacy is formed through personal
experiences and the observation of others success and failures (Parajes, 2006).
Teachers and self-efficacy. Core teachers at Apex Charter needed to believe that they
were capable of implementing a system of SBG. Without the belief that they are capable of SBG
implementation, core teachers could lose motivation (Parajes, 2006). This understanding of core
teachers and self-efficacy was important to recognize at the individual and stakeholder group
levels. If a teacher increases their self-efficacy because of personal experiences or observations
of other core teachers achieving success with SBG implementation, then they are more likely to
stay motivated to achieve the performance goal (Parajes, 2006). Research indicates that the best
way to increase teacher self-efficacy is to allow for teachers to gain practical hands-on teaching
experience when implementing new changes (Stoyanov, Sloep, de Bie, & Hermans, 2014). The
goal is to allow core teachers to productively explore implementing SBG components, as by
doing so, the research suggests that such exploration will increase teacher self-efficacy.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

51
Table 3 reiterates the organizational mission and global goal as stated in Table 1. It also
shows the motivational influences and aligned assessments on expectancy-value and self-
efficacy of teachers when considering changing from LBG to SBG.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis
Global Organizational Mission
Apex Charter’s mission is to educate individual students to their highest potential, so they are prepared
to succeed in college and career, and the be globally competitive in the workplace.
Global Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of each academic year, Apex Charter will ensure that all students will receive high quality
instruction in Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards from highly
qualified teachers in 21st Century Classrooms.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy-Value
Core teachers need to see the value that a SBG
system provides for themselves and their
students.

Interviewed core teachers pertaining to their held
beliefs regarding LBG and SBG.
Self-Efficacy
Core teachers need to feel they are capable of
implementing a SBG system within their
classrooms.

Interviewed core teachers pertaining to their view
of how capable they feel when asked to
implement SBG.

Organizational Influences
While both knowledge and motivational influencers were important to consider to fully
understand the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), one needed to also identify the
assumed organizational influences on this problem of practice.
Cultural Models. According to Schein (2017), cultural models can be summarized as the
values, beliefs, and collective understanding of the goals of an organization. Understanding Apex
Charter’s cultural models helped to better understand how core teachers were impacted when
they were asked to make an organizational change such as the implementation of a SBG system.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

52
Cultural model influences risk-taking and different approaches to assessment of
learning. In terms of risk-taking, it was important to understand how supportive teachers felt
when they attempted to implement a new grading system (Ponticell, 2003). In effect, this is risk-
taking behavior, as SBG is something that is new and thus not typically the norm throughout
many schools. There are a lot of unknowns, such as how other stakeholders may respond, and the
various systems in place to facilitate an organized and common practice for implementation.
Would the environment at Apex Charter support teachers as they implemented an entirely new
grading system? Would teachers, the main stakeholder group in this study, feel like they were
working in an environment that facilitated and encouraged this type of experimentation?
Cultural model influences mindset of change and adaptation. To support making a
change such as implementing a SBG system over the long-held traditional approach of LBG,
core teachers needed to internalize a mindset of change (Dweck, 2015). This change mindset
would allow teachers to value the process of organizational change, as they began to explore
adapting their previously held instructional and assessment approaches to better align with an
overall standards-based approach (O’Connor, 2017). A lack of a mindset of change could have
meant that core teachers would become resistant to the implementation of SBG, impacting their
desire to meet the stakeholder performance goal. To be successful in achieving the organizational
goal being asked of them, core teachers needed to build on their motivation, and collectively
internalize their desire for change so that it became part of the cultural model at Apex Charter.
Cultural Settings. Cultural settings are a group’s specific and unique values, beliefs, and
opinions in relation to the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes
(2008), a group’s cultural settings can provide valuable insight into a stakeholder group’s
potential gap in seeking attainment of a performance goal.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

53
Cultural setting influences and support for core teachers taking on additional
responsibilities. When asked to take on additional responsibilities at the school site, teachers
needed to be provided the support to be able to do so. This is particularly true for new teachers,
as school sites and districts need to give teachers the tools and supports they need to become
experts in their fields (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). When school site leaders are
supportive of change initiatives, teachers feel like their work is valued, which in turn positively
affects student learning outcomes (Orphanos & Orr, 2014).
Cultural setting influences and professional development opportunities for
implementing SBG and usage of technology. Beyond an environment of risk-taking, one needed
to consider exactly how standards-based grading may or may not have been supported from a
systems-based, organizational perspective. Apex Charter used a system called Powerschool to
enter, track, and report student assessment data and grades (District Website). If teachers were
asked to switch from more traditional letter grading, to a less used standards-based grading
system, was there a system, such as Powerschool, that teachers would be able to use? More
specifically, and tying back into the motivational concept of self-efficacy, would teachers
understand how to use such a system, and be comfortable doing so?
Teachers needed to be able to not only use any new system to enter student data based
upon standards-based grading, but they needed to be able to use the data itself to help guide
student learning and their own teaching practices (Gallagher, Means, & Padilla, 2008).
Considering this, and the above-mentioned need for teachers to fully manipulate whatever
system was in place, discussion about implementing standards-based grading from an
organizational perspective, needed to center around what types of professional development
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

54
teachers received, how often they received it, and the perceived usefulness of such professional
development (Guskey, 2002).
Table 4 shows the organizational influences and aligned assessments in relation to the
cultural model and setting influences on teachers in organizations considering switching from
LBG to SBG systems.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

55
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis
Global Organizational Mission
Apex Charter’s mission is to educate individual students to their highest potential, so they are prepared
to succeed in college and career, and the be globally competitive in the workplace.
Global Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of each academic year, Apex Charter will ensure that all students will receive high quality
instruction in Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards from highly
qualified teachers in 21st Century Classrooms.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1
Core teachers need to value risk-taking with different
approaches to student grading and assessment.

Interview questions probed core teachers’
culture of risk-taking and readiness to
attempt different grading and assessment
practices.
Cultural Model Influence 2
Core teachers need to embrace a mindset of change
and be comfortable with altering their approach to
student grading and assessment.

Interview questions probed change growth-
mindset and comfortability with changes in
assessment structure.
Cultural Setting Influence 1
Core teachers should feel supported from the
organization as they were asked to take the
responsibilities of implementing a change such as
SBG.

Interview questions asked perceptions of
organizational support when core teachers
are asked to meet organizational
performance goals.
Cultural Setting Influence 2
Core teachers should be provided with professional
development in SBG implementation, as well as the
technical system that will be used to report student
grading and assessment.

Interview questions asked about
professional development opportunities
and specific technological training in
relation to SBG.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

56
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
While each of the influencers presented above can and should be examined on an
individual, specific level, they also invariably overlap with each other. Knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influencers do not exist in isolation, and as such, can be viewed in the context
of a conceptual framework (Maxwell, 2013), whereby such a framework can encompass the
various influences that affect a stakeholder in terms of a specific problem of practice (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In the following section, there will be a discussion of how these influencers
interact in context of the problem of practice regarding standards-based grading.
Figure 1 illustrates how core teacher knowledge and motivation are connected; it specifically
highlights the influence organizations have on the change process that could impact the ability of
the core teachers to meet the stakeholder performance goal.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

57

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for study of core teacher’s ability to implement SBG
integrating knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.

Stakeholder Goal:
Apex Charter’s organizational goal is that by the end of the 2019-2020 academic year,
all core teachers at Apex Charter (English, social sciences, math, and science) will implement
a standards-based grading systematic approach to assessing student learning.

Core Teacher Stakeholders

Core Teacher Knowledge: Declarative (content
specific terminology), Conceptual (how SBG
components work together), and Procedural (How
to Implement SBG)-Metacognitive (Reflection on
Alignment between Assessment and Grading and
Importance Of)
Core Teacher Motivation: Expectancy-Value, Self-
Efficacy

Apex Charter Organizational Influences

Cultural Setting: Cognitive Overload and Support
(stakeholders asked to take on more responsibilities, PD to
support changes/new responsibilities, Organizational
systems to support implementation)

Cultural Models: Fragmentation and Differentiation
(Resistance to change, Uncertainty regarding risk taking)

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

58
Conclusion
This study aimed to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors at
play when a school considered switching from traditional LBG systems to a more standards-
based assessment model aligned with both CCSS and NGSS. The literature presented the
research based upon the perceived influences that the main stakeholder group, teachers at Apex
Charter, encountered in context of the problem of practice. In Chapter Three, the methodological
approach for this study will be discussed.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

59
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to use the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework
regarding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors to gain a better understanding of
the possible barriers to and core teacher perceptions of the implementation of standards-based
grading at Apex Charter. As such, a subsequent goal was to facilitate the understanding of
whether SBG aligned with the organization's performance goal of providing high quality
instruction in the context of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) (District Website). Specifically, Apex Charter has the performance
goal that all core teachers, by the end of the 2019-2020 school year, will align student assessment
methods with CCSS and NGSS instructional practices (District Website).
To help achieve the purpose of the study, several research-centered questions needed to
be discussed (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Initially, the teachers’ knowledge and motivation
regarding implementing a SBG system, as well as organizational influences, needed to be better
understood. In addition, the research needed to identify recommendations for organizational
practice regarding the implementation of SBG. As such, it was necessary to understand how and
in what ways might teachers at Apex Charter already have been using, or have used, components
of SBG or other grading systems. As this study sought to reach beyond the understanding of how
teachers were utilizing standard-referenced (SR) instruction, the research needed to highlight
specific assessment practices in relation to how teachers understood what their students did and
did not know.
Based upon the proposed purpose of study, and the nature of the research questions asked
in order to attempt to achieve that goal, the methodological approach to this study was a
convergent parallel approach (Creswell, 2014). Prior to data collection, a screener was used to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

60
inform sampling from the potential key stakeholder group. The screener, which was sent out to
all core teachers at Apex Charter, consisted of demographic-based questions meant to gather
important data regarding the key stakeholder group itself. The screener assisted with the intent to
choose core teachers with as wide a range of sampling criteria as possible. Following the
completion of the screener, most of the study was comprised of analysis of qualitative data in the
interview stages. Finally, document gathering data was used to look closely at teacher-generated
rubrics (Merriam, 2016). The documents gathered assisted with the qualitative interview data in
order to better understand the current implementation, or lack of implementation, of a SBG
approach among core teachers.
From the data collection and analysis, the study used interviews to determine individual
teacher’s perceptions regarding the implementation of SBG. The objective was to better
understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational reasons regarding teachers’ ability to
implement a new system of assessment and grading, aligned with both the Common Core State
Standards and Next Generation Science Standards.
From a knowledge perspective, through a series of qualitative data, the questions
regarding what teachers knew and did not know about SBG, and the way other organizations
have implemented this type of system, was important to ask (Alkin, 2011; Creswell, 2014;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003). By asking questions related to past and current implementation, the
research better understood both the procedural and conceptual knowledge that educators at Apex
Charter held regarding the topic of inquiry. In addition to using qualitative data to better
understand what teachers did and did not know about the inquiry topic, qualitative research also
ascertained the knowledge components regarding what teachers understood about the ways SBG
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

61
may or may not have align with the organization’s performance goal of implementing a system
for student grading and assessment that is based in a SBG approach.
In the sense of a motivational perspective, meaning questions such as what perceptions
teachers held regarding the importance or need for implementing a new grading system were
necessary to answer. This type of qualitative data allowed teachers to explore their own utility-
value regarding this topic (Rueda, 2011). Once both the knowledge components and the utility-
value components were better understood, questions targeted at understanding teachers’ self-
efficacy were useful to understand how the knowledge components, and their perceived utility-
value regarding this topic affected the motivation of teachers to implement SBG (Bandura, 1977;
Parajes, 2006).
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for this study was the core teacher group at Apex
Charter. Recall that at Apex Charter, a core teacher was defined as a teacher who teachers at
least one of the following subjects: math, science, language arts, and social studies. At Apex
Charter, there were approximately 40 core teachers, spread across three grade levels, from 6
th
-8
th

grade (District Website, 2018). Due to the limited size of the stakeholder group, census sampling
with a high response rate was necessary to gather meaningful data using a maximum-variation
approach (Creswell, 2014). In terms of the sampling process and recruitment, it was first
necessary to identify all 40 core teachers. In order to identify the core teachers as Apex Charter,
it was necessary to obtain a list of core teachers from the school-site administration. Once this
information was obtained, the next step was to request time in the agenda for the next upcoming
all staff meeting. At the staff meeting, the intent of the research was relayed to the staff, with the
request for volunteers to take part in the study. Copies of the screener were placed on each desk,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

62
and a specific location was communicated to the teachers regarding where they could submit the
screener. In addition, a copy of the screener was placed into each core teacher's mailbox at the
school site, with a secondary location in the office where they could submit their completed
screener.
Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion One: Apex Charter Core Teacher. To be considered for inclusion in this
study, a participant needed to be a core teacher at Apex Charter. The core teacher subset of
educators within the organization were the main stakeholder group of the study. Any data
gathered regarding the implementation of SBG was only relevant to this study if it was data that
came directly from the core teachers. There were many more educators who worked at Apex
Charter (District Website). However, due to the nature of the study, and dictated by the
performance organizational goal, the participants for the study must have been core teachers. In
addition to being core teachers, it was necessary to know which core subject a teacher at Apex
Charter taught, so that the research could include teachers from all four core classes.
Criterion Two: Tenure as a Teacher. For a maximum-variation approach of the
participants in the study (Creswell, 2014), the tenure of teachers within the subgroup of core
teachers at Apex Charter needed to be considered. The goal was to have a range of experienced
and not-so experienced teachers. This was important because a teacher who had been teaching
for several decades and a teacher who was just beginning their career in education may or may
not have provided similar qualitative data regarding the switch to SBG. As part of the research, it
was necessary to look for patterns and trends across different data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Since this study sought to provide recommendations for organizational practice based upon the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing the core teachers, it was important
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

63
that the participants for the study reflected the range of experiences of the core teachers as a
whole at Apex Charter.
Screener (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The screeners were not anonymous, as the information provided was necessary in
choosing the core teachers who would participate in the study. The goal was to generate a small,
purposeful, nonrandom sample of all core teachers while also maintaining a strict tenet of
voluntarism for the study (Creswell, 2014). The screener asked questions relating to the
conceptual framework, including probing teachers assumed motivational influences regarding
implementation of SBG. In addition, the screener asked teachers how long they had been
teaching in both non-core and core subjects. Finally, the screener inquired about knowledge
influences, asking whether they had experience implementing SBG systems, and their familiarity
with the CCSS and NGSS. It was important to understand which teachers, if any, claimed to
have had any experience learning about or implementing SBG either in their own classroom at
Apex Charter, or in another setting. The selection of participants took potential experience with
SBG into account because it was important to limit the risk of having all participants being
teachers who had never had experience. In addition, it was important that the study did not
consist entirely of just educators who had experience with SBG as to provide the basis for a more
purposeful, maximum-variation principle approach of participant selection amongst the core
teacher group at Apex Charter (Glesne, 2011; Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Once all completed screeners were gathered, those core teachers who do not wish to
participate in the study were removed from the pool of possible participants, as it was important
to ensure that stakeholder participation was voluntary. At that point, all screeners were assigned
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

64
a number for the study. Since there were more screeners than fifteen who volunteered for the
study, an analysis of sampling criterion was applied to the screener pool to ensure purposeful
sampling (Creswell, 2014). Numbers were chosen using a random number generator to decide on
the final core teachers to participate in the study, which did not exceed twelve participants. After
assortment and randomization had been applied, those participants were contacted to confirm
their final desire to participate in the study. In the end, due to time restrictions and availability,
ten core teachers agreed to be interviewed. At that point, all screeners that did not become part of
the study were appropriately destroyed, and any personal identifying information of those who
did participate in the study were removed and aligned with their assigned number for the data
collection stage.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion One: Core Teacher. Participants chosen for interviews needed to be a core
teacher at Apex Charter. Not only should participants have been a core teacher, but there needed
to be a representation of all core subjects (English, social studies, math, and science) within the
participant group. The representation of different content teachers was especially important
because the study focused on alignment with both CCSS and NGSS.
Criterion Two: Tenure. Tenure should have been a consideration when deciding which
participants to include in the interview portion of the study. Teachers with little classroom
experience, a moderate amount of classroom experience, and several decades of classroom
experience composed the interview participant group. The tenure of teachers was important to
consider because teacher perception could have varied with experience, thus allowing for a more
complete picture of the stakeholder’s group knowledge and motivation regarding SBG.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

65
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The type of sampling applied during the interview stage was purposeful (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Of the potentially 40 teachers screened via consensus sampling, the
teachers recruited for interviews correlated to the goal of maximum-variation of principles. The
goal was to interview teachers who had 1-5 years of experience in the classroom, as well as
teachers who had five or more years of experience. In addition, it was important to interview
teachers who, for whatever knowledge, motivation, or organizational reason, both had and did
not have experience with alternative assessment models, such as SBG. Finally, it was important
to ensure that all core subjects were represented in the collection of data via interviews.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Research Questions
1. What are core teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing a standards-
based grading systematic approach to assessing student learning?
2. What is the interaction between Apex Charter’s culture and setting, and core teacher’s
knowledge and motivation on their ability to successfully implement standards-based
grading?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding teachers at Apex Charter
implementing a standards-based grading systematic approach to assessing student
learning?
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
For this study, qualitative data collection was conducted through interviews of the core
teacher stakeholder group. In terms of instrumentation, all data collection followed a data
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

66
collection protocol, with a semi-structured approach, as discussed in more depth below. For the
interviews, the type of sampling was purposeful, with maximum-variation of principles
(Maxwell, 2013). Of the 40 plus teachers at Apex Charter, the teachers recruited for interviews
aligned with the necessary criteria. In addition to these data collection choices, it was necessary
to span a range of tenure in order to allow for a variation of experiences and perspectives.
Finally, it was important to ensure that all core subjects and all grade levels were represented in
the collection of data via interviews. Since the possible participants for the study was a small unit
cluster of roughly 40 teachers at Apex Charter, non-random convenience sampling was the most
direct and time effective approach (Fink, 2013; Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriquez, 2016).
Interviews
From the key stakeholder group, the teachers at Apex Charter, the developing protocol
asked for twelve interviews, with the goal of obtaining informed consent for participation for an
equal distribution of participants across grade levels and subjects. In the end, ten core teachers
agreed to be interviewed. For this study, interviews were necessary in order to gather narrative
rich, qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). Considering that the key stakeholder group was
approximately 40 teachers, the sampling size and spread allowed for maximum-variation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To protect the integrity of the study, all interviews were conducted in
a formal manner, adhering strictly to the interview protocol. The process for forming the
interview protocol centered on the concepts of adhering to informed consent from participants
and collecting and securing the qualitative data provided in a professional and ethical manner so
that the individuality and safety of participants were upheld (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). All
interviews used the most common method of recording data, audio recording (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were conducted on campus at Apex Charter, in the school’s Media
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

67
Lab. Keeping interviews on campus was the most convenient for the participants and respected
their time and participation in the study. It was important to not hold the interviews in their own
classrooms, as they could have become distracted by calls, students and other teachers, and other
things in their immediate environment that may have taken away their attention from the
interview questions. The timing of interviews was intentionally meant to be flexible, in order to
respect and value the different preferences and schedules of the participants (Rubin & Rubin,
2012). Therefore, interviews were scheduled for one-hour before the school day begins up to
three hours after the school day ends. The variation in times gave participants the option to do
the interview before the workday begins, or one of several slots after the workday ends.
Lunchtime interviews were not an option due to both time constraints and the higher likelihood
of distraction, as the students at Apex Charter eat lunch right outside of the Media Lab.
All interviews were conducted in English, with no need for translation or translator
services provided for the interviewees. The interview itself followed a semi-structured approach,
with a standard open-ended interview structure (Patton, 2002). While there was a set of questions
relating to the conceptual framework of the study, it was important to allow for probing and
follow-up questions, based upon the responses of the interviewees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
There was a set of possible probing questions and question frames within the protocol that may
have been used to further probe for clarity and narrative. The questions within the interview
protocol aligned with the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors for the stakeholder
group in the study, as embedded within the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
type of questions were a mix of background and demographic questions, opinion and value
questions, feeling questions, knowledge questions, and devil’s advocate questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

68
Data Analysis
For interviews, data analysis begun during data collection. Analytic memos were written
after each interview. Thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions were captured about the data in
relation to the study’s conceptual framework and research questions. Interviews were transcribed
and coded with transcription software. In the first phase of analysis, open coding was used to
look for empirical codes and application of priori codes from the conceptual framework. The
second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and priori codes were aggregated into
analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, pattern codes and themes that emerge in
relation to the conceptual framework and study questions were identified. Analysis of documents
and artifacts were conducted for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual
framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The interviews themselves were conducted in a formal manner, adhering to clear data
instrumentation protocols. The formal manner and professionalism of the interview process
added to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study as it built a safe partnership between
researcher and participant, while adhering to ethical responsibilities of qualitative data collection
with human research subjects (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
By triangulating the data, the study increased the credibility of the data collection and
interpretation process. The triangulation of data was spread throughout those chosen to
participate in the data collection. The key stakeholders, as noted earlier, spanned multiple grade
levels, depth of experience, and content area expertise. Not only did the process start with
sending screeners to assist with the participant identification process based upon protocol
criterion, but so was using narrative rich interview data in a semi-structured approach.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

69
Creswell (2014) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) advise that member checking is an
important component to maintaining the credibility and worthiness of qualitative research
findings. This entails checking with the interview participants after the data itself has been coded
to verify that the coding, patterns, and themes represented within the data are an accurate
reflection of the data provided by the participants themselves. As part of this process, the study
ensured that it only showed the transcripts to the participants that they belonged to, as to not
contaminate the data by having participants comment on the input of others. Such confidentiality
and protection of data served as a safety net for limiting researcher bias (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of a study were largely based in the ethical foundation of the
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) goes as far as to state that “the
trustworthiness of the data is tied directly to the trustworthiness of those who collect and analyze
the data (p.706). Therefore, for a study to be viewed as reliable and valid, the way in which the
study is composed, how data is gathered, and how key findings are reported, through the lens of
ethical writing, is crucial for the researcher to constantly be cognizant of.
Ethics
When considering ethics in writing, it is important that regardless of researcher bias, this
study represented the voices of the participants, not that of the researcher. Researchers inevitably
possess biases and perspectives that have the potential to impact the nature of the qualitative
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the first ethical safeguard in place was via the
instrumentation of a clear protocol for data collection. Embedded within this protocol were
measures to protect the identity and data provided of all participants in the study. In addition to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

70
this, the tenet of informed consent, necessary to adhering to a credible and trustworthy study,
was upheld with fidelity. As per the protocol, the data itself was stored in a password- protected
computer, inaccessible to anybody but the researcher. Participating teachers were assigned
numbers, so as to protect their individual identities within the organization, and any qualitative
data provided was removed of obvious descriptors that others within the organization could
easily link to individual identities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
It was important to stay neutral as a researcher and understand that a researcher’s job is
to hear what each participant has to say regarding the problem of practice, not to judge what they
say in any way. This awareness is present in the findings section. It would have been unethical to
interject personal feelings or understanding about a question or topic into the research. Rather,
researchers need to make sure that when data is analyzed, the focus is on looking for patterns and
trends within the coding process that are organic and present, and not trying to look for patterns
or trends that the researcher may want or hope to see.
The concept of chronology is something important to consider when discussing ethics in
research and writing. When participants share stories, it is important to accurately represent those
stories within the data. While maintaining confidentiality of the participants themselves, the
study still needed to ensure that the people involved, the actions of those people involved, and
the timeframe that everything happened during was accurately represented as told from the
perspective of the participant. As part of the representation of the data regarding stories that
participants may tell, and how they relate to the research questions, it was necessary to fully
establish the context and fullness of the story without revealing the true setting or organization.
In addition to protecting the true identity of the organization, it was just as much necessary to
protect the identity of the participants themselves.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

71
This study needed to undergo several rounds of approval before it could be deemed
ethical. The most important phase of approval was the submission to and go ahead from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB). As in any study, especially one that has the potential to have
some sort of impact on students, the IRB must approve the proposal in order to ensure that the
rights and well-being of the participants of the study were respected from an ethical viewpoint
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). As noted above, the design of this study included the recommendation
of authorities in qualitative research such as Merriam and Tisdell (2016), Glesne (2011), and
Rubin and Rubin (2012) by putting an emphasis on the study being voluntary for participants,
protecting participant identity, and the data gathered being stored and secured in a manner that is
in accordance with IRB expectations.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were certain limitations present within the context of this research. The initial
sample size of core teachers at Apex Charter was approximately 40 teachers. Of the 40 teachers,
10 were chosen for interviews. Given a small sample size, participants may have provided
qualitative data in their interviews that may have made it easy to figure out their identity. By
meeting with teachers at the school site, although convenient to participating teachers, it may
have created a scenario where another student, teacher, or community member might have
assumed that a teacher was participating in the study. A further limitation of this study was that it
was dependent on the participants fully and accurately sharing their thoughts and perceptions
regarding the implementation of a standards-based assessment system. The data that was
collected, coded, and analyzed, assumed that participants had fully and honestly shared their
thoughts, motivations, and experiences in relation to the interview questions. Finally, the
document analysis provided, namely rubrics, did not provide a significant amount of data, other
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

72
than reinforces some of the findings in chapter four. Thus, the majority of the data collection and
subsequent findings and themes had to rely on the interviewees of the core teachers.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

73
Chapter Four: Findings
This study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework regarding
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors to address the potential barriers that the key
stakeholder group, core teachers, may experience when asked to implement standards-based
grading at a middle school site. Apex Charter’s goal is to implement standards-based grading in
the core subjects of English, social studies, math, and science by the end of the 2019-2020
academic year. Standards-based grading is a new system of assessing student learning. As such,
it is important that the research examined core teacher knowledge related to SBG, as well as their
motivation to meet the stakeholder goal.
The questions below guided the research by helping to gather information pertaining to
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that core teachers face when asked to
implement a system of standards-based grading:
1. What are core teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing a standards-
based grading systematic approach to assessing student learning?
2. What is the interaction between Apex Charter’s culture and setting, and core teacher’s
knowledge and motivation on their ability to successfully implement standards-based
grading?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding teachers at Apex Charter
implementing a standards-based grading systematic approach to assessing student
learning?

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

74
Participating Stakeholders
For this study, the participating stakeholders were core teachers at Apex Charter. As
previously mentioned, a core teacher is any teacher who teaches one or more of the core subjects
of English, social studies, math, or science. Interviews were used to obtain the key stakeholder’s
knowledge, motivational, and organizational understandings and perspectives about the research
questions and overall purpose of the study. This chapter will begin by examining core teacher
knowledge influences that either support or impeded core teacher’s ability to implement SBG. It
is important for core teachers to understand basic domain specific vocabulary relating to SBG,
potential benefits of SBG over LBG, and the basic procedural process for how to implement
SBG. In addition, the research will seek to understand how core teachers view SBG in relation to
student engagement and improved learning outcomes.
In addition to examining knowledge influences of core teachers when implementing
SBG, the subsequent findings will analyze motivational influences. Specifically, the research
will attempt to determine if the assumed motivational influences of expectancy-value theory and
self-efficacy theory were present within the findings. Core teachers were interviewed regarding
their held beliefs of LBG and SBG, as well as their view of how capable they feel when they are
asked to implement SBG.
Finally, organizational influences on core teachers at Apex Charter are examined. Core
teachers were asked to comment on the culture of risk-taking and the mindset of change with
respect to changing the way in which the organization understands assessment of student
learning. Furthermore, core teachers needed to be provided with structured professional
development and technological training if they are to be supported from the organization.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

75
Analysis of Participating Core Teachers
Of the twelve core teachers invited to participate in the study, ten agreed to be
interviewed. Each core teacher at Apex Charter was assigned a pseudonym in order to protect
their identify. Table 5 provides an overview of each core teacher participant. The core teachers
interviewed represented 25% of the overall core teacher population within the organization. Of
the core teachers interviewed, 60 % were female and 40% were male. In addition, every core
subject was represented at least twice. Finally, in keeping with a maximum-variation approach
(Creswell, 2014), 50% of core teachers interviewed have taught for more than ten years, 30%
have taught for less than five years, and 20% have taught anywhere from five to ten years.
Table 5
Pseudonyms of Core Teachers, Subjects Taught, and Years Taught
Teacher Subjects Taught Years Taught
Audrey Social Studies/English Less than 5 Years
Barbara Social Studies/English More than 10 Years
Bonnie Math 5-10 Years
Brandon Social Studies/English Less than 5 Years
Donna Social Studies/English 5-10 Years
Donovan Social Studies More than 10 Years
Dylan Science More than 10 Years
Lala Math, Science More than 10 Years
Lee Science More than 5 Years
Samantha English, Social Studies Less than 5 Years

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

76
Findings
This section examines the findings present within the data collected from the core teacher
interviews and document analysis. The research initially set out to better understand the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to core teachers at Apex Charter
implementing a standards-based grading system. Following this findings section, in Chapter
Five, the researcher will provide recommendations for the organization in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Of the ten core teachers interviewed for
this study, ten interview transcripts were used for the findings and themes sections. The findings
have been organized to better understand what the data says in context of the purpose and scope
of this study. First, the findings regarding knowledge and motivation from interviews will be
explored. Next, findings related to organizational results will be examined. Finally, the influence
of the organization on core teacher knowledge and motivation will be analyzed. Based upon the
structure of the findings section, the goal is to determine if the interviews support the previously
identified influences for core teachers implementing standards-based grading.
Core Teachers Expressed a General, Although Incomplete Understanding of What and
How to Implement SBG
Ten core teachers at Apex Charter were interviewed regarding the assumed knowledge
influences of a standards-based grading system. Consistent findings emerged across the
interviewees that core teachers at Apex Charter possess various, although incomplete, degrees of
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge necessary to implement standards-based
grading. Understanding what core teachers did and did not know about the benefits of SBG
(conceptual), how to implement SBG (procedural), and how SBG could better their practice and
lead to improved student learning (metacognitive) was necessary to answer the first research
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

77
question. Part of the first research question asks to identify the knowledge influences related to
core teachers implementing SBG. Over the course of the interviews, the main topics that
emerged regarding knowledge influences surrounded the those of using zero as an evaluation
metric, understanding of the need to use a revision process that is continuous, core teacher views
on standards and assessment alignment, and the accuracy and consistency of a LBG versus a
SBG system. The data on these topics connect to SBG because from the conceptual and
procedural knowledge perspective, they are necessary components of SBG itself.
The first knowledge influence focused on core teacher’s conceptual and procedural
understandings of what is standards-based grading, and how to implement standards-based
grading. Throughout the interviews, the first finding in context of assumed knowledge influences
was that overall, core teachers expressed a basic understanding of what standards-based grading
is and how to implement it. Yet, this expression of general understanding varied widely by
teachers, and some core teachers initially had trouble expressing what SBG is. For example,
Brandon’s first response when asked if he knew the difference between standards-based grading
and letter-based grading was “I know very little about it [SBG]. I’ve heard it talked about. I have
yet to see it done…it seems very complicated.” When probed further, Brandon went on to add
that “standards-based grading to me means that we are taking a look at specific standards in each
grade level and subject matter…so I think it ties into learning targets.” Much like Brandon, Lee
also struggled to articulate what standards-based grading is. Lee stated that he did not really
know what standards-based grading was because “I don’t have enough experience with
standards-based grading.” However, Lee did mention that from his understanding, “standards-
based grading is much more like a rubric based grading approach.” Both Brandon and Lee
expressed difficulties with explaining what SBG is. However, both core teachers were able to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

78
identify basic components that separated SBG from LBG, namely the directed and intentional
focus on specific standards themselves, and rubrics as a way to measure student learning of a
standard.
When asked about her basic understanding of what standards-based grading was, Barbara
stated that “standards-based grading has more to do with what they’ve learned overall, instead of
at one point in time...I see it as a continuum as opposed to cut and dry.” Samantha, a new teacher
with less than five years of experience, added to the conversation when she said that from her
understanding that, “every student has a score from 1-4, and they can continuously assess
throughout the year...which shows the student exactly what they need to work on as it aligns to
the standards.” When probed as to the main distinction between standards-based grading and
letter-based grading, Samantha added that “letter-based grading has more room for other things,
other than standards, such as participation...there is more room for teacher interpretation.” When
considering conceptual knowledge, Barbara was able to express a general schema of what
standards-based grading consists of. She understood that a SBG system is a continuous process
of instruction and assessment. Samantha added to the conversation with insight into the
distinction between what can clearly be assessed, versus other factors that are not considered part
of standards-based grading when she stated that letter-based grading allows for non-academic
components as part of student assessment practices. Here, Samantha spoke to the research-based
understanding that in a standards-based grading system, there is a directed effort to separate a
student’s demonstration of academic achievement from other factors, such as behavior (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018). In fact, according to Dweck (2015), in order to use SBG as a
way to instruct and assess, an educator, such as Samantha, must identify the standard that a
student is to be assessed upon, and not include anything else that cannot be considered a clearly
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

79
defined learning goal. Even though Brandon struggled at first to articulate what SBG was, he still
showed a general, although incomplete understanding, when he identified that SBG focused
directly on a standard and the learning target(s) associated with that standard. Dylan added to
the understanding of core teacher knowledge influences by saying:
Standards-based grading should be based on the standard. So [for science] they have a
skill, a piece of knowledge, and a cross-cutting concept. We've kind of struggled with
accurately assessing all three of those, but I think it [student assessment] should be based
on a standard rather than some other arbitrary thing that someone decided is important.
Dylan provided more specific insight into the basic factual knowledge factors by explaining that
he understood that in a standards-based grading system, student learning and assessment must be
based on a specific standard. The overall understanding of SBG as a system that allows the focus
to be on specific standards was also shared by Bonnie. Bonnie echoed what Dylan and Samantha
said by adding that, “I think it is a way to communicate how students are performing for each
standard…whereas letter-based grading kind of takes a composite of how students are doing in
nonacademic things.” Lala’s understanding of standards-based grading was a combination of
what several other core teachers expressed. According to Lala, “Standards-based grading is
mastery…it is a continuing opportunity for kids to master a particular subject.” Here, core
teachers understood the basic concept of a standards-based grading system. It was clear that core
teachers conceptually understood that in a SBG system, it is necessary to provide a grade for a
student based on the specific CCSS or NGSS, and not for other nonacademic factors.
The concept of consistency was brought up by Donna when she was asked to articulate
her understanding of what SBG is and is not. Donna provided insight into the research when she
stated that “I guess my general understanding is that SBG would be something that regardless of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

80
the individual teacher or school setting, it would be something that is consistent.” When asked
what she meant by more consistent, Donna added, “Assessments would consist of the same set of
questions on a particular standard that have been articulated from the Department of Education
nationally.” Here, Donna expressed the notion that SBG can provide consistency for students and
teachers. From Donna’s perspective, the Department of Education would decide upon the
common assessments that each student would be asked to take by grade level, ensuring a
consistent base of questions that were meant to assess a student’s mastery of grade level
standards.
Overall, the data gathered through these interviews led the researcher to generate the
finding that core teachers at Apex Charter possess a combination of basic, although incomplete,
knowledge factors regarding standards-based grading. While this knowledge somewhat varied by
teacher, there is already a general knowledge base to build from within the core teacher
stakeholder group. In general, core teachers understood that SBG focuses on CCSS and NGSS to
measure student learning. Multiple core teachers initially identified that SBG is a continuous
learning process based on assessment of a specific standard. Some core teachers were able to
articulate a deeper understanding of SBG by talking about the difference between nonacademic
and academic factors and the idea of consistency versus inconsistency. Other core teachers
initially struggled to articulate what SBG is and is not, yet they were able to identify some basic
components of SBG. Next, further specific knowledge factors that emerged across the ten
interviews will be categorized and analyzed.
Core Teachers Understand the Concerns with Using Zeros as a Measure of
Assessment. Identified within the knowledge components of standards-based grading is how
core teachers at Apex Charter chose to approach the debate surrounding the concept of zero.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

81
According to the research on standards-based grading, the practice of giving a zero is prominent
in a LBG system. Furthermore, by giving a student a zero on an assignment, the message being
sent to the teacher and the student is that the student has learned absolutely nothing about the
standard being assessed. Mathematically speaking, such a grade within a percentage-based
grading scale like LBG can have a drastically negative effect on a student’s grade (Reeves,
2010). The research on the concept of zero is represented in the interviews from the core
teachers.
To begin, Dylan commented on the concept of using zeros to track student work and
learning by stating, “If a student gets a zero, it would mean that they didn’t learn anything.”
Upon further probing, Dylan added that the logic of a zero just does not make sense to him, as,
“the math wouldn’t add up...if you count down it’s like 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, what’s the next
number? Zero or 50? The math just damages grades too much.” Dylan was not the only teacher
interviewed who expressed their thoughts regarding the concept of zero as part of the way they
assessed student learning. Lala had her own term for the debate surrounding the validity and
fairness of utilizing zeros to assess students. She referred to her perspective on zeros as the case
against zero. She stated that she, “[believes] strongly that zero is not an evaluation.”
Furthermore, Lala contributes to the numerical logic of using zeros by explaining that her,
“grades go down to about 40% for a D.” Discussing her perspective of the case against zero in
more-depth, Lala mentioned that “when [she] learned that lawyers can pass the bar exam with a
66%, it really put things in perspective for [her].” The analogy here is accurate as supported by
the literature on standards-based grading. In a SBG system, the goal is for a student to show
mastery of a standard. Mastery does not mean that a student achieves 100% on an assessment.
Rather, mastery means that a student possesses enough understanding of a given standard based
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

82
on grade-level expectations. When converted to a quantifiable measurement of learning, mastery
can be achieved with a score that is less than the traditional 100% metric that is commonly
understood within a LBG system (Marzano, 2011). Lee further added to the conversation
regarding the mathematical logic of using a zero by stating, t “I think that mathematically, it is
not an honest scale.” He discussed his understanding of this difference between SBG and LBG
when he explained that in a SBG system, “the math is a little more, in my mind, a little bit more
honest.”
From a mathematical perspective, one of the issues with a LBG system of assessing
student learning is that a zero simply is not logical. Dylan, Lala, and Lee explained their
perspectives regarding using zeros in a 100-point scale. Their understanding is in exact
alignment with what the current research says about the topic (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2011).
Dylan explained that if a student were to receive a zero, it would show that the student “didn’t
learn anything.” Lala stated the main conceptual knowledge understanding that zeros cannot be
used in a SBG system, because “zero is not an evaluation.” To give a student a zero would be the
equivalent of telling a student, their family, the administration, and their teacher, that they
learned or knew absolutely nothing about the standards being addressed in instruction. To this,
Lee summarized the general consensus by stating that in the current LBG system, giving a zero
is not an “honest” assessment of what a student does or does not know.
Dylan, Lala, and Lee were not the only core teachers at Apex Charter to express their
thoughts regarding the use of a zero to evaluate students. Donovan is another teacher who has
taught over a decade. Donovan stated, “If you give students a zero for Fs, instead of a 50%, then
they’ve dug a hole so big that even if they do a few assignments, they’ll never see a change in
their grades, so that kills all their motivation.” Donna then added that when you give a student a
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

83
zero, “you’re not teaching the kid anything, expect punishing them.” Here, Donna goes on to
explain for many teachers who hand out zeros, it “lies 100% on the teacher and their ego…some
may say that ‘well in the real world, you don’t pay half your rent and you get to stay there, so
why am I going to give them 50%?” Donna explained a common form of logic that other
educators who may agree with handing out zeros for grades might use for justification. However,
as she pointed out, “equitably, mathematically, giving a zero on a 100-point scale is inequitable.”
Here, both Donovan and Donna showed their understanding of one of the pitfalls of a LBG, and
a potential benefit of SBG.
Overall, the core teachers spoke directly to the literature regarding one significant
difference between LBG and SBG: that in a SBG system, a zero is not a valid degree of
assessment (Dweck, 2015; Marzano, 2006, Marzano, 2011; Reeves, 2010). In terms of assumed
knowledge influences, it was important to understand what core teachers currently understood
regarding the advantages and disadvantages of SBG and LBG. Nearly every core teacher
interviewed commented on the “case against zero”, as Lala phrased it.
Most Core Teachers Either Currently Use or Expressed the Need to Use Rubrics.
The research on SBG speaks to the need to use rubrics when assessing student learning. Marzano
(2006; 2011), a pioneer in educational pedagogy and SBG, specifically recommends that
qualitative assessments of student learning should be converted into a quantitative measure by
using a clear and precise four-point scale. This conceptual understanding of one of the basic
components of SBG was reflected in the feedback from core teachers at Apex Charter. Of the ten
core teachers interviewed regarding the first research question, nearly all mentioned that they
currently use rubrics to accurately and fairly assess students based on the standards students have
been taught in class. It is important to note that within the interview protocol, there was
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

84
intentionally not a direct question regarding using rubrics or not; rather, the core teachers in the
interviews commented on this conceptual knowledge component as part of their current
assessment practices.
When discussing how she currently assesses her students, Audrey explained that she uses
rubrics because they allow her to have better conversations with her students regarding her
assignment expectations. By using a rubric, Audrey said that she can tell students exactly where
they did not meet expectations, where they did, and where they exceeded expectations.
According to Audrey, “I usually use a single point rubric because it is more aligned to the
standards I am asking the students to master.” The idea of utilizing a rubric to align assessment
to standards extended beyond just Audrey’s comments. Samantha also felt that using rubrics was
important because “rubrics allow me to connect my instruction to standards.” Barbara added,
“When students see a rubric, they know what the components are [of assessment] and then work
towards them.”
Lee explained exactly how he used rubrics to assess student learning. Lee stated that
when he sets up a rubric for his students, he sets “what a four looks like, what’s a three,
etcetera…basically laying out a template for how I am going to score them.” Here, Lee stated
that it is important to do this because it “sort of balances out deficiencies” and tells him and the
student what a student “is excelling in.” Ultimately, Lee identified that he wants his students to
“get at least a two” in order to demonstrate that “a student has learned something.”
More specific insight into core teacher understanding of the alignment with standards and
assessment will be discussed. Here, however, it was important that the research commented on
the use of rubrics specifically, as it was one of the assumed procedural knowledge influences.
Several core teachers already incorporated rubrics into their assessment practices. Procedurally,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

85
the use of rubrics is an important component of a SBG (Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011).
Without a rubric, a core teacher would struggle with being able to convert the feedback on
assessments into a quantitative measurement of student learning.
Core Teachers Understand That the Ability to Continuously Revise and Make Up
Work is Important. It has already been noted how core teachers at Apex Charter view their
understanding of SBG as consisting of a continuous process of student learning and assessment.
Building on this conceptual and procedural knowledge component, several core teachers
mentioned that they already incorporate a revision process into the way they assess student
learning. Understanding how core teachers view the process of allowing students to revise
assessments and submit makeup work to show their continued understanding of a standard is
important in answering the first research question.
Dylan explained how the revision process works in his classroom. According to Dylan,
“We [science teachers] just kind of circle the score [on the rubric] ...then any day after, you can
come back and redo any part you want...kids do better the second or third time they try it [the
assessment].” Much like Dylan, Bonnie also used rubrics to direct her revision process.
According to Bonnie:
Every test is formatted to assess a specific skill...and I would grade that skill on a four-
point rubric...every time a student took an assessment, they would have a chance to re-
show mastery for that skill, and I would update it in the gradebook.
While several core teachers commented on the use of a revision process as part of their
grading practices, only one core teacher elaborated on her understanding of a suitable time-frame
for revising. Donna added to the understanding of the core teacher knowledge as she stated,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

86
There’s something to be said developmentally where these kids are at…giving them for
example an entire trimester to make something up is too much time…giving them a
shorter window is more responsive to their developmental age.
Dweck (2015) cautions that procedurally, effective structures for a revision and late
submission process is something educators typically struggle with when asked to switch from
LBG to SBG. While many of the core teachers have structures in place regarding revision and
make-up work, there is not a uniform policy in place. For example, Donna spoke to her
hesitation with revisions and make up work by indicating that she is not sure what the
developmentally acceptable timeframe should be. From her perspective, there should be a clear
window, less than a trimester, for students to be able to show understanding of a standard. Lala
echoed frustration with this procedural understanding when she spoke about math being difficult
because “we learn a standard, and then have to move on to the next standard…it is difficult to
find time for students to revise their work before I have to assess the next standard.”
Taking these perceptions into account, core teachers have a basic conceptual and
procedural understanding regarding implementing a continuous revision process within SBG, but
their combined knowledge is not uniform. Core teachers have identified that they sometimes
apply the use of rubrics to their grading practices. The concept of revision is important in SBG
because the focus is on standard mastery. This is significantly different than a general revision
process in a LBG system, where a student may have an opportunity to redo an assignment one or
two times before the teacher moves on to the next assignment. In a SBG, the concept of revision
is open and continuous, meaning that a student is asked to view learning as a process, where the
individual can identify standards they are not yet proficient in, and are given flexibility to retest
as needed until they show mastery (Marzano, 2006; Marzano, 2011).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

87
Core Teachers Regard LBG as Less Accurate and More Subjective than SBG.
Although many of the core teachers at Apex Charter already implement several components of
SBG, they still also use procedural components of a LBG system. When asked to reflect on how
they assess students overall, many core teachers commented on concerns about accuracy. Dweck
(2015) highlights research that cautions against using components in a grading system that do not
have any connection to the standards students are being asked to master. Specifically, Dweck
(2015) warns that too often, teachers will use non-academic components of grading to either
punish or reward students for making an effort to complete work. When considering
metacognitive knowledge influences, the understanding that core teachers view LBG as less
accurate and more objective relates directly to how core teachers reflect on what they do and do
not understand about their students’ learning. The concept of subjectivity has direct implications
for how core teachers understand how SBG may or may not help improve their instructional
approach.
The idea of rewarding students for their effort, and not their growth or mastery of
standards, was often mentioned throughout the interviews. When asked about this concept,
Samantha said, “These students are in middle school, it’s like hey, did you try? I want to reward
them in a way that is visible.” Samantha went on to elaborate on the concept of rewarding
students for doing work and turning it in, regardless of what the work itself showed about student
learning. Audrey also commented on the subjectivity in a letter-based grading system:
I realized that grades are kind of not meaningful...it’s not really an accurate way to
assess someone’s intelligence or what they are capable of doing...you could be the
smartest person in the room, and still have an F” if you do not show that you are making
the effort that the teacher wants you to make.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

88
Barbara began the conversation regarding her opinions on how accurate letter-based
grading was by stating that “in the end, students are just given a letter grade, but what does that
mean?” This sentiment is even more clear when Dylan said:
Something that killed me was a kid who would get a B in my class because the way my
grading was set up, but they would take some standardized assessment, and it would
come back saying they were far below basic...how did that happen?
As the conversation continued, Dylan reflected on how that made him feel as an educator:
I felt like I did a great disservice to the student and their family...I told the student to
listen to me, and you’ll do great...but then in reality, there was this standard that they
didn't know, but my grading didn’t reflect that.
For Dylan, this meta-cognitive influence allowed him to think deeply about his grading practices.
Ultimately, he came to the realization that, “I wasn’t measuring the right thing...kids were good
kids, they came to class, wrote their names on their papers, and played the school game well, and
I rewarded them for that...not for what they were learning.”
Donna talked about the subjectivity of grading in LBG by claiming that the current way
students are graded is “existential.” When probed what she meant by this, she added, “I
definitely feel like there’s a lot of grades that go into even my gradebook that just end up
padding a student’s grade when maybe they don’t perform well on a formative or summative
assessment.” When given time to reflect on how this impacted her instruction, Donna provided a
short narrative about a student in particular that she had the previous year. In the example she
provided, Donna recalled that one student had a B in her class but performed multiple grade
levels below standard on a common district assessment. The parent of the student reached out to
Donna to ask how it was possible that a student was receiving a B in her class but could not meet
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

89
grade-level standard on the common assessment. Donna had to meet with the parent and show
her how her grading worked, which included components that were not directly tied to grade-
level standards. Donna concluded, “We are doing a disservice to our parents, to our students, and
to ourselves as teachers when there’s so much gray area in how we grade our students.”
In the interviews, many core teachers reflected on the accuracy and subjectivity concerns
in a LBG. Even though all the core teachers mentioned using assessments as one indicator of
student learning, they explained that there are often other factors that go into the overall student
grade. This reflection led the core teachers to express confusion and an overall dissatisfaction
with how they currently assess their students and what this means in context of student learning
outcomes. While none of the core teachers made a distinction between an assessment-based
system and SBG, their current practice points more towards a system that uses assessments but
does not fully rely on assessments to continuously understand improvements in student learning
outcomes. Scriffiny (2008) provides research that discusses how such a system can ultimately be
misleading to the stakeholders, as the assessments need to be aligned with specific standards so
that students and educators can gain a better understanding of a student’s strengths and
weaknesses. Here, core teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to understand how to align
their assessment practices to the standards they are being asked to teach. Without a true
alignment, core teachers risk confusing the concept of assessment-based instruction with actual
standards-based grading. The next topic elaborates more on the concept of accuracy and
subjectivity as it relates to the assumed metacognitive influence regarding how a lack of SBG
may impact core teacher understanding of their students learning.
Core Teachers Do Not Always Understand How National Assessments and National
Standards Align. Even though core teachers at Apex Charter have provided several examples of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

90
ways in which they use rubrics and a revision process as part of their understanding of what their
students do and do not know, there was still an awareness that the standards students were being
asked to master, and the assessments that students took, were not always in alignment. In
addition, several teachers commented on the difficulties of understanding exactly what
assessments were either meant to test, or how to interpret assessments to guide practice.
Blackburn (2011) states that it is important that educators have a clear alignment of standards
with student assessments. This alignment is vital in efforts to provide an accurate and
straightforward measure of a student’s academic ability (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). This
further helps to answer the first research question regarding assumed knowledge influences.
Upon reflection of core teacher’s work on aligning standards to student assessment,
Samantha mentioned that “[she] wants to make sure the letter grade I give matches the
assessment, but it is complicated.” Barbara also commented on the lack of alignment between
standards and assessments by saying, “It’s hard to say exactly was is being test” on most
assessments. In addition, Dylan talked about using projects as a form of assessment, especially
when he has experimented with different ways to assess student understanding of a given topic.
When reflecting on this practice, Dylan noted, “When I used a project, I actually didn’t know
how close it aligned to the standard.” While teachers spoke to their attempts to use different
ways to assess students, which is supported in the research on SBG, there was still a vocal
expression that teacher attempts, although well-intentioned, did not always align with standards
and did not always provide a clear picture of what students could and could not do. While
speaking to this exact understanding, Samantha stated that assessments are:
Something the student needs to show knowledge of, but they don’t always match what
we are doing in the classroom...even when we try different ways to assess, such as post-it
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

91
notes, posters, projects, etcetera.,. All of my assessments are meant to come from
standards...but in reality, it is not always clear exactly what I am assessing.
Barbara, Dylan, and Samantha were reflecting on their instructional practice. All three
core teachers noted that while they understood the need to have their assessments directly reflect
the standards they were teaching, they did not always achieve this.
In a broader sense, Bonnie spoke to the concept of how assessments are used within
schools themselves. Here, she added to the conversation:
I don’t think the assessments currently used in schools are very strong...I’m talking about
state assessments which are very high stakes and students tend to stress out about, but
don’t necessarily have a direct informative impact on student learning.
Bonnie went beyond the individual assessments she uses in the classroom and spoke to her
understanding of common formative and summative district and national assessments. Bonnie
spoke directly to the assumed metacognitive influence regarding core teachers understanding of
how common assessments and standard instruction should relate in order to guide instruction and
student learning. From her perspective, it was not always clear what the relation is. The data
supports that core teachers possess a fragmented and incomplete understanding of conceptually
what SBG is, and procedurally how to implement such a system.
Core Teachers Are Positively Motivated to Implement SBG
The first main finding focused on core teachers having a basic, although incomplete
understanding of SBG and what it is not. A second main finding in the research was that core
teachers at Apex Charter are positively motivated to implement standards-based grading. When
considering core teacher’s motivational factors, two main factors were probed in the first
research question: core teacher belief in the value of a SBG system, and core teacher belief in
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

92
their ability to implement SBG. Expectancy Value Theory centers around whether an individual
wants to do the task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy theory can be summarized
as the judgement an individual makes of one’s own ability to perform a given task (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The main finding present across the data shows that core teachers believe that there
is value in implementing standards-based grading and generally feel that they are capable of
doing so.
Most of the core teachers interviewed viewed SBG as a valuable alternative to LBG. The
research has already documented the values that a SBG system provides (Dweck, 2015; Marzano
& Heflebower, 2011; O’Connor, 2009; Vatterott, 2015). It is important that core teachers at
Apex Charter see value in implementing SBG because without a perceived value, they may not
persist in meeting the organizational performance goal (Rueda, 2011). This theme directly
supports the assumed motivational influence that core teachers need to see the value that a SBG
system provides for themselves and their students if they are going to persist in implementing
SBG.
When asked if core teachers felt a value in implementing a standards-based grading
system, Lala stated simply, “I do.” She went on to elaborate and explained “The standards are
good…I still feel that we haven’t figured out the correct number of standards to teach in a year,
so it seems overwhelming, but I do think SBG has value.” From Lala’s perspective, “It is still our
society’s responsibility to understand how much kids know, how much people know about a
particular subject.” When asked what his initial response would be if he were told to implement
standards-based grading tomorrow, Dylan responded, “Thank you. Really. I think it’s what
we’ve been talking about. It’s like we’re going to do it, we’re going to do it…I think it would be
better and I would be all for it.” Brandon added to the understanding of core teacher value of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

93
SBG by stating. “With standards-based grading, students are going to be more likely to have
something tangible to focus on...they will be able to be more confident and comfortable with
what they are learning.”
Like Lala, Brandon’s initial response when asked if he believed there was a value in SBG
was a simple, “Yes.” Brandon further added that from his perspective, in a SBG system,
“students are going to be more likely to have something to focus on…if they feel more confident
and comfortable in what they’re learning, then they’re going to demonstrate that.” This belief
that SBG provided students with a clear, tangible goals to focus on was also echoed in Audrey’s
statement that “SBG is a tangible way for students to stay organized…I think SBG is a good way
to construct feedback to make it more valuable to students.”
The data shows that core teachers are largely in favor of a SBG system. They see a value
in SBG as a means to better understand what students do and do not know. This ability to
understand student learning in a more “tangible” way is important to both students and core
teachers. There was even a general sense of excitement when asked about the value core teachers
see in SBG as when Dylan said, “Thank you…I think it would be better.” For students, core
teachers commented on the perceived value of SBG as providing a better way for students to
focus and stay organized. Core teachers believe that SBG would allow students to stay more
focused on their learning goals, thus becoming more confident in their abilities. Next, more
interview data will be analyzed regarding why core teachers were positively motivated to
implement standards-based grading.
Core Teachers Believe SBG Promotes More Intrinsic Learning. One way that core
teachers explained their belief in the value of a SBG system was through a discussion of intrinsic
versus extrinsic motivation. The literature on this topic highlighted that in a LBG system, the
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

94
structure relies heavily on extrinsically motivating students (O’Connor, 2009). Audrey talked to
this exact point when she said that sometimes in her class, “you have to find your intrinsic value
and sometimes it’s just getting the job done.” She went on to explain that what she was trying to
say was, “in middle school it’s tricky because they’re right in between” finding the balance
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Audrey was not alone in her perspective regarding
how extrinsically motivated middle school student can be. When commenting on the value of a
SBG system, Samantha, although in favor of a SBG approach, added, “I think, unfortunately, our
students are very extrinsically motivated...while it would be great if they wanted to do well just
for learning sake…I don’t think that’s where they are as a culture.” Both Audrey and Samantha
felt that in a SBG system, there is the potential to move away from a strong culture of extrinsic
motivation, and towards a culture of intrinsic motivation.
Based upon the assumed motivation influence that core teachers need to see value in SBG
for themselves and their students, the data largely supports this. Overall, core teachers see a
strong value in SBG. While it may seem that the focus on the value of SBG is entirely on the
perception regarding how it will benefit the students, the research here needs to look between the
lines. Core teachers commented on the value SBG provides because they also see that as an
added value to their profession. After all, teachers are there to provide the best opportunities to
learn for the students they serve. It is true that Apex Charter can and should provide more insight
into how specifically SBG can benefit core teachers in their pursuit of achieving this, as will be
commented more on in the discussion below regarding the relation between knowledge and
motivation and the organization.
Core Teachers Want a Useful Grading System. Core teachers were asked if they felt
like Apex Charter should do away with grading altogether. Overwhelmingly, core teachers were
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

95
not in favor of not having a system to document student learning. Core teachers saw a value in a
useful assessment system overall and are not in favor of doing away with grades all together,
which highlighted more of their perceived value in a grading system.
Core teachers at Apex Charter felt a need to continue a form of grading, because, as Lee
stated, “If you don’t have grades then you still have to have some way of assessing students, so
they have an understanding” of where they are in relation to what they know and what they do
not know. The idea that without a grading system, there would be a void was expressed when
Brandon stated, “Something’s got to fill that spot. What fills that spot? Doing away with grading
students all together…I want to know what’s going to take its placed, there’s now this
emptiness.” As he elaborated further, Brandon continued to express a sense of uncertainty over
the concept of doing away with grades altogether as he claimed that “I need to assess
somehow…I still want to hold my student’s accountable for their learning…so what does that
look like?” Donna added to the overall concept of the responsibility that an organization like
Apex Charter has to students as she proclaimed; “What we are evaluating our students to know
and to be able to do, needs to be in question. Not whether or not we should be evaluating them.”
It was not just the students who core teachers were concerned about when asked if Apex
Charter should do away with grades altogether. Besides echoing what his peers said about the
need for a grading system to keep students accountable, Donovan added, t “Parents also need a
way to check and track their student’s progress.” Without an evaluation system in place,
Donovan recognized that the impact would not just be on students and their teachers, but also on
the families as well, as it would be difficult for a family to understand if their student was
struggling.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

96
Core teachers were not in favor of doing away with grades completely. From the
perspective of core teachers, there was no doubt that there should be a way to evaluate student
learning. However, core teachers wanted to do so in a way that was useful to understanding what
their students can and cannot do. Core teachers wanted a grading system in place that is
meaningful. This belief emerged across several of the interviews. One of the assumed
motivational influences was that core teachers needed to see a value that a SBG system offers.
The first research question probed core teachers’ perceived value in SBG. The understanding that
core teachers did not want to do away with grading, but rather wanted a more practical system to
assess student learning further supports the finding that core teachers are positively motivated to
implement SBG due to the perceived value they saw in a SBG system.
Core Teachers Would Try Their Best to Implement SBG, But in Reality, They Are Not
Fully Prepared
The research on motivational theory in context of SBG clearly demonstrates that without
the belief that core teachers can implement such a system, they risk losing motivation to do so,
thus affecting their perceived ability to meet the organizational performance goal (Parajes, 2006).
Another finding in relation to the first research question is that teachers at Apex Charter
exhibited high self-efficacy about their ability to implement something new if asked to do so by
the organization. However, when probed further regarding their belief in their ability to
implement SBG specifically, even though core teachers claimed that they would be able to do so,
they still showed signs that with their current understanding and training in SBG, it would be a
challenge.
Initially, core teachers at Apex Charter expressed that they felt they were capable of
implementing SBG if asked to do so. Audrey stated, “Okay, I’ll do it tomorrow…I’m only going
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

97
to put in the assessments and work really hard on those assessments…I do think I would be
ready to do it.” When asked why she felt that she would be ready to implement SBG tomorrow,
Audrey explained, “I wouldn’t have to worry about all these other filler grades for everybody,
just the assessments.” Donna also expressed the same immediate reaction when she said, “I could
easily do that…I don’t think I would bat an eye…granted we don’t even assess in history.”
Immediately, core teachers defaulted to their understanding of SBG as solely a focus on
assessments. While assessments are central to SBG, there is more to the system of SBG than a
singular focus on assessments. Across the interviewees, core teachers consistently commented
about assessments as the reason they would feel capable of implementing SBG.
However, when probed further, there was a sense of trepidation with core teachers
regarding their ability to implement SBG. Donna, who earlier had stated that she could easily
implement SBG without even “batting an eye” circled around to say that,” I think English, I
would drown.” Samantha gave more insight into the concerns core teachers may have when
asked to implement SBG by claiming, “I feel like I could do standards-based grading, but I
would want to know what that’s supposed to look like…how the students see it…I would need a
lot more clarification.” Samantha continued to express her thought process aloud by adding, “If
they [Apex Charter] wanted us to do it, like which standards and how often, that part would need
an explanation, more training, et cetera.” Barbara summarized what Samantha expressed when
she responded, “What is standards-based grading? They would have to teach me what it is at
first.” Speaking more specifically to her core subject, Lala explained, “In math, it is going to be
super difficult…there’s so many concepts…that it’s going to be hard to have kids learning on a
standard but continuing to move on…that is what I see as being the most difficult.” In the above
excerpts, each of the core teachers expressed general and specific concerns they held with
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

98
regards to feeling capable of implementing standards-based grading. For many core teachers,
there was an expressed desire to understand more of what SBG really is, and how they can
implement such a system. While this relates back to the assumed conceptual and procedural
knowledge influences, this data also speaks to the core teacher assumed motivation influences of
self-efficacy. It is difficult for core teachers to fully express their perceived ability to implement
SBG if they are not fully aware of SBG, or the procedural expectations that surround such an
implementation.
The realization that core teachers, even though they would approach implementation with
the determination that they would do their best, are not yet prepared to implement SBG
continued to be a strong finding present in the interviews. When speaking to her perceived self-
efficacy, Bonnie explained, “I can…but I would need more information, but there also needs to
be a readily available pool of assessment tools for each standard…where there are already
questions created for each standard such that I can reassess students quickly.” Here, Bonnie
claimed that she feels she would be capable of implementing SBG, but with more information
and support. Bonnie’s response to her ability to implement SBG was largely consistent with the
responses of the other core teachers.
From the evidence presented across the interviews, core teachers at Apex Charter would
approach the implementation of SBG with a positive mindset. Several core teachers initially
expressed that they would be ready and able to do it. However, when probed further, it became
evident that their self-efficacy was more a testament to their determination and desire to do what
is best for their students, than to their belief that they hold all the training and tools necessary for
successful implementation of SBG. When allowing for core teachers to elaborate more on their
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

99
initial response to implementing SBG tomorrow, it became clear that their belief in their ability,
although positively motivated, does not at the moment extend beyond a superficial level.
Impact of Organizational Influences on Core Teacher Knowledge and Motivation
The main findings in this section highlight the organizational cultural model influences
that core teachers need to value risk-taking with different approaches to student grading and
assessment as well as embrace a mindset of change. In addition, organizational cultural setting
influences regarding core teachers feeling supported by the organization, especially with respect
to professional development structures and training in using technology were recognized. The
second research question sought to better understand the relationship between the organization
and core teacher assumed knowledge and motivation influences to provide organizational
recommendations that would support core teachers implementing standards-based grading. The
main findings with respect to the second research question were that while teachers at Apex
Charter possess a willingness to take risks and a have a positive mindset for change, they still
need clear communication and structured support from the organization if they are going to be
able to successfully implement standards-based grading. Among the concerns teachers had were
how the organization would address the time factor when asked to implement a new system like
SBG, how technology in the school would be leveraged in a SBG system, and in what ways
would Apex Charter provide specific and ongoing professional development.
Apex Charter Supports Core Teachers in Change and Risk Taking
One common concern that core teachers brought up was the need for the organization to
support a mindset of change in relation to the implementation of SBG. According to the research
on SBG, Guskey (2008) explains that there will inevitably need to be a paradigm shift in how
teachers, administrators, students, and their families view standards-based grading. This shift in
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

100
mindset regarding how teachers assess student learning would be a direct result of the long-
entrenched understanding and usage of the dominant LBG system still used in many
organizations (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). In order to overcome this, teachers,
administrators, students, and their families will need to prepare for an initial shock factor by
embracing a positive mindset towards SBG (Guskey & Jung, 2006). The research with core
teachers indicated that there is an overall willingness within the organization to take risks and try
new approaches.
Lee began his explanation of how a shift from LBG to SBG would include a shift in
mindset when he stated, “In the long run, there is not enough understanding of a SBG
system…there is going to be resistance…change is always difficult, and some people have an
innate fear of what they don’t understand.” When asked what he felt student might struggle with
the most if there was a switch to SBG, Lee talked about the students who typically do well in
school but may not have content mastery. From Lee’s perspective, the students that may initially
experience struggles could be, “the ones who follow instruction and turn in assignments…the
ones who remember to put their name on their paper and things like that.” Here, Lee is talking
about the understanding that in a SBG system, nonacademic factors are not meant to be included
in a student’s grade. This shift in the emphasis on what is being assessed and included in a
student’s grade is something Lee mentioned as a specific shift in mindset that the organization
will need to embrace.
In terms of the culture within the organization, core teachers felt that the organization
understood that a shift from LBG to SBG would be a significant change for all involved. When
asked in what ways, if any, the organization supported risk-taking with different types of grading
and assessment practices, Lala stated, “I would pretty much say that they are 100% supportive of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

101
my flexibility and freedom to the way I want to grade students.” Brandon added to the
understanding that Apex Charter would support core teachers with the changes that would come
with implementing SBG when he explained, “If I wanted to move myself personally towards
SBG now even, I think they would be all for that.” Here, core teachers expressed that there is a
general understanding that the organization would support the risk-taking that would be
necessary with SBG implementation.
Dylan added to Lee’s perspective as he stated, “Parents think when they find out what
their student’s grade is, that it means how good they are at science.” In this context, Dylan was
anticipating that parents already have the mindset that a student’s grade reflects concept mastery,
and LBG is counter-intuitive to how parents think they view grades. He adds that parents should
not look at a student’s grade “and think are you nice, or do you get along with your teacher, or do
you fill out worksheets.” Ultimately, Dylan rounds out his thought by expressing that in a SBG
system, the focus should be on, “knowledge, skills…and growth.” While Dylan recognized that a
shift to SBG may be more aligned with how parents already view a grade, regardless of the
accurate composition of what currently goes into a student’s grade, Barbara expressed an
alternate perspective. Barbara commented that she has had numerous conversations with parents
who have asked, “Why doesn’t my kid have an A?” To which Barbara said that she has wanted
to respond, “Because, well, they can’t read.” Yet, in the same thought process, Barbara
recognized that “I have so many kids who are so far below grade level that honestly…my
grading is fluffed…I can’t crush them.” In this brief discourse, Barbara identified several
stakeholder concerns with regard to a shift in mindset from SBG to LBG. In a SBG system,
Barbara will have to grade a student based on a particular standard. Core teachers will need to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

102
anticipate that students and parents will have questions regarding what is being graded, and what
is not part of a student’s grade.
The shift from LBG to SBG would be a change in how the key stakeholders involved
understand student assessment and grades. Due to this, Samantha highlighted the need for
“conversations about grading practices” because she thinks that, “it would benefit everyone.” In
the end, Samantha believes that these conversations will allow the change to SBG to, “become
more accurate for our students so they can see where they really do well…it would be good for
them to feel successful.” In a similar direction, Donna talked about the need to include students
as well in the conversation and expectations with a switch from LBG to SBG. Donna cautioned
that if the change was a “top down thing, students would simply become a byproduct of what
we’ve [the organization] have created for them.”
Although expressed in different ways, and from different viewpoints, core teachers at
Apex Charter recognized that a shift from SBG to LBG would require a change in how teachers,
students, families, and the organization view student assessment and grading. In relation to the
organization, core teachers expressed that they viewed the culture at Apex Charter as one that
would support risk-taking that would come with the change in implementing a new system for
assessing student learning. It has already been established that core teachers are positively
motivated to make the change from SBG to LBG. The organization itself has been identified as
one that would support change. Next, how organizational communication and expectation setting
interacts with core teachers’ ability and motivation to implement SBG will be addressed.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

103
Apex Charter Has Not Communicated A Clear Vision or Expectations for SBG
Implementation
One question that was asked of the interviewees was whether there have been
expectations communicated to them surrounding grading. Core teachers largely expressed that
there has not yet been a specific vision or expectations communicated to them regarding a
potential shift from LBG to SBG. Samantha summed up the consistent response when she said,
“Nothing has been communicated directly.” Upon probing more into the concept of directly and
indirectly communicating a vision or expectations, Barbara added that her understanding of the
organization’s current expectations regarding grades was “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Audrey goes on
to specify that “nothing has been pointed out saying can do it this way, you could do it that way.
You can have homework, you shouldn’t have homework. You can weight things this way, you
can weigh things that way.” Setting clear expectations for how to implement SBG is important
because SBG is a specific approach to assessing student learning that is fundamentally different
than LBG. For example, when Audrey mentioned that core teachers can assign homework or
cannot, she is directly identifying one foundational component of SBG. In a SBG system,
homework can be assigned, but it should be used as a way for students to practice standard
mastery. Homework itself should not be part of a student’s assessment of a standard, and thus
should not be part of a student’s grade. Without clear expectations from Apex Charter regarding
what the organization expects and does not expect to see, core teachers may not correctly
implement SBG.
Audrey was not alone in her viewpoint that nothing has been communicated regarding a
vision for grades and how students are assessed. Bonnie added to the conversation by saying, “I
don’t think they [the organization] cares what we do with grades. I have done a lot of different
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

104
things, and I haven’t heard anything in all my years here. I just think there has been no
communication.” Barbara did highlight a few things that from her perspective, have been
indirectly communicated to her. According to Barbara, “As long as you’re not failing kids, they
[the organization] don’t really care what the grades are...but by the end of the trimester, if you’re
failing a kid, it’s suddenly an issue.” Another thing that was commented upon by several of the
interviewees was the expectation that grades are updated every two weeks. Donovan mentioned,
“The only thing that comes to mind regarding grading expectations is that grades have to be
updated every two weeks.” Bonnie went on to add, “We’ve been asked to make sure grades are
up to date within a week or two or something, but I update them often anyways.”
Currently, core teachers, like Barbara and Bonnie here, have received few expectations
regarding how to grade students. This finding ties back into the findings on core teacher
knowledge and motivation influences. At this moment, core teachers possess a very fundamental
understanding of what SBG means, and how to implement to such a system. At the moment, core
teachers are positively motivated to implement SBG. Core teacher ability to implement SBG will
depend on how the organization supports the teachers as they are asked to take on more
responsibilities. Since a SBG system is specific, core teachers will eventually need a clear vision
regarding what SBG is and how to implement it. The finding that core teachers need a clear
vision and expectations communicated to them can be addressed with the following findings that
core teachers require ongoing and structured professional development, as well as technological
training.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

105
Apex Charter Currently Has Not Provided Teachers with Professional Development
Regarding SBG Implementation
The need for immediate and ongoing professional development was consistently
expressed across the interviewees. According to O’Connor (2017), without a clear and focused
professional development strategy, the concept of student assessment in SBG will be difficult for
teachers to fully understand. Furthermore, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) highlight the
need for school sites to provide teachers with tools and support when teachers are asked to make
significant instructional changes. Without the ability to continuously practice implementing new
changes, in a structured and feedback-oriented environment such as a series of professional
development opportunities, core teachers may not receive the support they need from the
organization (Stoyanov et al., 2014).
When asked what his first response would be if he was instructed to implement
standards-based grading in his classroom, Brandon, without hesitation, replied, “Train me, and
provide me with materials.” When probed as to whether Brandon had received any training
regarding how to assess students in the context of the CCSS, he replied, “No. I cannot recall any
training I have had that helped me understand how better to assess students based on standards.”
Lee added that while he could recall many professional developments he has received regarding
NGSS, he struggled to think of one professional develop focused on assessment. Lee explained
that in professional developments, “we’ve talked a lot about standards, but there really hasn’t
been any discussion about how to translate those into grades.”
Brandon and Lee were not the only core teacher to express that he has not received any
professional development with regards to students’ assessment based on CCSS or NGSS.
Barbara also said that she had not received any training on student assessment, but that she had
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

106
“received training on the core standards themselves...but that was when they first began...what
was it, three years ago? I haven’t had any trainings related to standards since then.” Dylan had
the same sentiment as he mentioned that, “I have been to trainings about how to design
curriculum, especially NGSS stuff, but I cannot recall any instruction or training I have received
with how to assess the curriculum or what students know regarding it.” Lala also stated that,
“While there was a push a few years ago to understand what common core was, I actually don’t
remember any drive for helping us understand how to assess the standards.” If the focus of a
SBG system is on how to better understand what a student does and does not know in relation to
specific grade level standards, then core teachers need to understand how to accomplish this.
Several of the core teachers have mentioned that they have received training on the standards
themselves, but no core teachers acknowledged that they have received training on how to assess
students in relation to the standards.
One way to understand how to assess the standards is to understand what a standards-
based assessment for a grade level and standard might look like. Throughout the interviews, Core
teachers at Apex Charter mentioned that they currently did not have access to standards-based
assessments outside of the common district and national assessments. Bonnie explained that to
feel more successful implementing SBG, “I would need more information...and a readily
available pool of assessment tools for each standard.” To build on the desire that core teachers
had to be exposed to more resources, Lala stated that, “I need assessments, without me having to
do it, so I can allow my kids to retest.” Here, Bonnie and Lala explained that they saw a lack of
access to standards-based assessments for their respective grade and content levels.
Beyond tangible standards-based grading resources, Donna requested that she receive
training on what an assessment based on the standards looks like. Donna said that she wants to,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

107
“understand what exactly what it is and what that looks like…how we use anchor papers and
stuff like that…I would need an example of what that looks like for eight grade.” To further
stress her point, Donna commented, “I have taught eight grade…but I have never observed
another middle school classroom, ever.”
The current lack of standards-based assessments is tied to core teacher’s knowledge and
motivation. Several core teachers mentioned that they wanted to see what the expectation is for
how they should be assessing their students. This is a direct result of the gap in their conceptual
knowledge regarding SBG. In addition, Bonnie stated that if she were to have an available pool
of resources which she could pull standards-based assessments from, then that would have a
direct impact on how successful she felt in implementing SBG. In order to support core teachers
with implementing SBG, Apex Charter needs to provide professional development to core
teachers that extends beyond increasing their knowledge of the standards themselves, and
towards how to assess the standards. In addition, the organization currently has yet to address the
core teachers’ view that there is a lack of access to standards-based grading assessment material
for core teachers’ content and grade level.
Core teachers identified time as a concern in SBG. The research indicates that in a
SBG system, if implemented according to the principles of SBG, teachers’ workload and time
are reduced. Yet, nearly half of the core teachers at Apex Charter commented on their concerns
with the time considerations regarding SBG. At the moment, core teachers view a shift from
LBG to SBG as more demanding on their time.
Part of the concern about time relates directly to the conceptual understanding that a SBG
system includes a continuous revision process in order to allow students multiple opportunities to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

108
show mastery of a standard. Bonnie commented on this experience from when she tried to offer a
revision process in alignment with SBG by stating:
I think the most time-consuming thing for me was that I had to offer opportunities for
kids to reassess on those standards again and again for a grade… I would have to update
several skills, like 15 skills per trimester for every kid every time they were assessed and
reassessed, and that was really time-consuming.
Bonnie explained that whenever a student was tested again on a skill, she had to go back
into the gradebook and update the skill. When a core teacher has over a hundred students, this
approach to revision is time-consuming. Ultimately, Bonnie determined that, “I don’t think
anybody has figured out a way to do it [implement SBG] without it being a lot of time for the
teachers.” Barbie also focused on the time-consuming approach to entering in students’ grades,
and then going back in to change them once a student has re-assessed. Barbie expressed, “It’s
obscene…I have totally different assignments…but how do you constantly grade them?”
Beyond just the grade book and going back in to re-enter students grades when they show
an improvement in standards mastery, Lala spoke to the overall time concerns regarding pacing.
Lala began by stating that in math:
I don’t think we have figured out the correct number of concepts to learn in a year…In
order for me to be able to teach sixth grade math, they have to know their basic facts and
many of them don’t.
From Lala’s perspective, it is difficult for her to devote the time to allowing students to revise
their understanding of a standard when she feels pressure to move to the next standard. To Lala,
“it just seems overwhelming.”
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

109
It is important that Apex Charter address the time considerations that teachers have
regarding a switch to SBG. This consideration is a direct result of core teachers lack of
procedural conceptual and procedural knowledge regarding SBG. Core teachers need to
understand how SBG can save them time. By addressing the time concern, Apex Charter can
also increase the value core teachers see in implementing SBG, thus increasing their motivation
to work towards achieving the stakeholder goal.
Core Teachers Voiced the Need for Training in How Technology Supports SBG
When explaining the difficulty teachers at Apex Charter face when attempting to use
SBG with the current district adopted online grading system, it is clear that from the core teacher
perspective, the grading system currently being used does not easily allow teachers to break their
assessment of student learning into clearly defined standards. Shippy, Washer, and Perrin (2013)
make the argument that in order to avoid confusion with which standards students struggle with
and which they have mastered, there needs to be a deliberate and specific system in place that
breaks down a student’s progress by individual standards. Core teachers at Apex Charter need to
receive the technological training necessary in order to keep track of which standards students
have mastered and which they have not.
An online grading system, such as Powerschool, allows grades to be easily
communicated from the school and the teacher to the students and their families. However,
given the core teachers’ current understanding of how to use Powerschool, many expressed that
they would struggle using the system in the context of standards-based grading. Dylan began by
explaining:
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

110
The gradebook that we have, Powerschool, doesn’t work the way I want it to when I want
to communicate what a student knows regarding a standard. We can give a student a 4, 3,
2, 1 etcetera…but then we have to convert it to ABCD language?
Samantha added, “We have a version of Powerschool that’s supposed to be able to connect
standards to grades, but we don’t have the ability to do that yet. I think it is probably coming
later.” When asked about how he leverages technology to document student learning, Brandon
explained, “Whenever I give an assignment to a student, I just put the title in the electronic
grading system and it spits out a grade...that’s our online grading system in a nutshell.”
There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how to leverage the current technology in a way
that supports core teachers with implementing SBG. Core teachers use words like “supposed to”
and “probably” when explaining their understanding of the current system used to track and
report student learning. Gallagher et al. (2008) explains that there needs to be new and updated
systems to track student learning in context of SBG.
Summary
This study attempted to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences associated when teachers are asked to change from a letter-based grading system to a
standards-based grading system. The Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework identified
key components regarding core teacher perception of SBG implementation. The research found
that core teachers were positively motivated to implement SBG and were in need of structured
professional development in order to be more capable of doing so.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were identified within the
conceptual framework were seen throughout the interviews. The conceptual and procedural
knowledge that core teachers possessed regarding SBG implementation needed to be analyzed.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

111
In addition, core teachers needed to be able to see how implementation of SBG could support an
increase in understanding what students do and do not know. It was found that core teachers
have a basic foundational understanding of SBG, but significant gaps exist in their knowledge. In
terms of motivational factors, core teachers saw a strong value in SBG. The value core teachers
saw in SBG, and their determination to support their students led to an initial belief in their
ability to switch from LBG. However, due to the gaps in their understanding of what SBG and
how to implement it, core teachers eventually acknowledged that they were unsure of their
ability to meet the stakeholder goal. To better support core teachers to feel more capable, the
organization, Apex Charter, needs to clearly communicate a vision of SBG and set specific
expectations regarding how to assess student learning. Following this, Apex Charter needs to
provide structured and on-going professional development for core teachers to address the gaps
in their conceptual and procedural knowledge so that they continue to feel supported and capable
of working towards implementation.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

112
Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study was written over the course of five chapters. Chapter One provided an
overview and purpose of the study. Chapter Two presented the current literature on the topic of
SBG. In Chapter Three, the methodology of this qualitative study was presented, including the
data-collection process and validity and reliability of the methodology. The findings based on the
data collection were identified in chapter four. The overall findings in context of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences were identified. Finally, this chapter will apply
the new Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model to discuss recommendations for
organizational leaders when considering asking their teachers to implement standards-based
grading at a middle school site. Chapter Five will conclude with further recommendations for
future research.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Before detailing the application of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model to
discuss recommendations, the researcher would like to simplify the recommended steps for an
organization such as Apex Charter to take to support their teachers with implementing SBG.
Before attempting to address the gaps in core teacher knowledge, the organization should clearly
state the vision and expectations surrounding SBG implementation. Utilizing internal and
external communication structures, the leadership at Apex Charter needs to establish a clear
vision for standards-based grading implementation.
Following establishing a clear vision through effective communication with core teachers
and other key stakeholder, the gap in core teacher knowledge components needs to be addressed.
Since it has been identified that core teachers possess a general understanding of what SBG is
and how to implement it, but have received no professional development regarding SBG, the
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

113
organization should first focus on building capacity for implementation. The recommendation to
address this gap is to provide structured professional development for all core teachers. The
professional development should be designed with the intent to provide basic factual and
conceptual knowledge of SBG, as well as procedural awareness of how to implement such a
system. The professional development program should begin before the first day of instruction
and continue on a consistent basis throughout the academic year. Throughout the implementation
of the professional development program, the organization should work collaboratively with the
core teachers to better understand how the teachers view the professional development provided
and make changes as necessary. Monthly academic coaching for each core teacher through
observations and check-ins should be built into the professional develop. The observations and
check-ins should be formative in nature for both the core teachers and the organization, and not
considered part an evaluation cycle, so as to maintain the importance of the organization valuing
and supporting a culture of risk-taking.
To better address the gaps in meta-cognitive knowledge, Apex Charter should provide
structure for weekly professional learning communities (PLCs). Within PLCs, core teachers
should be expected to analyze common formative assessments (CFAs) that relate to the standards
students are being asked to master. Core teachers should be provided the time to have
discussions that relate directly to student learning, and how core teachers themselves can
improve their instructional and assessment practices in order to increase the understanding of
what students can and cannot do.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The data from core teacher interviews showed that conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge were influencers in core teacher ability to implement a system of
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

114
standards-based grading. Conceptual and procedural knowledge regarding what SBG is and what
it is not, and the potential benefits a SBG system has for core teachers and their students was
discovered to be foundational and lacking. When core teachers reflected on how a SBG can help
improve student learning, the stakeholder group identified that there was concern with a LBG
system but were not able to fully understand why they felt a disconnect with their current system
of student assessment. Table 6 highlights the types of knowledge that influence core teachers’
ability and willingness to implement standards-based grading at Apex Charter; aligned
recommendations are also provided.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

115
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Core teachers need to
understand the domain
specific vocabulary and
terminology related to a
SBG system (D= F+C).
Managing intrinsic load by
segmenting complex material
into simpler parts and pre-
training, among other strategies,
enables learning to be enhanced
(Kirshner et al., 2006).

Learning tasks that are similar to
those that are common to the
individual’s familiar cultural
settings will promote learning
and transfer (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).

Provide a job aid for core teachers
to use that would clearly and fully
outline domain specific vocabulary
and key definitions regarding SBG.

Present information in manageable
parts. Provide pre-training on
complex content.
Core teachers need to
understand the potential
benefits of a SBG approach
to assessing student learning
(D).

Providing scaffolding and
assisted performance in a
person’s ZPD promotes
developmentally appropriate
instruction (Scott & Palincsar,
2006).

Give people tasks that fall within
their ZPD (i.e., tasks that are too
difficult to be completed
independently, but can be complete
collaboratively.

Provide structured opportunities
(Job aide becomes a scaffold) for
teachers to meet and discuss in
professional learning communities.

Help teachers identify and
understand important points
through dialogue.

Core teachers do not know
how to implement a SBG
system for assessing student
learning (P).

To develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
have learned (Schraw, 2006).

Provide a PD that uses job aids
(instructional handouts, literature on
the topic, and a flowchart PDF
guide that outlines SBG) where
core teachers are provided specific,
tangible steps and components in
implementing a SBG system.

Allow opportunities for core
teachers to plan together regarding
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

116
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
how they see themselves
implementing SBG within their
classrooms.

Provide opportunities for core
teachers to practice implementing
SBG in their own classes while
receiving feedback from peers

Core teachers to understand
that SBG is attributable to
higher student engagement
and improved learning
outcomes (M).
Social interaction, cooperative
learning, and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as
reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006).

Have core teachers set goals and
metrics within their content and
grade level groups for achievement
using CFAs (common formative
assessments) that are standards-
based.

Allow opportunities for core
teachers to meet to discuss the data
from the CFAs, and reflect on
which teaching strategies were
effective, as well as overall student
learning.

Note: The knowledge type for each influence is indicated by the following abbreviations: (D) Declarative;
(P) Procedural; (M) Metacognitive

Declarative: (Factual) knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Core
teachers cannot fully classify and explain the domain specific vocabulary and terminology
related to a SBG system (D). To bridge the connection between what core teachers already know
about instructional approaches, and specifically, a SBG approach, Apex Charter should scaffold
the learning experience to help manage intrinsic load. Scaffolding refers to any support that the
learner receives to be able to accomplish tasks and develop understanding that the learner would
not be able to do on their own (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). Intrinsic load is the excess
material, information, or ideas within a concept that are not necessary to the learning task but can
create additional burdens or confusion for the learner (Feldon, 2007). According to Kirschner,
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

117
Paas, & Kirschner (2006), managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler
parts, and pre-training, enables learning to be enhanced. The importance of segmenting suggests
that front-loading core teachers with the basic concepts regarding standards-based grading in a
concise, easy to follow document, such as a PDF chart, would support core teachers if they were
to implement standards-based grading within their classrooms. It is recommended that Apex
Charter show core teachers how SBG is conceptualized by providing a job aid that would clearly
and fully outline domain specific vocabulary and key definitions regarding SBG. The
recommendation for core teachers is to provide them with a chart that breaks down the various
ideas and concepts found in standards-based grading, highlighting the key terminology used
within a standards-based grading system.
It is important to scaffold the learning experience for core teachers because scaffolding
itself is a powerful and effective method for learning. Scaffolding provides for a more
manageable learning experience, by breaking the task into smaller, more manageable parts. Van
Merrienboer, Kester, and Paas (2006) state that by managing intrinsic load through scaffolding,
transfer of learning is increased. The goal of scaffolding and breaking the learning experience
into more manageable parts would be to push core teachers towards the end of their zone of
proximal development (ZPD), as that is where new knowledge is gained. Thus, scaffolding to
manage intrinsic load will help push core teachers to build on their current knowledge of
pedagogical practices, as core teachers begin to implement a SBG approach within their
classrooms.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Core teachers
need to know the steps they can take to successfully implement a standards-based grading system
within their classrooms (P). To develop mastery, individuals must not only acquire component
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

118
skills, but practice integrating them, knowing when and how to apply what they have learned
(Schraw, 2006). While it is important for core teachers to understand the various components
that compose a standards-based grading system, such knowledge construction alone is not
enough. Core teachers need to further explore specific steps that they can take to move towards
systemic implementation. For core teachers to successfully apply procedural knowledge
constructs to the goal of standards-based grading implementation, it is recommended that Apex
Charter offer structured professional development before and during the academic school year.
The professional development should use job aids such as instructional handouts, literature on
the topic of SBG, and a PDF flowchart that outlines a process for SBG implementation.
Furthermore, the PD sessions should allow core teachers the opportunity to plan together for how
they see themselves implementing SBG within their classrooms. The final step in the
recommendation process is to provide opportunities for core teachers to implement SBG
immediately following, and in conjunction with, the structured PD sessions.
A well-thought out and relevant professional development program is necessary for
stakeholders to be able implement new initiatives within an organization. Effective professional
development is both structured and comprehensive (Newman, King, & Young, 2000). The
capacity for a school site to administer structured and comprehensive professional development
is largely influenced, among other factors, by the teachers’ knowledge and skills, coherence of
the program with school site initiatives, and effective leadership (Newman et al., 2000). The
findings specifically found that when professional development is planned with organizational
goals in mind and in collaboration with key stakeholders, change initiatives were more effective.
Thus, offering professional development that is structured and in alignment with the goal of SBG
implementation before and during the academic school year is in alignment with previous
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

119
implementation of professional development programs. Allowing core teachers to plan together
helps to continue to build core teacher knowledge and skills, while also allowing for teachers to
visualize the alignment of site initiatives with their own SBG implementation. Finally, by
providing the opportunities for core teachers to implement SBG while still receiving structured
professional development, Apex Charter would be providing effective leadership for the
implementation initiative.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Core teachers
need to reflect on how an improvement in instructional practices can lead to an increase in
student learning (M). Social interaction and cooperative learning opportunities help facilitate the
construction of new knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2013). It is recommended that Apex Charter
encourage core teachers to meet within their content and grade level groups, and design common
formative assessments (CFAs) that are standards-based. In addition to designing CFAs, core
teachers should set goals and metrics for students, so that core teachers can allow for
opportunities to meet and discuss student data based on CFA performance. As part of this
cooperative learning experience, core teachers should reflect on why students did or did not meet
the established learning metrics, allowing for a discussion regarding which specific SBG
instructional strategies were effective.
Bolam et al.’s (2006) research on professional learning communities (PLCs) links a
school’s collective capacity to improved schoolwide learning outcomes for students. For
example, PLCs highlights that capacity for organizational change is not only a blend of
knowledge and organizational culture, but motivation and reflection. This motivation stems from
the capacity that is built in learning teams, as they meet in PLCs to reflect upon student data and
best teaching practices (Bolam et al, 2006). In addition, Frey and Fisher’s (2009) research
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

120
demonstrated that Common Formative Assessments (CFAs), a component of both SBG and
PLCs, when implemented in urban schools, led to increased student achievement and facilitated
professional development initiatives. Thus, by allowing for core teachers to meet in PLCs and
form CFAs, Apex Charter can allow for core teachers to reflect on how the implementation of
SBG can lead to an increase in student achievement.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Core teachers were positively motivated to implement a system of SBG.
Core teachers saw a perceived value in standards-based grading when compared to the current
system of letter-based grading in place at Apex Charter. Multiple themes emerged that
highlighted why core teachers were positively motivated to implement SBG. In relation to the
perceived value that core teachers placed on a SBG system, was their belief in their ability to
implement SBG. However, the data showed that their belief was not fully supported beyond a
general sense of determination to do what they felt was the right thing to do for their students.
Core teachers acknowledged that they needed more support to continue to feel like they can
implement SBG. Table 7 summarizes the motivation influences and aligned recommendations to
core teacher implementation of SBG.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

121
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value
Core teachers need to see the
value that a SBG system
provides for themselves and
their students

Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values
the task (Eccles, 2006).

Higher expectations for success
and perceptions of confidence
can positively influence learning
and motivation (Eccles, 2006)

Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and
utility value of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).

Provide teacher models who are
credible and similar that can
foster positive values and high
expectations through feedback
and discussion.

Self-Efficacy
Core teachers need to believe
they are capable of
implementing a SBG system
within their classrooms (SE).

High self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation (Parajes,
2006)
Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for success
(Parajes, 2006).

Provide instructional support
(scaffolding) early-on, build on
multiple opportunities for
practice and gradually remove
supports enhances self-efficacy?
(Parajes, 2006).

Apex Charter should set a clear
vision and expectations for
success so core teachers can
believe that they are capable of
meeting their professional
standards.

Apex Charter should use
academic coaches to support
core teachers initially in
implementation, then scaling
back in the form of observations
and feedback, and ongoing
professional development to
assist in the development of self-
efficacy.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

122
Expectancy Value. Core teachers need to see the value in implementing a standards-
based grading system (Expectancy-Value). According to Eccles (2006), learning and motivation
are enhanced if the learner sees value in the task. Furthermore, rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility-value the work or learning can help learners develop
positive attitudes towards the task (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). It is recommended that Apex
Charter provide opportunities for core teachers to visit peer benchmarking classes or other school
organizations that are already implementing SBG to observe models who are similar and credible
to foster positive values and generate discussion.
Eccles (2006) defines expectancy value as an individual or group’s belief in the ability to
be competent in a given domain. In addition, Eccles (2006) states that key stakeholders will
choose to implement the behaviors that they believe will lead to the highest expectancy of value
and success. The expectancy value that key stakeholders place on a task directly influences how
motivated an individual or group is when asked to complete a task.
Self-Efficacy. Core teachers need to feel that they can implement a standards-based
grading approach (Self-Efficacy). According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is an individual’s
belief in his or her ability to succeed in a given task. High self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation (Parajes, 2006). The researcher also adds that providing instructional support
(scaffolding) early on, while removing scaffolding as the process continues, provides
opportunities for learners to feel capable. The recommendation is for Apex Charter to set clear
expectations for success, so core teachers can believe like they can meet their professional
standards. Apex Charter should use academic coaches to support core teachers in initial
implementation of SBG. In addition, it is recommended that Apex Charter provide ongoing
professional development throughout the year, in the form of observations and feedback, to
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

123
provide continued support for core teachers who are implementing SBG, so that core teachers
increase their belief in their ability to succeed in implementation. By providing academic
coaching and ongoing professional development, teachers will feel more capable of meeting the
stakeholder goal of SBG implementation.
Self-efficacy of teachers increases when they were asked to implement new programs or
initiatives at school sites and are provided the means to do so (Stein & Wang, 1988). Using a
mixed-methods approach the researchers measured teacher’s performance, self-perceptions,
beliefs, and attitudes at several points during a year where the school site they studied was
implementing an innovative program. The teachers in this study were provided with structured
professional development and other forms of support such as feedback and instructional
coaching. This study would support that Apex Charter should provide ongoing professional
develop throughout the duration of the implementation phase. Ongoing professional develop
would aid in helping to increase teacher’s self-efficacy as the year progresses.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The way in which Apex Charter interacts with core teachers and other
stakeholders has a direct impact on core teachers’ ability to implement SBG. The data showed
that core teachers understood that there would be a change in the mindset regarding how key
stakeholders viewed and understood the shift from LBG to SBG. Core teachers demonstrated
that they were willing to take risks with implementing SBG. In addition, core teachers voiced
that they needed more direct support from Apex Charter. The supports they identified were the
need for a clear vision and communication, as well as more structured and specific professional
development and technological training. Table 8 outlines the cultural models and setting
influences that contribute to core teacher’s mindset and ability to implement SBG.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

124
Table 8
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organizational Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1
Core teachers need to value
risk-taking with different
approaches to student grading
and assessment.
Organizations with high levels
of cultural trust tend to produce
high quality products and
service they can retain and
recruit high motivated
employees.
These employees are more
likely to enjoy their work, take
the time to do their jobs
correctly, make their own
decisions, [and] take risks [and]
innovate (Colquitt, Scott &
LePine, 2007).

Core teachers need to be willing
to take risks and encourage
other core teachers to also take
risks with their instructional
approaches and implementation
of SBG. The value of a risk-
taking culture should be
consistent amongst the key
stakeholders.

Cultural Setting Influence 1
Core teachers should feel
supported from the
organization as they are
asked to take the
responsibilities of
implementing a change such
as SBG.

Effective leaders are
knowledgeable about the use of
effective communication skills
to facilitate and enhance
organizational capacity (Lewis,
2001).

Effective leaders are aware of
the power of influence and its
impact on the change process
within an organization
(Denning, 2005).

Effective leaders know how to
create and manage good
working relationships with
stakeholders (Lewis, 2011).

Leaders at Apex charter need to
emphasize that the reason for a
switch to SBG is to attempt to
increase student learning and
engagement through
instructional and assessment
practices.

Vision and mission regarding
implementation of SBG should
be done in collaboration with
core teachers through individual
PLCs and within whole staff
meetings and should be clearly
communicated.

School site administration
should focus on student learning
and engagement, using specific
data from the previous year to
highlight how the school site
can improve instruction in order
to improve student learning.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

125
Organizational Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting Influence 2
Core teachers should have
access to professional
development in SBG
implementation, as well as
the technical system that will
be used to analyze and report
student grading and
assessment.

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are
knowledgeable about and are
constantly learning about
themselves and their business.

Administrators need to work
with core teachers to develop an
appropriate professional
development pathway for core
teachers and administrators to
better prepare school site to
meet the goal of implementation
of SBG.

Core teachers and administrators
need to educate themselves
regarding the current literature
regarding SBG implementation
as part of their professional
development pathways.

Cultural models. Core teachers need to value risk-taking with different approaches to
student grading and assessment. A mindset of change needs to be embraced by core teachers at
Apex Charter, as they begin to alter their approach to student grading and assessment. A cultural
model is defined as the values, beliefs, and collective understanding of the goals of an
organization (Schein, 2017). Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders are
trustworthy, and in turn, trust their team (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). The recommendation
is for Apex Charter to encourage teachers to take risks with their instructional approaches, and to
model risk-taking as a value.
Establishing trust is crucial to increasing stakeholder effectiveness when implementing
change. School site leadership has a direct impact on overall organizational effectiveness in
establishing a school culture of trust (Hoy & Tarter, 1992). The researcher found that
effectiveness in meeting performance goals was directly attributable to the trust that the
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

126
leadership fostered, as this trust allowed for greater collaboration amongst teachers at the site.
For example, when teachers build trust amongst themselves and across other stakeholders within
the school site, they were more inclined to collaborate and take risks (Hoy & Tarter, 1992).
According to Hoy & Tarter (1992), site leadership was able to build trust by being clear on the
organizational goals, and how the teachers could support the goals. In addition, the school site
involved the teachers in discussions of how they could collaborate to meet organizational goals.
This involved and clarity from leadership led to an overall increase in trust as measured by
surveys administered at the end of the year (Hoy & Tarter, 1992). This study supports that
building trust through effective leadership is central to allowing for a culture that is open to
embracing risk-taking and organizational change, such as will be needed if core teachers are
going to effectively implement SBG.
Cultural setting. Core teachers at Apex Charter should believe that the organization
supports the initiative of implementing SBG. A cultural setting is defined as a group’s specific
and unique values, beliefs, and opinions in relation to the organization. Cultural settings can
provide valuable insight into a group’s potential gap in attaining a performance goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Leaders at Apex Charter can directly influence the way core teachers perceive
support for the implementation of SBG by how well they communicate their desire and the
organizational need for change. Effective leaders understand how to use communication to
enhance organizational capacity (Lewis, 2011). In addition, effective leaders understand the
importance in fostering positive working relationships with stakeholders, and the influence their
leadership can have on impacting the change process (Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011). Leaders at
Apex Charter need to clearly communicate with the core teachers the need for the switch to
SBG. This communication should be done in open dialogue with the core teachers as relationship
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

127
building is key in building a culture of support. It is the combination of clearly communicating
the vision and the need, while collaborating with the core teachers regarding the desire for the
new implementation, that is central in influencing the belief that the organization supports the
core teachers.
Effective school leadership has been examined through the examination of multiple case
studies. Results revealed that all the leaders indicated that effective communication from school
site leadership is crucial in creating organizational change. Furthermore, Marzano (2005)
explains that open, collaborative communication has a positive influence on school site culture
and helps build trust among stakeholders. Thus, Apex Charter cannot overestimate the
importance of effectively communicating the organizational vision and the importance for the
change. By doing so, Apex Charter, like other peer organizations, can attempt to build core
teacher trust, and positively influence the belief that Apex Charter supports the core teachers as
they implement SBG.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
To evaluate core teacher implementation of standards-based grading at Apex Charter,
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be applied. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model is a tool that can be used for both backwards planning and in
implementation. When planning, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest starting at the end
of the model, following the steps backwards. This is important because when evaluating, it is
necessary to know the preferred end outcome, ensuring that the previous steps of the model align
with the final stage. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) divide the evaluation model into separate
categories, or stages. While the desired outcomes are in the last stage, the initial stage focuses on
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

128
the stakeholders themselves, and the degree in which the key stakeholders find value in the
training program being implemented. The second level of the model focuses more on skills, and
the degree in which the stakeholders acquire the needed knowledge and skills and can transfer
them. The third stage is behavior based, as the necessary behaviors that the stakeholders acquire
and use to achieve the required outcomes is assessed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The leading indicators are used to measure accomplishments and/or undesirable
outcomes by tracking the critical behaviors impact on the desired outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The proposed leading indicators external and internal outcomes, metrics, and
methods are shown in Table 9 that indicates core teachers are achieving their desired results. It is
expected that with training, job aids, observation, check-ins, and organizational support, the
external and internal outcomes will be met.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

129
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase student
achievement in core
subjects at Apex Charter.
Number of students who increases
their standardized test scores from
the 2018-2019 academic year to the
2019-2020 academic year.
Compare collected data to the
previous years of data in the same
core subjects.
Student scores on end of
year SBAC and NGSS
tests will correspond with
student’s grades.
Compare individual students
grades with end of year state
testing.
Internal Outcomes
Increase core teacher
understanding of the
pedagogy that is SBG.
Number of teachers who answer
yes that the training helped them
understand the principles of SBG
Conduct survey at professional
development trainings conducted
before and during the school year.

Increase core teacher
understanding of the
potential benefits and
pitfalls of a SBG approach.

Number of teachers who answer
yes that the training helped them
understand the potential benefits
and pitfalls of a SBG approach.
Conduct survey at professional
development trainings conducted
before and during the school year.

Increase core teacher
understanding of how to
successfully implement
SBG.
Number of examples of SBG
implementation observed during
on-site observations.
Academic coaches and school
leadership collect data via monthly
observations of core teachers
regarding specific implementation
of SBG principles.

Increase core teacher
understanding of the value
that a SBG system can
provide for both teachers
and students.

Percentage increase in number of
teachers who believe that a SBG
system provides value for both
students and teachers.
Collect data via survey at the
beginning and end of the academic
school year regarding the value
core teachers place on a SBG
system.
Increase core teacher belief
in their capability to
implement SBG within
their classrooms.
Percent increase in number of
teachers you said yes that they felt
more capable of implementing
SBG in their classrooms.

Compare survey results from
beginning of the year PD, mid-year
PDs, and end of year PD.
Increase access for core
teachers to professional
development in SBG
implementation and
utilization of technical
systems for assessment.
Core teachers will have access to
no less than 9 professional
development opportunities during
the year for implementing SBG and
training in the technical systems
necessary to do so.
Provide PD before the school year,
as well as monthly PD sessions,
and end of year PD session.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

130
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The core teachers at Apex Charter are the stakeholders responsible
for implementing standards-based grading within their individual classrooms. The initial critical
behavior for core teachers is for them to engage in informed reflection regarding how an
improvement in their instructional practices could lead to an increase in student learning. In
addition, core-teachers will need to exhibit the behavior of risk-taking, as they attempt to use
different pedagogical practices that they may not be familiar with. A third critical behavior that
core teacher will need to be successful with implementing standards-based grading is the desire
to seek out feedback. Core teachers at Apex Charter should engage in discussions once a month
with instructional coaches or site administration following in-classroom visits and document
analysis of CFAs. Table 10 shows the specific metrics, methods, and timing for each outcome
behavior.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

131
Table 10

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Core teachers will
reflect on how an
improvement in their
instructional practices
can lead to an increase
in student learning.
Number of core teachers
who participate in
weekly PLC meetings.
Compare CFAs (Common
formative assessments)
within grade and content
level PLCs.
Weekly at each
PLC and monthly
at each PD session.

Core teachers will value
risk-taking with
different instructional
approaches.

a. Frequency of times
teacher is observed
applying SBG
instructional
approaches.

b. Number of teachers
who mention
attempting different
SBG instructional
approaches during
check-ins.

a. Site leadership will
verbalize at staff meetings
and PD sessions that risk
taking is valuable and
necessary in achieving the
organizational and
stakeholder goal

b. Site leadership will
schedule monthly
observations/check-ins
with core teachers in
implementation program

Daily, during the
implementation
phase of SBG.
Core teachers will seek
feedback from
instructional coaches
and site leadership at
Apex Charter.
Number of times each
core teacher meets with
site leadership to discuss
implementation of SBG.
Academic coaches and
school leadership conduct
observations and/or check-
ins.
Monthly

Required drivers. Core teachers require the support of their school-site leadership,
teacher teams, and the organization to ensure that critical behaviors are achieved. reinforce,
encourage, reward, and monitor their activities learned from trainings. Reinforcement is used to
remind participants of what they learned and provide refresher training. Encouragement is a
formal way to provide coaching and mentoring. Rewarding, is providing incentives for critical
behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, monitoring ensures accountability by
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

132
monitoring performance of the participants. Table 11 shows the recommended drivers to support
critical behaviors of the core teachers.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Provide continuing professional develop sessions to
core teachers throughout the implementation phase.

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Provide job aides such as PDF documents outlining
procedural steps on SBG implementation.

Ongoing 1, 3, 4
Core teachers meet in PLCs to analyze student progress
in relation to learning goals.

Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Provide opportunities for academic coaching and
feedback.

Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Core teachers meet in PLCs to analyze student progress
in relation to learning goals.

Weekly 1, 2, 3
Provide opportunities for core teachers to work with
teacher models who are credible and similar.

Yearly 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Site leadership will set clear expectations for success in
implementing SBG for core teachers to achieve.

Yearly 1, 2, 3, 4
Core teachers will set expectations for themselves
about student data and SBG.

Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Site leadership will observe core teachers implementing
SBG strategies in class or through check-in
conversations.

Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Core teachers will reflect using a survey monthly at
each PD session.
Monthly 3, 4

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

133
Organizational support. For the required drivers to be implemented, Apex Charter will
need to support the core teachers on a continuous basis. It is important that core teachers feel
they are supported from the organization, as this is one of the key drivers regarding core teacher
behavior. To do this, the leadership at Apex Charter will need to clearly communicate the vision
and need for implementing standards-based grading. As part of this communication,
collaborating with the core teachers is crucial. Furthermore, Apex Charter needs to provide
structured opportunities for feedback regarding SBG implementation. During coaching and
feedback, the culture of risk-taking needs to be honored and supported, so that core teachers
believe that they can take risks within their classrooms to try new instructional approaches.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, core teachers at Apex
Charter will be able to:
1. Understand the core components of a SBG system, including the terminology used when
discussing alternative assessment programs (D).
2. Understand the potential benefits and pitfalls that may come from implementing a SBG
approach (D).
3. Apply the steps needed in order to implement a SBG approach to assessing student
learning (P).
4. Reflect on how the implementation of SBG’s instructional practices can lead to an
increase in student learning (M).
5. See the value that a SBG system could provide for themselves and their students (EV).
6. Hold the belief that they are capable of implementing a SBG system within their own
classrooms (SE).
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

134
Program. By the end of the 2019-2020 school year, core teachers will have attempted to
implement SBG. The learning goals will be achieved through a combination of a well-planned
and intentional series of professional development opportunities, observations, and 1:1 check-ins
meant to increase the knowledge and motivation of core teachers regarding implementing SBG.
As part of the intentional training sequence, core teachers will be providing with peer modeling,
mentor coaching, and specific job aides to increase knowledge factors. The sequence of training
will begin prior to the first day of instruction, and continue throughout the academic school year,
with opportunities for targeted and specific professional development each month. In addition,
core teachers will work with their organizational leadership as well as teaching team peers,
reflecting on their practice and receiving timely feedback to increase their reflection on their
practice. Core teachers will have the opportunity to provide feedback via surveys after each
professional development, as well as engage in dialogue during 1:1 check-ins and observational
feedback to give input into their experiences with implementing SBG.
As the academic school year progresses, the core teachers at Apex charter will participate
in professional developments, observations, and 1:1 check-ins that will increase their motivation
to implement SBG within their classrooms. To increase core teacher motivation, core teachers
will participate in peer conversations as they collaborate in grade level teams as well as dialogue
surrounding feedback regarding implementation. In grade level teams, core teachers will meet
weekly as part of a PLC, where they will look closely at student data, set their own team level
learning goals, and positively reinforce with each other the value of risk-taking and support. In
these grade level teams during PLCs, core teachers will set CFAs, building common assessments
across like content in the grade levels.
Furthermore, core teachers will participate in either observations or 1:1 check-ins at least
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

135
once a month. The observation or check-in will be conducted with a member of the site
leadership at Apex Charter, consisting of the principal, assistant principals, and academic
coaches. Following the observations, the observer will give feedback regarding the
implementation of SBG. Dialogue is also facilitated via 1:1 check-ins, where core teachers and
site leadership or academic coaches can have a more open discussion about their current
experiences with implementing SBG. Following each observation and check-in, the site
leadership or academic coach will provide corrective feedback and positive encouragement about
the core teacher’s ability to implement SBG.
Evaluation of the Components of learning. To apply what is learned to solve problems
and meet performance goals, core teachers must have the knowledge and skills and motivation to
achieve their goals. Therefore, it is important to assess learning for both the conceptual and
procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that core teachers value training, are
committed to the professional development, and are confident so that they can apply what they
have learned daily. Thus, Table 12 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these learning
components.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

136
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks through dialogue and discussion in
professional development trainings.

9x yearly at monthly PD
Knowledge checks through dialogue and discussion in
PLCs.

Every week during PLCs
Knowledge checks through dialogue and discussion in
check-ins.

Once a month during check-ins
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Through discussion with teacher models and peers
during PD sessions.

At beginning of year PD and monthly
PDs when teacher models are present.
Through demonstration of implementation using job
aides within core instruction.

Daily during core subject instruction
Through administration of CFAs.

At the end of each unit
Through feedback from site leadership and academic
coaches.

Once a month during observation and/or
check-ins
Through feedback from peers in group discussions
during PLCs.

At weekly PLC meetings
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

During observation of core teacher PLC discussions.

During site admin or academic coaches
drop- ins of core teacher weekly PLCs.

In surveys administered by the school site leadership
after each PD session.

After each monthly PD session.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

During observation of core teachers implementing
SBG principles in the classroom.

Monthly during observations.
During check-ins with core teachers Monthly during check-ins.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

137
Methods or Activities Timing
In surveys administered by the school site leadership
after each PD session.

After each monthly PD session.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Have core teachers verbalize and then write down to
reflect on what they will do to implement SBG in
their classrooms.

During the first PD session of the year
before the students arrive.
In communication with core teachers regarding vision
and purpose.

At the beginning of the year during
expectation setting in PD.
In 1:1 discussion during check-ins and/or following
observations.
Monthly during observations and/or
check-ins.

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to determine the ways in which core teachers will respond to the specific
training they will receive. Thus, it is essential to confirm that the quality of the learning event
was acceptable by the participants. As such, Table 13 lists the reactions of the participants to the
learning event being favorable, engaging, and relevant.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

138
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance a. During each PD session
b. During weekly PLCs
Site leadership observations

During monthly observations
Checklist rating observations with site leadership Three times a year, once at the end of each
trimester

Relevance

Pulse check with site leadership during 1:1 check-ins

During every monthly observation and/or
check-in

Core teacher survey regarding relevance after each
PD session

After each monthly PD session
Customer Satisfaction

Core teachers survey regarding satisfaction after each
PD session

After each monthly PD session
Checklist rating satisfaction with training and
implementation experience
Three times a year, once at the end of each
trimester

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. For Level 1 and Level 2, during
the observations, site leadership will fill out a reflexive journal (Appendix C) that identifies areas
the core teachers are effective in, and opportunities for growth in implementing SBG. The
reflective journal will serve as a qualitative way to guide ongoing feedback within a
conversation. The checklist will serve as a formative evaluation tool after each trimester, but not
be considered part of the core teacher’s formal site evaluation. During 1:1 check-ins and PLC
visits, site leadership will conduct pulse checks by asking core teachers if the content is relevant
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

139
to their work and addressing any questions or concerns that may arise. The site leadership will
inquire about the environment and if it is creating any barriers to the core teachers’ learning.
Level 2 will include checks for understanding what is being presented.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After 90 days, or the
beginning of the following school year (2020-2021), Apex Charter will administer a survey
containing open and scaled items to measure the satisfaction and relevance of the training to
Apex Charter’s ability to provide data on perceived barriers to developing and recommending
strategies to support implementation of SBG (Level 1), knowledge, skills, confidence, attitude,
commitment and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of the core teacher
perception ability to implement SBG (Level 3), and the extent to which core teachers felt like
they were supported from the organization (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal for core teachers is measured by how connected the core teachers are
with the organization of Apex Charter during the implementation of SBG. The core teachers
must have the knowledge and skills and motivation to effectively implement SBG. After each
trimester, the site administration will compile the data from the PD surveys. At the end of the
year, site administration will complete more compilation of survey data. To gauge progress and
monitor for effectiveness, the dashboard chart below will be used to track changes in data over
time. Similar dashboards will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2, and 3.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

140
Dashboard Goal
Trimester 1
Totals
Trimester 2
Totals
End of Year
Totals
Core teachers are knowledgeable
about how to implement SBG in
their classrooms
90% -- -- --
Core teachers feel like they can
implement SBG in their
classrooms
90% -- -- --
Core teachers see the value of
implementing SBG in their
classrooms
75% -- -- --
Core teachers felt supported and
benefited from professional
development sessions regarding
SBG
80% -- -- --

Figure 2. Dashboard chart for use in gauge progress and monitor effectiveness of SBG
implementation over time.

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is used so that data
can be gathered during, as opposed to after, program implementation. As part of this model,
there are four levels of training and evaluation that are used to make sure that core teachers have
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to successfully implement SBG at Apex
Charter. First, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) directs us to identify the outcomes, metrics
and methods used to measure the results of the targeted outcomes that align to the organization’s
goals. After that, critical behaviors are documented to assess if the core teachers are using what
they have learned at professional developments in their own pedagogy in the classroom.
Learning outcomes are identified and the core teachers are evaluated on their learning and
knowledge, attitude, commitment, and confidence during the training. Finally, methods to assess
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

141
how the core teachers are reacting to training have been developed to determine the participants’
satisfaction, engagement, and the relevance of the training. Going back to the purpose of the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model, evaluation of key stakeholders using data is important
as part of the implementation process as opposed to after the implementation is over.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Approach
The framework used in this study was the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework.
This approach uses the KMO model to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact key stakeholders within a problem of practice. As part of this framework,
organizations can identify gaps that may impact a stakeholder group’s ability to achieve a
specific organizational performance goal. There are different methodological approaches, each
with their own strengths and weaknesses. The Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework was
effective in examining the knowledge and motivation of core teachers in relation to the
organization when asked to implement SBG.
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework allowed for the research to align knowledge and
motivation influences with the impact of cultural influences on core teachers. This framework
explained how the organization impacts core teacher ability to implement SBG, allowing for
specific recommendations to be made. It is important that organizations can identify gaps so
long-term and meaningful change can occur (Clark & Estes, 2008; Lewis, 2011).
The research mainly relied on core teacher interviews to generate findings in relation to
the KMO framework research questions. Since the implementation of SBG is a relatively new
construct in educational practice, it would have been difficult to go beyond interviews, using data
such as observations. However, using observations would have helped to further support the
ways in which core teachers already do or do not implement specific components of SBG. Due
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

142
to time constraints, and the currently limited knowledge that core teachers hold regarding what is
and is not SBG, using observations was determined to not be necessary for the scope of this
research.
A further limitation in this study was the number of core teachers interviewed. The data
collection and analysis relied on a portion of overall core teachers, specifically 25%. Findings
and themes, although consistent across the ten core teachers who were interviewed, were
generalized as applying to all core teachers. Time limitations again affected the ability of the
researcher to interview more core teachers. However, the researcher feels confident that the
findings and the themes were presentative of the larger general group of core teachers at Apex
Charter.
Future Research
Educational institutions are increasingly seeing a shift in pedagogy from a traditional
LBG approach to that of SBG. Teachers within school sites are reflecting on their grading
practices, leading them to ask how their current approach to student assessment impacts their
instruction and ultimately, student learning. While this study focused on the KMO influences
present when core teachers are initially asked to implement SBG within their classrooms, there is
still much research that needs to be completed regarding the effectiveness of SBG. The following
recommendations for future research in SBG implementation and use include a better
understanding of: the impact that a grading system focused on assessment revisions and make up
work has on student learning, the relationship between SBG and student performance on district
and national assessment scores, the perceptions of SBG in practice in the classroom once the
system has been implemented, and the relation or lack of relation between SBG systems in
middle school, high school, and higher education.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

143
Conclusion
Asking teachers to change the way that they have traditionally assessed student learning
and assigned grades is a request that includes a cultural shift in how teachers view student
assessment of learning. This shift in a SBG approach is not just challenging for teachers, but for
administrators, families, and students as well. The focus on the shift from SBG to LBG is
gathering support due to the newly emerging perceptions that SBG can positively impact student
learning.
In the case study at Apex Charter, core teachers are positively motivated to attempt to
implement SBG. The organization has an opportunity to support core teachers to maintain the
belief that they are capable of implementation within their classrooms. By focusing on an
ongoing and structured approach to professional development that addresses the KMO influences
of the core teacher stakeholder group, Apex Charter can position itself to give core teachers the
best opportunity at successful implementation of SBG.
This problem of practice is not only a relevant study, but a necessary conversation that
needs to happen at school sites across the nation. It is time for educators to model the way and
challenge the status quo. Students deserve to understand what their grades means and how that
understanding can shape their view of the learning process. If the focus of CCSS and NGSS is on
the quality of the learning, then standards-based grading can help achieve that aim. It is time to
embrace a mindset of change, and progress into the future as schools begin to reform the way
they understand student assessment of learning. If the goal is to provide the best educational
experience for all students, then standards-based grading is one tool that can help educators reach
that goal.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

144
References
AAAS (2018). Mission and history. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (2003). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal and
radical debate over schooling. London, England: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Blackburn, B. R. (2008). Common core state standards… Only the beginning! Larchmont, NY:
Eye on Education.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K.,
Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2006). Creating and sustaining effective
professional learning communities. (Research Report RR637). Bristol, England:
Department for Education and Skills.
Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the common core state standards: A primer on
“Close Reading of Text”. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Bryant, A. (2013). In head-hunting, big data may not be such a big deal. The New York Times,
20.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

145
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic
achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research,
76(1), 1-62.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deddeh, H., Main, E., & Fulkerson, S. R. (2010). Eight steps to meaningful grading. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(7), 53-58.
Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation: A journey by narrative. Strategy &
Leadership, 33(3), 11-16.
District Website (2018). Powerschool to edit, track, and report student assessment data and
grades.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20-24.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Education.com, 1-5.
Ehlers, T., & Schwager, R. (2016). Honest grading, grade inflation, and reputation. CESifo
Economic Studies, 62(3), 506-521.
Farley-Ripple, E. N., & Buttram. J. L. (2014). Developing collaborative data use through
professional learning communities: Early lessons from Delaware. Studies in Educational
Evaluation 42, 41-53.
Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of
automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123-137.
Fink, A. (2013). Chapter 2: The survey form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide
(5th ed.) (pp. 29-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

146
Frey. N., & Fisher, D. (2009). Using common formative assessments as a source of professional
development in an urban American elementary school. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25(5), 674-680.
Gallagher, L., Means, B., & Padilla, C. (2008). Teachers' use of student data systems to improve
instruction: 2005 to 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E. and Clay-
Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based
science curricula in the context of urban reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45, 922–939.
Gilles, C., Wang, Y., Smith, J., & Johnson, D. (2013). “I’m No Longer Just Teaching History.”
Professional development for teaching common core state standards for literacy in social
studies: By identifying the reading strategies they regularly use within their disciplines,
content area teachers are better able to teach students how to derive meaning from texts.
Middle School Journal, 44(3), 34-43.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Guskey, T. R. (2008). Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching,
8(3), 381-391.
Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2006). The challenges of standards-based grading. Leadership
Compass, 4(2), 6-10.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ Voices, 8, 8-16.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

147
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1992). Measuring the health of the school climate: A conceptual
framework. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 74-79.
Iamarino, D. L. (2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern
grading practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2).
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kirschenbaum, H. (1971). Wad-ja-get? The grading game in American education. New York,
NY: Hart Publishing Company.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42.
LCAP (2018). Apex Charter 2016-2017.
Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Main, J. B., & Ost, B. (2014). The impact of letter grades on student effort, course selection, and
major choice: A regression-discontinuity analysis. The Journal of Economic Education,
45(1), 1-10.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: McREL.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Analyzing two assumptions underlying the scoring of classroom
assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.campbellcountyschools.org/userfiles/993/AnalyzTwo.pdf
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. (2011). Formative assessment & standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

148
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational
Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. J. (2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered assessment.
English Journal, 111-118.
National Academies (2018). Where the nation turns for independent, expert advice. Retrieved
from http://www.nationalacademies.org/nasem/
National Governors Association. (2018). About NGA. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/
Next Generation Science Standards. (2018, July 11). The standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Newman. F., King, F. & Young, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school
capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. In Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA: AERA.
O'Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Arlington
Heights, IL: SkyLight Professional Development.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

149
O’Connor, K. (2009). Reforming grading practices in secondary schools. Principal’s Research
Review, 4(1), 1-7.
O'Connor, K. (2017). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. (2014). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems. In
Assessing Teacher, Classroom, and School Effects (pp. 130-141). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2014). Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative
school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 680-700.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Education.com, 1-5. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington,
DC: U.S. 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
Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Understanding the common core state standards.
Teaching with the Common Core Standards for English language arts PreK–2, 1-21.
Penuel, W. R., Harris, C. J., & DeBarger, A. H. (2015). Implementing the next generation
science standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(6), 45-49.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

150
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Ponticell, J. A. (2003). Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher risk taking: A case study. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78(3), 5-24.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Assessing the common core standards:
Opportunities for improving measures of instruction. Educational Researcher, 40(4),
186-188.
Rakow, S. R. (2008). Standards-based v. standards-embedded curriculum: Not just semantics!
Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 43-49.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2017), Organization development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership,
66(2), 70-74.
Selby, D., & Murphy, S. (1992). Graded or degraded: Perceptions of letter-grading for
mainstreamed learning-disabled students. BC Journal of Special Education, 16(1), 92-
104.
Shippy, N., Washer, B. A., & Perrin, B. (2013). Teaching with the end in mind: The role of
standards-based grading. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 14-16.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. Handbook of Educational
Psychology, 2, 245-260.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Education.com, 1-4.
Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading. The Education Digest, 78(3), 4.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

151
Stoyanov, S., Sloep, P. B., de Bie, M., & Hermans, V. (2014). Teacher-training, ICT, creativity,
MOOC, Moodle-What pedagogy? In Proceedings of Edulearn 14, the Sixth International
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain:
EDULEARN.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding
by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. (2016, January 14). What does the research say about standards-
based grading? Retrieved from http://mctownsley.net/standards-based-grading-research/
VanHook, M. S. (2014, December 18). Standards-based grading. Retrieved from
http://standardsreferencedgrading.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18867862/consider_this-
standards_based_(1).pdf
Van Merrienboer, J. G., Kester, L. & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks:
Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive
Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 20(3), 343-352.
Vatterott, C. (2015). Rethinking grading: Meaningful assessment for standards-based learning.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wood, L. A. (1994). An unintended impact of one grading practice. Urban Education, 29(2),
188-201.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always equal: Assessing & grading in the differentiated
classroom. Westerville, OH: Stenhouse Publishers.

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

152
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set aside
to answer some of my questions. The interview should take about an hour, does that work for
you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am currently enrolled as a
student at USC and am conducting a study on how student learning is assessed in an era of
common standards. I am particularly interested in understanding how student assessment
practices may or may not align with the Common Core State Standards, and Next Generation
Science Standards, and what individual teacher practices can tell us about our understanding of
student learning. I am interviewing multiple teachers across multiple grade levels and subjects,
as well as gathering data by looking at documents such as formal assessments.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions (and document and artifact examination) are not
evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you are performing as a teacher. This
interview is also confidential. What that means is that your name and the perspectives you
provide will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. I want to ensure you that the
research team does not include anyone at this school site or within the district.

The data for this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some
of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

153
pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I
gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will keep the data in a password-
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have
any (more) questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought
two recorders with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The
recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with
anyone outside the research team. May I also have your permission to record our conversation?

II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
· First, could you tell me about your background in education?
o How did you become interested in the field of education?
o How long have you worked in the field?
o What roles or positions have you held?

III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):
Now I’d like to ask you some questions that are tied more directly to the purpose of this study.
I would like to start with your own experiences and thoughts regarding various grading and
assessment practices.
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

154
Tell me how you feel about how students are assessed in schools in general? (M)
Tell me about your feelings about how students are assessed in this school in particular (probe).
What is your understanding of the current discussions between various student assessment
practices? (K)
What is your understanding of differing assessment models, such as standards-based grading
(probe if they don’t hit on this in previous question) (K).
What is your understanding of what standards-based grading is? (K)
What is your understanding of what standards-based grading is not? (K)
What experience do you have, if any, with different grading and/or assessment practices? (K)
Tell me about a time when you used __________practice/model (probe).
Tell me about your perspective of _________ model with regards to what it tells the teacher
about student learning (probe).
Tell me (tell me again) how you currently assess your students. (K)
In what ways, if any, does the way you grade your students align with the standards you are
being asked to teach? (M)
If you were asked to implement standards-based grading in your classroom, what would your
initial reactions be? (M)
Do you feel like there is value in implementing a standards-based grading system? (M)
Do you feel like you would be prepared to implement a standards-based grading system? If not,
why? (O)

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

155
Now, I would like to talk more about how you, as a teacher, interact with the organization in
terms of student grading and assessment.

What types of technology does the organization provide for you to document student learning?
How do you use these systems? (O)
In what ways, if at all, does the organization allow you to experiment with different grading and
assessment practices? (O)
How has that freedom to experiment been communicated to you, if it has (probe)?
Tell me, if you can, specific conversations or directives that you can recount regarding the
communication of the ability to experiment with grading and assessment practices (probe).
Tell me about the professional development you have received about how to assess students in
the contexts of CCSS. (O)
How about in the context of NGSS (probe)?
People say students’ grades don’t reflect their knowledge. What are your thoughts (devil’s
advocate)? (M)

We only have a few more questions to go. I would like to ask some questions regarding the
relation between grading and assessment, and student learning.
Can you give me an example of a time when a students’ grades may not have reflected their
knowledge (probe)? (M)
Suppose I were a first-year teacher trying to decide how to best assess my students. What advice
would you give me? (K)
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

156
Some might say that we should do away with grading students altogether. What would your
response to that be (devil’s advocate)? (M)

Probing Question Frames:
Tell me more about that…
Give me an example of that.
Could you explain more?
What makes you feel that way?

IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might
not have covered?
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if so, if
email is ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study.
VI. Post interview summary and reflection
[ADD shortly after each interview]

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

157
Appendix B: Screener Instrument

Greetings! As a core teacher at our school site, you are respectfully invited to participate
in a research study through the University of California (USC). As part of my doctoral studies, I
am interested in understanding your perceptions and experiences related to how educators grade
and assess student learning. More specifically, I am attempting to look closely at the knowledge,
motivational, and organization factors that core teachers experience when asked to implement a
standards-based grading (SBG) system. While this is completely voluntary, I hope that you will
take the time to share your opinions with me. All answers and opinions will be anonymous and
will be used only for the purposes of this study While data gathered may be shared with our
organization, as well as published, protection of your identity will be upheld. Remember: This is
not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. I just ask that you share your perspectives as
honestly as possible. I look forward to sharing the overall results of the study at a future meeting.
The will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your consideration!
Please indicate the appropriate response that best represents your opinion:

1. What is your current position within our organization?
O Math Teacher Only
O Science Teacher Only
O Social Studies Teacher Only
O English Teacher Only
O Any Combination of a Math, Science, Social Studies, or English Teacher
O Other Subject Teacher Other than Math, Science, Social Studies, English (I DO NOT
teach at least one period of the above core subjects in a normal teaching day)

2. I am _______ Male _____Female _______ Other ______Decline
to state.

3. I have taught math, science, social studies, or English for:
O 1-3 Years
O 4-5 Years
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

158
O 5-10 Years
O 10 Years or Beyond

4. I have taught in general for:
O 1-3 Years
O 4-5 Years
O 5-10 Years
O 10 Years or Beyond

5. I believe that my organization, as a whole, currently implements a standards-based
grading system to evaluate student grading and assessment.
O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

6. I believe that in my own classroom, I currently implement a standards-based
grading system to evaluate student grading and assessment.
O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

7. I currently use a letter-based grading (LBG) system when assessing and reporting
student learning.

O Yes
O No
8. I have had experience in the past implementing a standards-based grading system.

O Yes
O No
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

159
9. I have had experience in the past implementing another type of system for grading
and assessing student learning, other than a LBG or SBG system.

O Yes
O No

10. I regularly meet in professional learning committees (PLCs) to discuss student
learning and assessment with other core teachers.

O Yes
O No

11. I believe that schools need to consider different ways to assess student learning
(other than traditional letter-based grading).

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

12. I believe there is value in changing from a LBG system to a SBG approach.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

13. I feel that I currently possess the training and knowledge necessary to implement a
SBG system.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

160
14. I feel that I am capable of implementing a SBG system in my classroom.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

15. I believe there is value in changing from a LBG system to a SBG approach.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

16. I feel that teachers in my organization value risk-taking in the classroom.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

17. I feel that teachers in my organization embrace change and are adaptable.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

18. I feel that my organization supports change in the classroom.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree
CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

161
19. I feel that my organization provides necessary support when asked to take on
additional responsibilities such as changing grading and assessment practices.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

20. My organization provides necessary professional development when they ask
teachers to implement a new system or make an organizational change.

O Strongly Agree
O Agree
O Disagree
O Strongly Disagree

21. What might be the biggest challenge for you if you were asked to implement a
standards-based grading system in your classroom?

22. Please provide any additional comments, thoughts or feedback you have that you
would like to share:

Thank you for participating in this screener!
Comments:

CORE TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION OF SBG

162
Appendix C: Reflexive Journal Protocol

Participant:
Date:
Start Time:
End Time:
Interview Sequence:
FINDINGS
What I observed in the
observation that related to our
understanding of SBG.
REFLECTIONS
Thoughts, questions, insights about what I noticed and
learned

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

The impact of culturally responsive teaching on the suspension rate of African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

An evaluation study of the retention of company grade officers in the Western Volunteer Rifles

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

PDF

Classroom environment for Common Core

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Roe, Anthoney Lee (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/30/2019

Defense Date 03/05/2019

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

Tag LBG,letter-based grading,OAI-PMH Harvest,SBG,standards-based grading,student assessment

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique Claire (committee chair), Robles, Darline (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email anthoney.roe@gmail.com,aroe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-160289

Unique identifier UC11660830

Identifier etd-RoeAnthone-7359.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-160289 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RoeAnthone-7359.pdf

Dmrecord 160289

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Roe, Anthoney Lee

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