Extracted and repurposed from Walvoord, B.E. and V. J. Anderson. 2010. Effective Grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Model #1 Weighted Letter Grades
Test average
Field project
Final exam
Class participation
0%
30%
20%
10%
- Underlying pedagogical assumption
- Each kind of performance is distinct from the other
- Valued differentially in calculating final evaluation
- Implications
- Variances of performance within each kind of performance are erased/minimized
- A student with a high F on test average has F as 40% of the grade; same as a student with a low F
- Different kinds of strengths are valued differently
- Very best class participator can only slightly influence his/her overall grade by a stellar performance; very best field project researcher can much more heavily influence his or her final grade
- Averaging implies that all tests average equally into the 40% of the grade
- May be developmental progression, where you give low weight to early tests and higher weight to later tests or to the final, but the system doesn’t imply this progression
- Variances of performance within each kind of performance are erased/minimized
Model #2: Accumulated Points
Tests
Field Project
Final exam
Class participation
0-40 points
0-30 points
0-20 points
0-10 points
Grade scale
92-100 points
85-91 points
76-84 points
69-75 points
<=68 points
= A
= B
= C
= D
= F
- Underlying pedagogical assumption
- Good/poor performance in one area can be offset by work in other areas
- Implications
| Student One | Student Two | |
|---|---|---|
| Tests (possible 40 points) | 25 points | 15 points |
| Field project (possible 30) | 25 points | 25 points |
| Exam (possible 20) | 15 points | 15 points |
| Class participation (possible 10) | 5 points | 15 points |
| Total | 70 points | 60 points |
- Both did poorly on tests (in weighted letter grade system, they get the same course grade), but student 1 got more on the tests than student 2, giving him/her enough to pass the course. Not so for student 2.
- If offered 120 points in the categories, but 92-100 still an A, student who earned maximum points in one area could greatly offset poor performance in another area
- Poor performance in beginning not crippling (developmental) if he/she earns enough points.
- Allows students to choose where to put their effort. Make them all at the beginning; catch up at the end.
Model #3: Definitional System
Course grade determined by meeting/exceeding the standards for each category of work: graded work and pass-fail work
Grade scale
| Final Course Grade | Must meet this standard on all graded work | Must meet this standard for all pass-fail work |
|---|---|---|
| A | A average | Pass for 90% or more of assignments/activities |
| B | B average | Pass for 83% or more of assignments/activities |
| C | C average | Pass for 75% or more of assignments/activities |
| D | D average | Pass for 65% or more of assignments/activities |
| Student met this standard on all graded work | Student met this standard for all pass-fail work | Student earned this Final course grade |
|---|---|---|
| A average | Pass for 65% or more of assignments/activities |
D (because D is the highest level at which she meets or exceeds the standards for both graded and pass-fail work) |
| Final Course Grade | Must meet this standard on all tests and exams | Must meet this standard for all lab reports |
|---|---|---|
| A | A average | B average |
| B | B average | C average |
| C | C average | D average |
| D | D average | D average |
- Underlying pedagogical assumption
- Each category of work is equally important; instructor doesn’t want one category to compensate for the other in any way. 2 distinct categories; teacher values both.
- i.e. being prepared for class/class participation is part of her definition of an A student
- Must be carefully explained; up front and possibly more than once
- Each category of work is equally important; instructor doesn’t want one category to compensate for the other in any way. 2 distinct categories; teacher values both.
- Implications
- If a student is brilliant in class but doesn’t come or comes unprepared, they can’t make an A
- Students’ class participation can’t raise their grade beyond what they are able to achieve in their graded work
Penalties/Extra Credit
Penalties Implications
- Place a premium on punishment for infractions, shows students the seriousness of the infraction
- Used for things you feel strongly about or that would carry a heavy penalty in the outside world
- Students may contest
- May be demoralizing; use with care; effort to convey respect to the student
- Extra Credit Implications
- Useful in compensating for failures in one area by extra work in another area
Grading on a curve
Introduces dynamics possibly harmful to learning
- Notion that:
- Grades (and the learning they’re supposed to represent) are a limited commodity dispensed by the teacher according to a formula
- Competition is created that encourages students to keep the other person from learning
- Learning is a demographic characteristic that will show statistical distribution in a sample pop
- Each class is a sample pop
- Teacher’s role focused on awarding limited number of grades by formula, rather than role that includes rewarding all learning with the grade it deserves
- Standards for a grade will be lowered to enable certain % to receive that grade.
- Alternative emphasis
- Learning often happens from collaboration within a community
- Want learners to help each other, contribute best ideas to class, work effectively in groups, believe classmates can be rewarded for excellent work
- Set standards for student work that represent your best judgment of what they need to know and can achieve
Download an activity and checklist to help you determine what important things you want your course grading to accomplish.
