Quality Assessment and Grading€¦ · One might even argue that grading may be a bit more complex...

Literature Review

QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND GRADING PRACTICES AT

THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL

Research Office

Department of Instruction

Loudoun County Public Schools

Evonne DeNome, Federal Programs Supervisor Doctoral Candidate, William Howard Taft University

Stephan Knobloch, Ed.D., Director of Research

July 13, 2011

Research Office Page 1 of 27 Department of Instruction July 13, 2011

Contents

Overview Page 4

Defining the Concepts Page 4

Types of Assessment Page 5

Purpose of Assessment Page 7

Significance of Formative Assessment Page 10

Characteristics of Quality Assessment Page 12

Strategies and Techniques of Formative Assessment Page 15

Purpose of Grading Page 17

Significance of Grading Page 18

Characteristics of Quality Grading Practices Page 19

Recommendations Page 21

References Page 24


Quality Assessment and Grading Practices

The Overview

This Literature Review was undertaken to better understand quality assessment and grading practices so as to ensure the appropriate measurement of student learning. Books, articles, reports, and other documents were identified using the following search terms: assessment, grading, formative assessment, summative assessment, self-assessment, rubrics, reflective practice and learning. The ERIC Database, Google Scholar, ProQuest Professional Education, Sage Publications, and Loudoun County Public Schools Instructional Materials Center were utilized to perform the search, as such, a total of 49 documents are referenced within this summary of the topic.

Assessment and grading are two terms having been used synonymously over the years. This misunderstanding occurs as a result of their intended purpose being communicated effectively and accurately. In fact, assessment and grading are two of the most talked about and sometimes misunderstood aspects of K-12 education (Marzano, 2010). When differentiated, one is able to see assessment and grading are actually very different, and in their own right, each represent a complex undertaking. One might even argue that grading may be a bit more complex as it tends to be controversial, while also being perhaps a challenging responsibility educator’s face.

Defining the concepts

Historically, grading has been around for a very long time. The concept of grading can be traced back to the early 1800’s. However, the idea of assessment has only been around since the mid 1940’s and is attributed to the work of Ralph Tyler. In his work, Tyler discusses the interrelatedness of curriculum, instruction and assessment. The role of assessment in the instructional arena harkens back to Ralph Tyler and his classic, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, in which he declares the triad of curriculum, instruction, and assessment inextricably linked (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). Since that time, further research supports the notion that curriculum and instruction cannot be effective without keeping the end in mind, assessment. Therefore, one cannot talk about assessment without talking about instruction. This research summary will support the same.

When delving deeper into the meaning of assessment and grading, we must examine the research in order to gain full understanding of these concepts. Assessment and grading have been defined as follows:

Assessment is gathering information about student’s achievement for the purpose of making instructional decisions. Assessment can be viewed as vehicles for gathering information about students’ achievement or behavior (Marzano, 2000). The term assessment refers to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as


feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Grading is the assignment of symbolic numbers or letters at the end of a specified period of time, that will serve as a summary statement of evaluations made of students (Marzano, 2000).

Grading is the process of condensing a great deal of information into a single symbol for ease of communication (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012). Grading is making an end-point judgment about students’ achievement (Tomlinson, 2005). Grades are the number(s) or letter(s) reported at the end of a set period of time as a summary statement of evaluations made of students (Marzano, 2000). Assessment is therefore a valuable tool as it provides teachers with evidence of student

understanding and gives valuable feedback so that teachers may adjust instruction in order to meet the needs of their students. To the surprise of some educators, major reviews of the research on the effects of classroom assessment indicate that it might be one of the most powerful weapons in a teacher’s arsenal (Marzano, 2006).Therefore, it is imperative that quality assessment occurs.

Types of Assessment

The research shows us there are two types of assessments: assessments of learning and assessments for learning. Specifically, they are labeled as Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment. The following research helps us to understand and differentiate between the two and how they further support the differentiation of the two concepts, assessment and grading:

Assessments of learning are those assessments that happen after learning is supposed to have occurred to determine if it did. They are used to make statements of student learning status at a point in time to those outside the classroom, as when making student referrals or making decisions about programs (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Assessments for learning happen while learning is still underway. These are the assessments that we conduct throughout teaching and learning to diagnose student needs, plan our next steps in instruction, provide students with feedback they can use to improve the quality of their work, and help students see and feel in control of their journey to success. Assessment for learning occurs to regularly inform teachers and students about the progress of learning while that learning is taking place. Its purpose is to improve learning while there is still time to act—before the graded event (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). The term assessment refers to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as


feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes ‘formative assessment’ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet the needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Assessment of instruction asks, “How did I do?”, while assessment for instruction asks, “How am I doing?” Summative assessments provide data for grades and rankings at the end point of the instruction. Formative data inform instructional practice as it is happening and when there is still time to make the needed adjustments in order to facilitate student learning (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). Summative assessment occurs when teachers evaluate a final product. It usually takes places at the end of the chapter, a unit of study, a benchmark period, a quarter, a course, a semester, or an academic year. Summative assessments report the students’ final results to the students themselves, their parents, and the administration, as well as the school district, the state, and the national government. These final results become the data that are used for many purposes, including the promotion and retention of students and the evaluation of individual schools and districts. Summative assessments serve as assessments of learning, because their purpose is to support the assignment of final grades or levels of proficiency related to course outcomes or state standards (Burke, 2010). Summative Assessment refers to the use of tests whose purpose is to make a final success/failure decision about a relatively unmodifiable set of instructional activities (Popham, 2011). Summative Assessments are comprehensive, cumulative assessments used to determine student understanding and skills regarding the learning target. Summative assessment is assessment of learning and can be used for grading (Olsen & Shields-Ramsey, 2010). Out of summative assessments come the informal, ongoing assessments called formative that are used through the learning experience to inform and modify teaching to better meet student needs. Strategies effective in keeping students actively involved also provide insights into their understanding and progress. Formative assessment provides ongoing feedback to improve learning, during the learning segment; summative assessment evaluates final efforts to prove learning at the end of the learning segment (Burke, 2010). Formative assessment is defined as a process that narrows the scope by requiring that the assessments be used for purposes of modification (Marzano, 2010). Formative assessment is not an assessment used for scoring and grading. It is not used to formally report student status at a given point in time. Formative assessment is informal assessment of student learning designed to help students learn. In short it is feedback (Olsen & Blandford, 2009).


Formative Assessment: the use of assessment-elicited evidence intended to improve unsuccessful yet still modifiable instruction. Formative assessment is a planned process in which assessment-elicited evidence of students’ status is used by teachers to adjust their ongoing instructional procedures or by students to adjust their current learning tactics (Popham, 2010). Formative assessments: Informal assessment for learning that involves ongoing checks for understanding as part of daily classroom instruction. Formative assessment provides specific, immediate feedback used to inform instruction in order to make adjustments to meet student learning needs (Olsen & Shields-Ramsey, 2010). Formative assessments are defined as any activity that provides sound feedback on student learning. Characteristics of sound feedback include that it should be frequent, give students a clear picture of their progress and how they might improve, and provide encouragement (Marzano, 2006). Formative assessment has a specific goal (improve learning and motivation), achieved by gathering and using information so that new instruction and experiences will lead to enhanced achievement (McMillan, 2008).

Perhaps the uniqueness surrounding formative assessment is that it is not done unto

teachers and students, but rather with teachers and students. There is evidence to support that assessment is most effective when both teachers and students are involved in the assessment process. As such, found within formative assessment, is self-assessment. The following definitions of formative assessment support these premises:

The greatest potential value of classroom assessment is realized when we open the process up during the learning and welcome students in as full partners; therefore, students who participate in the thoughtful analysis of quality work to identify its critical elements or to internalize valued achievement targets become better performers (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012). Student involvement is a critically important shift in our traditional or conventional perspectives regarding the role of assessment in promoting effective schools: the most important instructional decisions (that is, the decisions that contribute the most to student learning) are made, not by adults working in the system, but by students themselves (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Formative assessment refers to the ongoing process both students and teachers engage in when they focus on learning goals, take stock of current student work in relation to the learning goals using formal or informal assessment processes, and take action to move students closer to the learning goals (Brookhart, 2009).


Essentially, formative assessment is a process rather than a product in that it focuses on uncovering what and how well the student understands throughout the course of instruction. Formative assessment is also a systematic way for teachers and students to gather evidence of learning, engage students in assessment, and use data to improve teaching and learning (Greenstein, 2010). Formative assessment can be defined more specifically as, all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes ‘formative assessment’ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet the needs’(Black & Wiliam, 1998). Self-assessment by pupils, far from being a luxury, is in fact an essential component of formative assessment. For formative assessment to be productive, pupils should be trained in self-assessment so that they can understand the main purposes of their learning and thereby grasp what they need to do to achieve (Black & Wiliam, 1998). If assessment is to be used as an instructional tool for achieving educational goals, students should be involved in the process. We know that when students are involved in assessment through student-led conferences in portfolio assessment, they are more likely to assume responsibility for their own goals and learning (Conderman, Hatcher & Ikan, 1998).

Purpose of Assessment

It is not enough to understand what assessment is; rather we must understand why we assess. Without understanding the purpose of assessment, assessment will not be effective. Additionally, without explicitly knowing and understanding what our purpose is, it is very difficult to expect our students to also understand the purpose of being in school and to make a commitment to meet expectations they face daily (Olsen & Shields-Ramsey, 2010). Research supports that the purpose of assessment is to inform so that the appropriate measurement of student learning might occur. Again, we must turn to the research to clearly identify purpose of assessment.

For any assessment to work effectively, it must be developed with an intended purpose in mind: What decision(s) is it to help inform, who will be making the decision(s), and what kind of information is likely to be helpful? Therefore, your starting place for the effective creation and use of any assessment is this driving question: Why am I assessing? (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012). To assess well, we must begin knowing our purpose—who will use results to inform what decisions. We assess to gather evidence of student learning that will inform instructional decisions in ways that maximize that learning. As learning progresses, we and our students need regular information about what they have


and have not yet learned. In addition to beginning with a purpose in mind, we must also have a clear sense of the achievement expectations we wish our students to master (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). The identification of the purpose of assessment in order to determine the most appropriate form to be used for measurement of student knowledge, skills, or understanding (Olsen & Shields-Ramsey, 2010). The instructional purpose of a formative assessment is to provide feedback during the learning process; the instructional purpose of a summative assessment is to make a final judgment at the end of the learning process (Burke, 2010). Formative assessment, most definitely, is not a test. Tests are used during the formative-assessment process to provide evidence; but formative assessment is a planned process, not a particular kind of test. Very importantly, the formative-assessment process employs test-elicited evidence so teachers can, if they need to do so, make adjustments in how they are trying to teach their students. The same test-elicited evidence can also be used so students can, if they need to do so, make adjustments in how they are trying to learn something (Popham, 2010). Formative assessment can be a powerful weapon here if it is communicated in the right way. Whilst it can help all pupils, it gives particularly good results with low achievers where it concentrates on specific problems with their work, and gives them both a clear understanding of what is wrong, and achievable targets for putting it right. Pupils can accept and work with such messages, provided that they are not clouded by overtones about ability, competition and comparison with others (Black & Wiliam, 1998). When teachers assess student learning for purely formative purposes, there is no final mark on the paper and no summative grade in the grade book. Rather, assessment serves as practice for students, just like a meaningful homework assignment does. This is formative assessment at its most valuable (Chappuis & Chappuis, January 2008).

The purpose is to inform, to provide immediate, continual and valuable feedback from students that signal a need for adjustments and modifications in the instruction (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). Gaps in student learning are most easily closed as they open, and formative assessments make those gaps visible. Also keep in mind formative assessments are not graded. They should inform students of their progress, not lock students into a grade while they are still in the formatives stages of learning (Olsen & Blandford, 2009). Formative assessments inform. They are utilized to provide relevant, timely and maximum feedback on student learning. They are, more often than not, not about


a grade! Rather, formative assessments are about providing guideposts that keep the learning moving forward and on track (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). The purpose of summative assessment is to provide the last opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to meet standards within a specified learning period. After this final assessment has been administered, teachers synthesize all the formative and summative assessments data they have collected, evaluate the students’ work using school or district guidelines, and assign a final grade based upon students’ mastery of learning goals (Burke, 2010). Summative assessment, sometimes referred to as assessment of learning, typically documents how much learning has occurred at a point in time; its purpose is to measure the level of student, school, or program success. Formative assessment, on the other hand, delivers information during the instructional process, before the summative assessment. Both the teacher and the student use formative assessment results to make decisions about what actions to take to promote further learning. It is an ongoing, dynamic process that involves far more than frequent testing, and measurement of student learning is just one of its components (Chappuis & Chappuis, January 2008). Summative assessments are often regarded as “hard” data that yield grades, scores, or rankings. Summative assessments must provide the quantitative data used to calculate grade point averages, school rankings, and district placement on state and national norms (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009).

The Significance of Formative Assessment

Seeking assessment results that accurately reflect student learning is critical. To ensure that happens, there are several essential principles surrounding formative assessment that every educator should understand. These essential principles or significant concepts are: (1) formative assessment is student focused, (2) formative assessment is instructionally informative, and (3) formative assessment is outcomes based (Greenstein, 2010). When these principles are clearly understood, educators effectively utilize formative assessment and see the value for its utilization.

Formative assessment is a valuable tool for educators. Formative assessment helps teachers: (1) Consider each student’s learning needs and styles and adapt instruction accordingly; (2) Track individual student achievement; (3) Provide appropriately challenging and motivational instructional activities; (4) Design intentional and objective student self-assessments; and (5) Offer all students opportunities for improvement (Greenstein, 2010). Perhaps most appealing to its utilization is the flexibility in which it can be carried out. A particularly impressive conclusion of the Black and Wiliam review is that the formative-assessment process is sufficiently robust so that it can be carried out by teachers in a variety of ways yet still lead to substantially improved learning for students (Popham, 2010).

Formative assessment is effective because it aids teachers and students in making connections. Formative assessment supports the brain in making connections by linking prior knowledge to new learning, putting together parts and wholes, and providing opportunities to


process information in different ways (Greenstein, 2010). It is these connections that make learning relevant. When students see the relevance of their learning, they become empowered and motivated. This motivation is necessary for students to be successful in the classroom. In fact, motivation is key to student success when giving consideration to assessment and grading. Students often feel there is a gap between what they learned and what they are assessed on, as such this discrepancy can influence student motivation. Discussions surrounding motivation are also addressed in the research on assessment and grading.

It is imperative that we listen to children on how assessments influence their learning, their attitude toward education, and motivation. The impact of assessment practices on learning is critical to student motivation. How and what a teacher grades affects how a student perceives him/herself on a day-to-day basis. If a student is doing well, they usually become confident learners and if not, the converse is often true (Schaffner, Burry-Stock, Cho, Boney, & Hamilton, 2000). Assessment for learning can have a major motivational and achievement impact on students. It enables students to take control of their own learning by providing a clear vision of the learning targets they are to attain, teaching them to assess where they are with respect to the target, and offering strategies they can use to close the game between where they are and where they need to be. The research on motivation, how we learn, and feedback come together to support assessment for learning as the best use of assessment in the service of student learning and well-being (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006).

The Black and Wiliam study clearly shows that the type of feedback given to students affects their motivation to learn: (1) It’s the quality of the feedback rather than its existence or absence that determines its power. Specifically what makes the difference is the use of descriptive, criterion-based feedback as opposed to numerical scoring or letter grades; (2) Feedback emphasizing that it’s the learning that’s important leads to greater learning than feedback implying that what is important is looking good or how you compare to others; (3) Descriptive feedback can focus on strengths or weaknesses; feedback is most effective when it points out strengths in the work as well as areas needing improvement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The impact of assessment practices on learning is critical to student motivation. How and what a teacher grades affects how a student perceives him/herself on a day-to-day basis. If a student is doing well, they usually become confident learners and if not, the converse is often true (Schaffner, Burry-Stock, Cho, Boney, & Hamilton, 2000).

Characteristics of Quality Assessment

Through a study of the research the identification of quality assessment practices have been identified. According to the research there are five key strategies or process standards in which formative assessment is based. Formative assessment consists of five key strategies: (1) Clarifying learning intentions and sharing criteria for success; (2) Engineering effective classroom discussions, questions, and learning tasks that elicit


evidence of learning; (3) Providing feedback that moves learners forward; (4) Activating students as the owners of their own learning; and (5) Activating students as instructional resources for one another (Burke, 2010).

When delving further into these process standards, they can be conceptualized into principles to motivate teachers and students so that higher levels of learning occur. To be discussed are those practices that produce the greatest achievement gains: establishing learning targets, setting learning goals, providing feedback, developing assessments that yield accurate information, using results to inform instructional practice, student involvement and communicating student learning. The following research supports the identification of those quality assessment practices:

Black and Wiliam have identified the classroom assessment features that bring about these large achievement gains: (1) assessments that result in accurate information; (2) descriptive rather than evaluative feedback to students; (3) student involvement in assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

When examining the research, one of the principles receiving the most attention is the establishment of learning targets. Research supports that the utilization of this one principle is key to ensuring sound assessment practice. When students understand what the intended learning is, learning will occur as students are engaged in higher order thinking, accountable for their own learning, and able to set learning goals.

Learning targets give students the “big picture” of where they are going and what it looks like. Learning targets answer this question: What is the major concept we will understand and what thinking skill(s) will we engage in? (Olsen & Shields-Ramsey, 2010). Share with your students the learning target, objective or goal in advance of teaching the lesson, giving the assignment, or doing the activity. When we have a clear vision of where we’re headed with students, we can communicate that vision to them. If students have no idea what they are supposed to learn, if the only information they have is that we are doing “science” or “social studies,” few of them are likely to know how to monitor their own progress and keep themselves on track (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). We recognize that students cannot assess their own learning or set goals to work toward without a clear vision of the intended learning. Making targets clear to students at the outset of learning is the fundamental underpinning to any assessment for learning practices we will implement (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). When students know which achievement targets they are accountable for learning, our assessments can begin to provide them with specific information about where they have succeeded and where, exactly, they have missed the mark (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006).


A quality learning target includes the following: process skills, big rock concepts, and guiding questions. Process skills help students learn and provide skills necessary for lifelong learning. The process skills are: predict, discover, describe, solve, infer, connect, draw conclusions, evaluate, explain, construct, apply summarize, imagine, integrate, revise, observe, verify, reason, communicate, interpret, demonstrate, estimate, organize, perform, synthesize, compare, analyze, investigate, justify, formulate, design, generalize, inquire, and sequence (Olsen & Blandford, 2009).

Guiding questions are also part of a quality learning target. Teachers use questioning every day to keep student attention and to measure or assess student learning. However, when teachers guide their questions to the task at hand, learning is stimulated and not just measured. Questions really are a doorway to learning and are powerful tools to help students want to engage in further inquiry and cause them to wonder, to be interested, and have “ah-has” as they gain understanding of the answers to those questions (Olsen & Blandford, 2009). Guiding questions, or questioning tools as they are referred, are very valuable as they activate prior knowledge resulting in transfer, use, and relevant application. In the book, Informative Assessment: When It’s Not About a Grade, Fogarty and Kerns encourage the utilization of several questioning techniques. These are: fat/skinny, rhetorical, woven, probing, and delving questioning, as well as reverse questioning and think-pair-share.

Another principle proven to show significant results in student achievement surrounds descriptive feedback. One perplexing finding from the research literature is that the manner in which feedback is communicated to students greatly affects whether it has a positive or a negative effect on student achievement (Marzano, 2006). Descriptive feedback focuses on student strengths and weaknesses as it relates to the learning target at hand. Feedback is most effective when it identifies what students are doing right, as well as what they need to work on next (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Feedback is a powerful strategy when utilized to the fullest:

“The strategy of feedback is both a ‘gathering’ and a ‘giving’ process. As you ‘gather’ information from students through observation, overt behavior, you can make precise instructional decisions based on the learning gaps/misconceptions these techniques reveal. The giving part is often overlooked and underused. This is where we can ‘saturate the classroom with success’ by providing immediate and specific information to help students know ‘right now’ how they are doing. Putting answers on the board, having students self and peer evaluate based on a rubric, and giving open book quizzes allows students the opportunity to have immediate and frequent success. Providing immediate feedback also allows you to reduce the amount of clerical paper checking that many teachers spend time doing at the expense of time needed for effective planning (Olsen & Blandford, 2009).”

There is one principle that confirms assessment and instruction are intertwined. That

principle pertains to the idea that classroom assessment information should be used to revise and guide teaching and learning. As we learned from the Black and Wiliam study, the term assessment refers to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Thus, curriculum,


instruction and assessment should be aligned. Quality learning and teaching are a reflection of the intentional alignment of our learning targets, the assessment of student learning, and instruction/learning experiences (Olsen & Blandford, 2009).

The initial step in good assessment is to be sure that you know what the standards are and what more specific learning targets are needed (McMillan, 2008). Therefore, quality assessment practices must address instructional practices combined with knowing the curriculum to be taught. According to the CRESST Report, modest, marginally statistically significant, relationships emerged among the various aspects of assessment practices: (1) Teachers who reported more frequently establishing and communicating their learning goals also more frequently reported coordinating their assessments with those goals; and (2) Teachers who more frequently reported aligning their goals and assessment also tended to report that they more frequently analyzed student and group work and that they more frequently used a variety of strategies to assess student understanding (Herman, Osmundson, & Silver, 2010). This alignment will require districts to assist educators in unpacking the standards.

“Districts and schools need to reconstitute the knowledge in state standards in the form of measurement topics. To do so, they must use a three-step process that involves unpacking the standards, identifying the dimensions that are essential for all students to learn, and organizing the dimensions into categories of related information and skills. Without reconstituting state standards documents, there is little chance that teachers can use them effectively as the basis for formative classroom assessment (Marzano, 2006).”

Actively, consistently, and effectively involving students in the assessment process, another of the assessment principles, is a big change from the traditional view of assessment, and requires teachers to rethink their assessment practices. The research supports the involvement of students in their learning as it increases student accountability, helps student self-assess and identify their strengths and weaknesses, and empowers students to modify their learning in the process.

Any activity that requires students to reflect on what they are learning and to share their progress both reinforces the learning and helps them develop insights into themselves as learners. These kinds of activities give students the opportunity to notice their own strengths, to see how far they have come, and to feel in control of the conditions of their success (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006).

Teaching students to self-assess, self-reflect and set goals for learning are additional quality assessment practices. In order for students to set goals, they must have a clear understanding of the learning target and must be able to communicate that target as well. Without a clear understanding of the learning, setting goals becomes impossible, and students are unable to self-assess or reflect.

Self assessment, a function found within formative assessment, is not an easy undertaking for students. Self-assessment includes having students do the following: (1) identify their own strengths and areas of improvement; (2) write in a response log at the end of class, recording key points they have learned and questions they still have; (3) using established criteria, select a


work sample for their portfolio that proves a certain level of proficiency, explaining why the piece qualifies; (4) offer descriptive feedback to classmates; and (5) use your feedback, feedback from other students, or their own self-assessments to identify what they need to work on and set goals for future learning (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006).

In order for self-assessment to be effective, students must be provided direct instruction on the utilization of rubrics. Specifically, students must be instructed on the criteria used to develop rubrics and then be provided opportunities to practice using them on random samples. This practice must occur prior to self-evaluation. Regarding rubrics, the research tells us the following:

The purpose of rubrics is to guide students through the steps they must take to improve the quality of their work (Burke, 2010). A strategy for quality formative assessment involves students in the design and then the use of rubrics for self-evaluation (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). Use models of strong and weak work—anonymous student work, work from life beyond school, and your own work. Ask students to analyze these samples for quality and then to justify their judgments (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). To make scales more useful to students, they should be written in student-friendly language. This should be done in cooperation with students. The teacher should introduce each scale to students as it is used in class; explain what is meant by the content placed at the score values 4.0, 3.0, and 2.0; and then have the entire class participate in rewriting the content at each score value in a manner that makes it easy for students to understand (Marzano, 2010).

Formative Assessment Strategies and Techniques

The nine principles of assessment for learning are what make up the quality assessment practices. However, it is the strategies and techniques that support those principles and assist in yielding those significant gains in achievement. Looking at the research, there are a multitude of strategies and techniques that should be given consideration.

Formative assessment used information techniques like conversations with students, class interactions, questioning, daily work, observation, interviews, conferences, and graphic organizers, as well as more formal techniques like quizzes, performance assessments, and portfolio assessments to monitor student progress and modify instruction accordingly (Ataya, 2007). A sampling of strategies included in the compendium of best practices range from simple signals and response strategies to maximize feedback--Check for understanding signals; Wait time strategy; Delving questions; Unpacking the language of the task; Hands up only to ask a question—do provide a glimpse at


this category of informative assessments. Strategies that promote equal opportunity for responses among all students in the class or in the group include name cards, a deck of cards, a fishbowl kind of name drawing, or even color-coded tongue depressors with student names on them. Robust questioning strategies include rhetorical and woven questions, as well as more complex questions for probing and delving for more comprehensive and revealing responses (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009).

Among the reflective activities in which teachers normally engage are such instructional arenas as lab logs, literary journals, independent reading choices, student portfolios and work folders, projects, and performances. Journals are useful tools used to in reflective assessment. Student journals, double-entry journals, dialogue journals, action journals, “On a Scale of One to Ten” journals, letter journals, lead-in journals, math journal, and science logs are a plethora of journals and provide a variety of reflective assessment experiences when utilized (Fogarty & Kerns, 2009). Strategies for quality Formative Assessments include quiz for learning, write, then turn to partner and share “what the teacher said” in your own words, involve students in the design and then the use of rubrics for self-evaluation, response statements using thumbs, fist of five, and think/pair/share, answers on the board, graphic organizers, triggers, student created questions for quizzes and tests, individual student whiteboards, and student self-assessment (Olsen & Blandford, 2009). Discussions, in which pupils are led to talk about their understanding in their own ways, are important aids to improved knowledge and understanding. Dialogue with the teacher provides the opportunity for the teacher to respond to and re-orient the pupil’s thinking (Burke, 2010). When students receive feedback on a classroom assessment that simply tells them whether their answers are correct or incorrect, learning is negatively influenced. However, when students are provided with the correct answer, learning is influenced in a positive direction (Marzano, Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work, 2006). One of the most powerful and straightforward ways a teacher can provide feedback that encourages learning is to have students keep track of their own progress on topics. This technique provides students with a visual representation of their progress. It also provides a vehicle for students to establish their own learning goals and to define success in terms of their own learning as opposed to their standing relative to other students in the class (Marzano, 2006).


Purpose of Grading

Grades were once thought to be the motivating factor that impacted student achievement. Academic achievement is the primary factor on which grades should be based (Marzano, 2000). However, grades may influence motivation positively, as well as negatively. Thus one must have a strong understanding of the purpose of grading.

One of the most important inputs that determine grading practices is being clear about the purpose for assigning grades to student work. We will consider five major purposes: communicating student learning, ranking students, providing feedback to students, motivating students, and evaluating teaching and curriculum (McMillan, 2008). Factors such as effort, motivation, and student attitude are subjective measures made by a teacher, their inclusion in a grade related to academic achievement increased the chance for the grade to be biased or unreliable, and thus invalid. Therefore, the sole purpose of a grade on an academic report, if it is to be a valid source of information, is to communicate the academic achievement of the student (Allen, May/June 2005). Grades must be accurate indicators of students’ mastery. A grade is supposed to provide an accurate, undiluted indicator of a student’s mastery of learning standards. That’s it. It is not meant to be a part of a reward, motivation, or behavioral contract system. If the grade is distorted by weaving in a student’s personal behavior, character, and work habits, it cannot be used to successfully provide feedback, document progress, or inform our instructional decisions regarding that student—the three primary reasons we grade. The grade must remain accurate in order to be useful, and it’s not accurate when it is mixed with non-academic factors (Wormeli, 2006). The primary goal of grading is to provide high quality feedback to parents and students so they can clearly understand and appropriately use the information to support the learning process and encourage student success (O’Connor, 2002). Grades should be a way of communicating with students about achievement and working to help students improve (Guskey, October 2004). The purpose of grading is to clearly communicate the achievement status of students (Guskey, 1996). Interest lures students to learning (Schaffner, Burry-Stock, Cho, Boney, & Hamilton, 2000).

The Significance of Grading

Seeking grading practices that accurately reflect student learning is critical. Grading is one of the most private experiences for students and teachers in the learning process (Erikson, March 2010). While being a private experience for students and teachers, it is also controversial. Perhaps this controversy stems over the inconsistencies of grading practices. There is no single, right way to grade, but there are heuristics or


guides for grading which, if followed, would better serve the purpose of providing interested individuals with useful information (Tomlinson, March 2001). Grading practices must therefore be effective in order to ensure the appropriate measurement of student learning. Especially in the early years of school, the negative consequences of failing grades are quite serious and far outweigh any benefits (Guskey, December 2000).

There are however a number of grading polices that produce ineffective results. Three commonly used grading policies that are so ineffective they can be labeled as toxic: use of zeroes for missing work, the average of all scores throughout the semester, and the single project, test, lab, paper, or other assignment that will make or break students (Reeves, 2008). When these ineffective grading policies are utilized we are not proving the appropriate means of communicating student learning.

Grading requires careful planning, thoughtful judgment, a clear focus on purpose, excellent communication skills, and an overriding concern for students. Such qualities are necessary to ensure grading policies and practices that provide high-quality information for student learning (Guskey, December 2000). When grading policies improve, discipline and morale almost always follow (Reeves, 2008). Although students learn many things in the classroom, the primary objective is for students to learn academic content knowledge of a particular subject. In order for teachers to know if students are achieving this academic knowledge, they generally are required to not only assess students’ knowledge in some way, but eventually summarize that assessment into a letter or numerical grade. If the grades are not accurate measures of the student’s achievement, then they do not communicate the truth about the level of the student’s academic achievement (Allen, May/June 2005). Grades must be accurate indicators of students’ mastery. The grade must remain accurate in order to be useful, and it’s not accurate when it is mixed with non-academic factors (Wormeli, 2006). A grade should reveal as much as possible about what a student has actually learned and should not be obfuscated with a myriad of factors that serve as barriers to student demonstration of key proficiencies (Tomlinson, March 2001). It is incumbent on educators to ensure that grading and assessment practices give students chances to succeed (Erikson, March 2010). Few teachers have any formal training in grading methods and most teachers have limited knowledge about the effectiveness of various grading practices (Stiggins, 1993). Teachers who have a clear idea of the learning outcomes their students should achieve will be more likely to help their students attain those outcomes (Popham, 2001).


If the grades are not accurate measures of the student’s achievement, then they do not communicate the truth about the level of the student’s academic achievement (Allen, 2005). Formative or on-going assessment should not be graded. Its purpose is to help both teacher and student see how learning is progressing and to adjust as necessary to make sure learning stays on course. Grading on-going assessments can undermine student willingness to take mental risks, absorb an undue amount of teacher time, and contribute to a skewed view of what a student actually learns by the end of a particular cycle of learning (O’Connor, 2002).

At all levels of education, teachers should identify what they want their students to learn, what evidence they will use to verify the learning, and what criteria they will use to judge that evidence. In other words, teachers should clarify their standards and their grading criteria on the basis of those standards. Grades based on specified learning criteria and standards have direct meaning and serve well the communication purposes for which they are intended (Guskey, 2000).

If you can define effort clearly, assess all students consistently, and meet the standards of sound assessment, then gather your data and draw your inferences about each student’s level of effort. Just be very careful how you use those results at report card grading time. This is a minefield that becomes even more dangerous when you combine effort and achievement data in the same grade. We urge you to report them separately, if you report effort outcomes at all (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012).

Characteristics of Quality Grading Practices

Through a study of the research, the identification of quality grading practices has occurred. These quality grading practices seek to ensure validity. The most fundamental measurement principle related to meaningful assessment and grading is the principle of validity (Stiggins, 2012). While there is no right or wrong way to design grades, grades must demonstrate what a student actually knows. Grades must be accurate indicators of students’ mastery (Wormeli, 2006). In order to accurately reflect student mastery, there should be a grading policy within the district.

Grades should be based on clearly specified learning criteria and should not be normative. Grading normatively, or on a curve, spawns unhealthy competition and diminished motivation for nearly all students. Rather, grading should be criterion referenced. That is, educators should establish indicators of student success, describe the criteria by which they will evaluate student success, and measure student success accordingly (Guskey & Bailey, 2001). If we base our grades on standards rather than attendance, behavior, or extra credit (which often has nothing to do with course objectives), we can actually


help students grapple with the idea of quality and walk away with a higher degree of self-sufficiency (Scriffiny, 2008). Grading systems must include indicators of student achievement unencumbered by other student characteristics, such as aptitude, effort, compliance, or attitude (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012). Grading policies within districts are needed to guarantee educators follow appropriate

and consistent grading practices. These grading policies need to ensure the following issues are addressed: assigning zeroes, counting grades at the end of the learning segment more than those at the beginning, grading homework, grading only summative assessments, weighting grades and dropping grades. The grade must remain accurate in order to be useful, and it’s not accurate when it is mixed with non-academic factors (Wormeli, 2006).

Quality grading has a core focus on accurate communication of valid information. A measure is valid if it measures what it is intended to measure and not extraneous factors. In other words, there are many factors that can interfere with a student’s opportunity to demonstrate what he or she actually knows, understands, and can do. (Tomlinson, 2005).

Grading policies such as refusing to accept late work, giving grades of zero and refusing to allow students to redo their work may be intended as punishment for poor performance, but such policies will not really teach students to be accountable, and they provide very little useful information about students’ mastery of the material (Wormeli, 2006). Grades should not be a hodgepodge of factors such as student’s level of effort, innate aptitude, compliance to rules, attendance, social behaviors, attitudes, or other nonachievement measures (Friedman and Frisbie, 2000). Even those who subscribe to the “punishment” theory of grading might want to reconsider the way they use zeros (Reeves, 2004). It is essential for students to do homework that is tied closely to learning objectives and for students to see those connections (Marzano, Pickering & Pollack, 2001). Grading practices that award a zero for late or incomplete work or poor academic integrity do not teach or motivate students. Giving students a zero for cheating is a quick punishment, but recording a zero in the gradebook does not give the student or teacher any information about what the student knows and is able to do. Transformative grading practices include a focus on learning, not behavior; meaningful feedback; and high-quality summative assessments (Erikson, 2011). If the grade is to represent how well students have learned, mastered established learning standards, or achieved specific learning goals, then the practice of assigning zeros clearly missed the mark. Students must be graded in terms of what they have learned and are able to do (Guskey, 2004).


Grading on the curve makes learning a highly competitive activity in which students compete against one another for the few scare rewards (high grades) distributed by the teacher. High grades are attained not through excellence in performance, but simply by doing better than one’s classmates. Grading on the curve denies students the opportunity to work together and to help each other attain valuable, shared learning goals. Grading on the curve communicates nothing about what students have learned or are able to do. Rather, it tells only a student’s relative standing among classmates, based on what are often ill-defined criteria (Guskey, 2000).

Recommendations

Quality assessment is critical to measuring student learning. When teachers assess for learning, they should utilize the information gained about student achievement to check on and advance learning. In the book, Assessment for Learning: An Action Guide for School Leaders, the authors indicate this is accomplished by utilizing nine principles, now referred to as the Nine Principles of Formative Assessment.

1. Understanding and articulating in advance of teaching the achievement targets that the students are to hit.

2. Informing their students about those learning goals in terms that students understand from the very beginning.

3. Becoming assessment literate so they can transform those expectations into assessment exercises and scoring procedures that accurately reflect student achievement.

4. Using classroom assessments to build student confidence in themselves as learners, helping them to take responsibility for their own learning so as to lay a foundation for lifelong learning.

5. Translating classroom assessment results into frequent, descriptive (versus judgmental) feedback for students providing them with specific insights regarding their strengths as well as how to improve.

6. Continuously adjusting instruction based on the results of classroom assessment. 7. Engaging students in regular self assessment with standards held consistent so

they can watch themselves grow over time and thus learn to become in charge of their own success.

8. Actively involving students in communicating with their teachers and their families about their achievement status and improvement.

9. Making sure students understand how the achievement target that they strive to hit now will relate to those that come after (Chappuis, Stiggins, Arter, & Chappuis, 2005).

With regards to quality grading practices, Ken O’Connor suggests fifteen fixes for

broken grades. These fifteen fixes are: 1. Don’t include student behaviors (effort, participation, adherence to class rules,

etc.) in grades; include only achievement. 2. Don’t reduce marks on “work submitted late; provide support for the learner.


3. Don’t give points for extra credit or use bonus points; seek only evidence that more work has resulted in a higher level of achievement.

4. Don’t punish academic dishonesty with reduced grades; apply other consequences and reassess to determine actual level of achievement.

5. Don’t consider attendance in grade determination; report absences separately. 6. Don’t include group scores in grades; use only individual achievement evidence. 7. Don’t organize information in grading records by assessment methods or simply

summarize into a single grade; organize and report evidence by standard/learning goals.

8. Don’t assign grades using inappropriate or unclear performance standards; provide clear descriptions of achievement expectations.

9. Don’t assign grades based on student’s achievement compared to other students; compare each student’s performance to preset standards.

10. Don’t rely on evidence gathered using assessments that fail to meet standards of quality; rely only on quality assessments.

11. Don’t rely only on the mean; consider other measures of central tendency and use professional judgment.

12. Don’t include zeros in grade determination when evidence is missing or as punishment; use alternatives, such as reassessing to determine real achievement or use “I” for Incomplete or Insufficient Evidence.

13. Don’t use information from formative assessments and practice to determine grades; use only summative evidence.

14. Don’t summarize evidence accumulated over time when learning is developmental and will grow with time and repeated opportunities; in those instances, emphasize more recent achievement.

15. Don’t leave students out of the grading process. Involve students; they can—and should—play key roles in assessment and grading that promote achievement (O'Connor, 2008)

Additional recommendations for the utilization of quality grading practices comes from the work of James McMillian. According to his work, teachers should do the following:

1. Grade according to pre-established learning targets and standards. 2. Grade fairly. 3. Use reasonable and justified professional judgment. 4. Base grades primarily on student performance on assessments of targets and

standards. 5. Review borderline scores carefully; when in doubt, give the higher grade. 6. Use a sufficient number of assessments (at least once a week). 7. Rely most on recent student performance. 8. Have a clear, well-articulated grading policy. 9. Be willing to change grades when warranted. 10. Minimize the impact of zeros.

He goes even further and indicates that teachers should not do the following:

1. Grade on the curve.


2. Allow personal bias to affect grades. 3. Rely entirely on number crunching. 4. Use effort, attitudes, encouragement, participation, and other academic enablers

as major sources for determining grades. 5. Be inflexible about borderline cases. 6. Use a small number of assessments. 7. Penalize students who perform poorly early in the marking period by making it

difficult for them to obtain a high grade. 8. Be inflexible and resistant to changing grades. 9. Use zeros indiscriminately when calculating composite scores (McMillian, 2008).


References

Aidman, B. J., Gates, J. M., & Sims, E. A. (2000). Building A Better Report Card. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principal's. Allen, J. D. (May/June 2005). Grades As Valid Measures of Academic Achievement of Classroom Learning. The Clearing House , 218-222. Anderson, J. O., Bachor, D., & Baer, M. (2001). Using Portfolio Assessment to Study Classroom Assessment Practice. Seattle, WA: American Educational Research Association. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 80 (2) pp.139-148. Briggs, D. C., & Weeks, J. P. (Winter 2009). The Impact of Vertical Scaling Decisions on Growth Interpretation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice; Vol. 28, No. 4 , 3-14. Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Exploring Formative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burke, K. (2010). Balanced Assessment from Formative to Summative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Carifio, J., & Carey, T. (2010). Do Minimum Grading Practices Lower Academic Standards and Produce Social Promotions? Educational HORIZONS , 219-230. Carlson, L. (2003). Beyond Assessment to Best Grading Practices: Practical Guidelines. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (January 2008). The Best Value in Formative Assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4) , 14-18. Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Assessment FOR Learning: An Action Guide for School Leaders. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute. Erikson, J. A. (February 2011). A Call to Action: Transforming Grading Practices. Principal Leadership , 42-46. Erikson, J. A. (March 2010). Grading Practices: The Third Rail. Principal Leadership , 22-26. Flynn, L.-A. (April 2008). In Praise of Performance-based Assessments: A Teacher's Outlook on Testing is Changed After Students are Assessed Through Hands-on Tasks. Science and Children , 32-35. Fogarty, R. J., & Kerns, G. M. (2009). Informative Assessment: When It's Not About a Grade. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


Gorskey, T. (2009). Teachers' Views of Crucial Grading and Reporting Issues. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association. Greenstein, L. (2010). What Teachers Really Need to Know about Formative Assessments. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision of Curriculum Development. Guskey, T. (October 2004). 0 Alternatives. Curriculum and Instruction , 49-53. Guskey, T. (December 2000). Grading Policies that Work Against Standards...And How to Fix Them. NASSP Bulletin; Vol. 84 No 620 , 20-27. Guskey, T. R. (2006). "It Wasn't Fair!" Educators' Recollection of Their Experiences as Students with Grading. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association. Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hamilton, L. S. (Winter 2010-2011). Testing What Has Been Taught: Helpful, High-Quality Assessments Start With Strong Curriculum. American Editor , 47-52. Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., & Silver, D. (2010). Capturing Quality in Formative Assessment Practice: Measurement Challenges. Los Angeles, CA: The Regents of University of California. Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative Assessment & Standards-Based Grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. W. (2008). Making Standards Useful in the Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development . Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and Assessing Educational Objectives: Applying the New Taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McMillan, J. H. (2008). Assessment Essentials for Standards-based Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary Teacher's Classroom Assessment and Grading Practices. The Journal of Education Research , 203-213.


McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., Workman, D., & University, V. C. (March/April 2002). Elementary Teachers' Classroom Assessment and Grading Practices. Journal of Educational Research; Vol. 95, No. 4 , 203-213. McMillian, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000). Teacher Classroom Assessment and Grading Practices Decision Making. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. O'Connor, K. (2008). 15 Fixes for Broken Grades. Repair Kit for Grading , 14-15. Olsen, S. J., & Shields-Ramsey, P. (2010). Learning 360 Framework Participants Guide: Creating a Powerful Learning System. Midvale, UT: School Improvement Network, Inc. Olsen, S., & Blandford, L. (2009). TARGETS: Quality Learning in the Classroom. Midvale, UT: School Improvement Network. Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom Assessments: What Teachers Need to Know. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Popham, W. J. (2010). Everything School Leaders Need to Know About Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin . Popham, W. J. (2003). Test Better, Teach Better: The Instructional Role of Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth About Testing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (January/February 2009). Differences Between Teachers' Grading Practices in Elementary and Middle Schools. Journal of Educational Research; Vol. 103, No. 3 , 175-185. Reeves, D. B. (February 2008). Effective Grading Practices. Educational Leadership, Vol 65. No. 5 , 85-87. Reeves, D. (December 2004). Case Against the Zero. Phi Delta Kappan , 324-325. Reeves, D. (2008, February). Effective Grading Practices. Educational Leadership , pp. 85-87. Schaffner, M., Burry-Stock, J. A., Cho, G.-P., Boney, T., & Hamilton, G. (2000). What do Kids Think When Their Teachers Grade. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association . Scriffiny, P. L. (2008, October). Seven Reasons for Standards-Based Grading. Educational Leadership , pp. 70-74. Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2012). An Introduction To Student-Involved Assessment For Learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.


Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing It Right - Using It Well. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service. Tomlinson, C. A. (Summer 2005). Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice? Theory Into Practice; 44,3: ProQuest Education Journals , 262-269. Tomlinson, C. A. (March 2001). Grading for Success. Educational Leadership , 12-15. Tungate, M. (August 2010). Failing Grades: Miles Elementary Goes to Standards-based Grading. Kentucky Teacher; Vol. 11 , 1. Wormeli, R. (2006). Accountability: Teaching Through Assessment and Feedback, Not Grading. American Secondary Education 34(3) , 14-27.

Quality Assessment and Grading€¦ · One might even argue that grading may be a bit more complex...

Documents

Transcript of Quality Assessment and Grading€¦ · One might even argue that grading may be a bit more complex...