Being fair: Teachers' interpretations of principles for standards- based grading

Educational Forum

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 210-227

  Tierney, Robin D ^a   Simon, Marielle ^a   Charland, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Academic achievement; Classroom assessment; Educational standards; Evaluation; Fairness; Grades; Grading; Report cards; Secondary education; Teachers; Testing

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959495793     PISSN: 00131725     EISSN: 19388098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2011.577669     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Airasian, P. W. 2005. Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 1954. Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Anders, P., and V. Richardson. 1992. Teacher as game-show host, bookkeeper, or judge? Challenges, contradictions, and consequences of accountability. Teachers College Record 94(2): 382-96.
4. Biddle, S., and M. Goudas. 1997. Effort is virtuous: Teacher preferences of pupil effort, ability and grading in physical education. Educational Research 39(3): 350-55.
5. Bonesronning, H. 2004. Do the teachers' grading practices affect student achievement? Education Economics 12(2): 151-67.
6. Brookhart, S. M. 1991. Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10(1): 35-36.
7. Brookhart, S. M. 1993. Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement 30(2): 123-42.
8. Brookhart, S. M. 1994. Teachers' grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education 7(4): 279-301.
9. Brookhart, S. M. 2004. Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
10. Bursuck, W. D., D. D. Munk, and M. Olson. 1999. The fairness of report card grading adaptations: What do students with and without learning disabilities think? Remedial and Special Education 20(2): 84-92.
11. Cicmanec, K. B. 2001. High school mathematics teachers: Grading practice and pupil control ideology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 10-14, Seattle, WA.
12. Cross, L. H., and R. B. Frary. 1996. Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 9-11, New York.
13. Dalbert, C., U. Schneidewind, and A. Saalbach. 2007. Justice judgments concerning grading in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32(3): 420-33.
14. Delandshere, G., and J. H. Jones. 1999. Elementary teachers' beliefs about assessment in mathematics: A case of assessment paralysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 14(3): 216-40.
15. Duncan, C. R., and B. Noonan. 2007. Factors affecting teachers' grading and assessment practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 53(1): 1-21.
16. Eggen, A. B. 2004. Alfa and omega in student assessment: Exploring identities of secondary school science teachers. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo. Available at: www.ils.uio.no/forskning/pdh-drgrad/doktoravhanlinger/docs/AstridEggenAvhandling1.pdf.
17. Gipps, C. 1999. Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In Review of research in education, eds. A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson, 24: 355-92. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
18. Green, S., R. L. Johnson, D. H. Kim, and N. S. Pope. 2007. Ethics in classroom assessment practices: Issues and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education 2(7): 999-1011.
19. Guskey, T. R. 2000. Grading policies that work against standards... and how to fix them. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 84(620): 20-29.
20. Guskey, T. R. 2005. Stability and change in high school grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 11-15, Montreal, Canada.
21. Guskey, T. R. 2006. It wasn't fair! Educators' recollections of their experiences as students with grading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 7-11, San Francisco, CA.
22. Guskey, T. R. 2009. Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
23. Guskey, T. R., and L. A. Jung. 2009. Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment: Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into Practice 48(1): 53-62.
24. Guskey, T. R., G. M. Swan, and L. A. Jung. 2010. Developing a statewide, standards-based student report card: A review of the Kentucky initiative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 30-May 4, Denver, CO.
25. Hargreaves, A., L. Earl, and M. Schmidt. 2002. Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal 39(1): 69-95.
26. Howley, A., P. S. Kusimo, and L. Parrott. 2000. Grading and the ethos of effort. Learning Environments Research 3(3): 229-46.
27. Hunter, D., C. Mayengab, and T. Gambell. 2006. Classroom assessment tools and uses: Canadian English teachers' practices for writing. Assessing Writing 11(1): 42-65.
28. Joint Advisory Committee. 1993. Principles for fair student assessment practices for education in Canada. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta. Available at: www2. education.ualberta.ca/educ/psych/crame/files/eng_prin.pdf.
29. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 2003. The student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students, ed. A. Gullickson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
30. Laucius, J. 2009. Students aren't failing, but system is, teachers say. The Ottawa Citizen, April 22: A1-A2.
31. McMillan, J. H. 2001. Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 20(1): 20-32.
32. McMillan, J. H. 2003. Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 22(4): 34-43.
33. McMillan, J. H. 2004. Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective instruction, 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
34. McMillan, J. H. 2009. Synthesis of issues and implications for practice. In Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading, ed. T. R. Guskey, 105-20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
35. McMillan, J. H., and S. R. Lawson. 2001. Secondary science teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.
36. McMillan, J. H., and S. Nash. 2000. Teacher classroom assessment and grading practices decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 25-27, New Orleans, LA.
37. O'Connor, K. 2002. How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
38. Ontario College of Teachers. 2008. Foundations of professional practice. Toronto, Canada: Author. Available at: www.oct.ca/publications/PDF/foundation_e.pdf.
39. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2005. The Ontario curriculum grades 9 and 10: Mathematics. Toronto, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Available at: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math.html.
40. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2008. Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting: Improving student learning. Toronto, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
41. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2010a. Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario schools (first edition, covering grades 1 to 12). Toronto, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Available at: www.edu.gove.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/success.html.
42. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2010b. Quick facts: Ontario schools, 2007-2008. Toronto, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Available at: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/quickfacts/2007-08/quickFacts07_08.pdf.
43. Resh, N. 2009. Justice in grades allocation: Teachers' perspective. Social Psychology of Education 12(3): 315-25.
44. Resh, N., and C. Dalbert. 2007. Gender differences in sense of justice about grades: A comparative study of high school students in Israel and Germany. Teachers College Record 109(2): 322-42.
45. Rex, L. A. 2005. Testing as shaping: A response to "The idea of testing: Psychometric and sociocultural perspectives. " Measurement 3(2): 103-07.
46. Rich, R. H. 2002. Hidden factors in teachers' secondary grading practices. Proquest Digital Dissertations UMI No. AAT 3036925.
47. Shepard, L. 2006. Classroom assessment. In Educational measurement, 4th ed., ed. R. L. Brennan, 623-46. Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education, American Council on Education, and Praeger.
48. Silva, M., D. D. Munk, and W. D. Bursuck. 2005. Grading adaptations for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic 41(2): 87-98.
49. Stiggins, R., D. Frisbie, and P. Griswold. 1989. Inside high school: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 8(2): 5-14.
50. Suurtamm, C., and B. Graves. 2007. Curriculum implementation intermediate math: Research report. Available at: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/studentsuccess/lms/files/CIIMResearchReport2007. pdf.
51. Tomlinson, C. A. 2005. Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory Into Practice 44(3): 262-69.
52. WordNet 3.0. 2006. Princeton, NJ: Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University. Available at: http://wordnet.princeton.edu.
53. Yip, D. Y., and D. Cheung. 2005. Teachers' concerns on school-based assessment of practical work. Journal of Biological Education 39(4): 156-62.
54. Yung, B. H. W. 2001. Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology. International Journal of Science Education 23(10): 985-1005.
55. Zoeckler, L. G. 2005. Moral dimensions of grading in high school English. Proquest Digital Dissertations UMI No. AAT3183500.