Teaching more by grading less (or differently)

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 159-166

  Schinske, Jeffrey ^a   Tanner, Kimberly ^b  

^a De Anza College   (United States)

^b SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; EDUCATION; HISTORY; LEARNING; MOTIVATION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT; TEACHING;

EDUCATION, GRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; LEARNING; MOTIVATION; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 84901845937     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Allen D, Tanner K (2006). Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. Cell Biol Educ 5, 197-203.
2. Anderson VJ (2008). Grading. In: Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Bagg LH (1871). Four Years at Yale, New Haven, CT: Charles C. Chatfield.
4. Bean JC, Peterson D (1998). Grading classroom participation. New Direct Teach Learn 1998(74), 33-40.
5. Bloom BS (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Eval Comment 1(2), 1-11.
6. Bloom BS (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Brookhart S (2004). Grading, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
8. Brookhart SM (2008). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9. Brown University (2014). Brown's Grading System. http:// brown.edu/campus-life/support/careerlab/employers/employer-resources/browns-grading-system/browns-grading-system (accessed 19 February 2014).
10. Bull R, Stevens J (1979). The effects of attractiveness of writer and penmanship on essay grades. J Occup Psychol 52, 53-59.
11. Butler R (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. Br J Educ Psychol 58, 1-14.
12. Butler R, Nisan M (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. J Educ Psychol 78, 210.
13. Crisp BR (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students' subsequent submission of assessable work. Assess Eval High Educ 32, 571-581.
14. Crooks TJ (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Rev Educ Res 58, 438-481.
15. Cureton LW (1971). The history of grading practices. NCME Measurement in Educ 2(4), 1-8.
16. Dufresne RJ, Leonard WJ, Gerace WJ (2002). Making sense of students' answers tomultiple-choice questions. Phys Teach 40, 174-180.
17. Ebert-May D, Batzli J, Lim H (2003). Disciplinary research strategies for assessment of learning. Bioscience 53, 1221-1228.
18. Eells WC (1930). Reliability of repeated grading of essay type examinations. J Educ Psychol 21, 48.
19. Fajardo DM (1985). Author race, essay quality, and reverse discrimination. J Appl Social Psychol 15, 255-268.
20. Farrell MJ, Gilbert N (1960). A type of bias in marking examination scripts. Br J Educ Psychol 30, 47-52.
21. Finkelstein IE (1913). The Marking System in Theory and Practice, Baltimore:Warwick & York.
22. Freeman S et al. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. Cell Biol Educ 6, 132-139.
23. Freeman S, Parks JW (2010). How accurate is peer grading? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 482-488.
24. Grant D, Green WB (2013). Grades as incentives. Empirical Econom 44, 1563-1592.
25. Guskey TR (1994). Making the grade: what benefits student. Educ Leadership 52(2), 14-20.
26. Harter S (1978). Pleasure derived from challenge and the effects of receiving grades on children's difficulty level choices. Child Dev 49, 788-799.
27. Harvard University (1832). Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the University for the Academic Year 1830-1831 Cambridge, UK: E. W. Metcalf.
28. Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Stud High Educ 27, 53-64.
29. Humphreys B, Johnson RT, Johnson DW (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students' achievement in science class. J Res Sci Teach 19, 351-356.
30. Jaschik S (2009). Imagining College without Grades, www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/22/grades (accessed 20 February 2014).
31. Johnson V (2003). Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education, Secaucus, NJ: Springer.
32. Jonsson A, Svingby G (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev 2, 130-144.
33. Kitchen E, King SH, Robison DF, Sudweeks RR, Bradshaw WS, Bell JD (2006). Rethinking exams and letter grades: how much can teachers delegate to students? CBE Life Sci Educ 5, 270-280.
34. Kohn A (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
35. Los Angeles Times (2009). Study critiques schools over subjective grading. Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/04/nation/na-grading-policy4 (accessed 15 April 2014).
36. MacDonald RB (1991). Developmental students' processing of teacher feedback in composition instruction. Rev Res Dev Educ 8(5), 1-5.
37. Marble WO, Winne PH, Martin JF (1978). Science achievement as a function of method and schedule of grading. J Res Sci Teach 15, 433-440.
38. Meadows M, Billington L (2005). A review of the literature on marking reliability. Unpublished AQA report produced for the National Assessment Agency. http://archive.teachfind.com/qcda/ orderline.qcda.gov.uk/gempdf/184962531X/QCDA104983_review _of_the_literature_on_marking_reliability.pdf.
39. Meyer M (1908). The grading of students. Science 28, 243-250.
40. National Education Association (1971). Reporting pupil progress to parents. Res Bulletin 49 (October), 81-83.
41. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ 31, 199-218.
42. Oettinger GS (2002). The effect of nonlinear incentives on performance: evidence from "Econ 101. " Rev Econ Stat 84, 509-517.
43. Palmer B (2010). E Is for Fail, www.slate.com/articles/news_and _politics/explainer/2010/08/e_is_for_fail.html (accessed 19 February 2014).
44. Paxton M (2000). A linguistic perspective on multiple choice questioning. Assess Eval High Educ 25, 109-119.
45. Pulfrey C, Buchs C, Butera F (2011). Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: the mediating role of autonomous motivation. J Educ Psychol 103, 683.
46. Reddy YM, Andrade H (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 35, 435-448.
47. Rocca KA (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinary literature review. CommunEduc 59, 185-213.
48. Rogers WT, Harley D (1999). An empirical comparison of three-and four-choice items and tests: susceptibility to testwiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 59, 234-247.
49. Rojstaczer S, Healy C (2012). Where A is ordinary: the evolution of American college and university grading, 1940-2009. Teachers College Rec 114(7), 1-23.
50. Sadler PM, Good E (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educ Assess 11, 1-31.
51. Schneider J, Hutt E (2013). Making the grade: a history of the A-F marking scheme. J Curric Stud, 1-24.
52. Scouller K (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. High Educ 35, 453-472.
53. Seymour E, Hewitt N (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview.
54. Sinclair HK, Cleland JA (2007). Undergraduate medical students: who seeks formative feedback? Med Educ 41, 580-582.
55. Smallwood ML (1935). An Historical Study of Examinations and Grading Systems in Early American Universities: A Critical Study of the Original Records of Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, Mount Holyoke, and Michigan from Their Founding to 1900, vol. 24, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Spear M (1996). The influence of halo effects upon teachers' assessments of written work. Res Educ 1996(56), 85-86.
57. Spear MG (1984). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Res Sci Technol Educ 2, 55-60.
58. Stanger-Hall KF (2012). Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 294-306.
59. Starch D (1913). Reliability and distribution of grades. Science 38, 630-636.
60. Starch D, Elliott EC (1912). Reliability of the grading of high-school work in English. School Rev 20, 442-457.
61. Starch D, Elliott EC (1913). Reliability of grading work in mathematics. School Rev 21, 254-259.
62. Stiles E (1901). The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles. President of Yale College, New York: Scribner's.
63. Swinton OH (2010). The effect of effort grading on learning. Econ Educ Rev 29, 1176-1182.
64. Tobias S (1990). They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier, Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
65. Towns MH, RobinsonWR (1993). Student use of test-wiseness strategies in solving multiple-choice chemistry examinations. J Res Sci Teach 30, 709-722.
66. Wainer H, Thissen D (1993). Combining multiple-choice and constructed-response test scores: toward a Marxist theory of test construction. Appl Measure Educ 6, 103-118.
67. WeaverMR (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assess Eval High Educ 31, 379-394.
68. Weigle SC (1999). Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing 6, 145-178.
69. Weld LD (1917). A standard of interpretation of numerical grades. School Rev 25, 412-421.
70. Yale University (2013). Revised Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Grading. http://yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/ 2_Report%20from%20Ad%20Hoc%20Committee%20on%20Grading %5B2%5D.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014).
71. Zimmerman DW, Williams RH (2003). A new look at the influence of guessing on the reliability of multiple-choice tests. Appl Psychol Measure 27, 357-371.