From the grades profile we have created, this student is following teacher process, such as in doing homework, but is not learning what is required of the test. Many teachers would be sympathetic to the process and reward a high participation grade simply because the student ostensibly did what was asked, whether or not any learning was involved.
Tests necessarily contain some learning measurement, whether or not it was taught or if it was an explicit part of the content multiple choice measures reading and logic as much or more than content knowledge. It is not an indicator of a presence or absence of effective teaching! Look over the grade book, speak to the teacher, and discover what, really, is being measured. An A in homework does not mean learning is happening, especially in classes in which the teacher grades for compliance and not accuracy check it off for having something written on the page — yes, this goes on every day.
Hopefully the various categories of student measurement align, such as B in Homework, B on classwork, and B on tests. I have to say that a part from A- students, that kind of overall consistency in grade results are rare. Only the teacher can say what the teacher is measuring, and a good teacher will align grades with thoughtful feedback on actual student production. Grades measure a lot of things.
Parents, are you: — frustrated? No obligations, just good information. Grading standards in a course tend to fluctuate with the quality of each class of students. Standards are raised by the performance of a bright class and lowered by the performance of a less able group of students. Often a student's grade depends on who was in the class. There is usually a need to develop course "norms" which account for more than a single class performance.
Students of an instructor who is new to the course may be at a particular disadvantage since the reference group will necessarily be small and very possibly atypical compared with future classes. Comparisons with Established Standards Grades may be obtained by comparing a student's performance with specified absolute standards rather than with such relative standards as the work of other students.
In this grading method, the instructor is interested in indicating how much of a set of tasks or ideas a student knows, rather than how many other students have mastered more or less of that domain. A "C" in an introductory statistics class might indicate that the student has minimal knowledge of descriptive and inferential statistics. A much higher achievement level would be required for an "A.
There are no quotas in each grade category. It is possible in a given class that all students could receive an "A" or a "B. Most students, if they work hard enough and receive adequate instruction, can obtain high grades. The focus is on achieving course goals, not on competing for a grade. Final course grades reflect achievement of course goals. The grade indicates "what" a student knows rather than how well he or she has performed relative to the reference group. Students do not jeopardize their own grade if they help another student with course work.
Some Disadvantages of Grading Based on Comparison to Absolute Standards It is difficult and time consuming to determine what course standards should be for each possible course grade issued. The instructor has to decide on reasonable expectations of students and necessary prerequisite knowledge for subsequent courses. Inexperienced instructors may be at a disadvantage in making these assessments.
A complete interpretation of the meaning of a course grade cannot be made unless the major course goals are also available. Comparisons Based on Learning Relative to Improvement and Ability The following two comparisons--with improvement and ability--are sometimes used by instructors in grading students.
There are such serious philosophical and methodological problems related to these comparisons that their use is highly questionable for most educational situations. Relative to Improvement. Students' grades may be based on the knowledge and skill they possess at the end of a course compared to their level of achievement at the beginning of the course. Large gains are assigned high grades and small gains are represented by low grades.
Students who enter a course with some pre-course know-ledge are obviously penalized; they have less to gain from a course than does a relatively naive student. The post test-pretest gain score is more error-laden, from a measurement perspective, than either of the scores from which it is derived.
Though growth is certainly important when assessing the impact of instruction, it is less useful as a basis for determining course grades than end-of-course competence. The value of grades which reflect growth in a college-level course is probably minimal. Relative to Ability. Course grades might represent the amount students learned in a course relative to how much they could be expected to learn as predicted from their measured academic ability.
Students with high ability scores e. When grades are based on comparisons with predicted ability, an "overachiever" and an "underachiever" may receive the same grade in a particular course, yet their levels of competence with respect to the course content may be vastly different.
The first student may not be prepared to take a more advanced course, but the second student may be. A course grade may, in part, reflect the amount of effort the instructor believes a student has put into a course. The high ability students who can satisfy course requirements with minimal effort are penalized for their apparent "lack" of effort. Since the letter grade alone does not communicate such information, the value of ability-based grading does not warrant its use. A single course grade should represent only one of the several grading comparisons noted above.
To expect a course grade to reflect more than one of these comparisons is too much of a communication burden. Instructors who wish to communicate more than relative group standing, or subject matter competence or level of effort, must find additional ways to provide such information to each student.
Suggestions for doing so are noted near the end of Section V of this booklet. Grading policies of the department, college, or campus may limit the grading procedures which can be used and force a basic grading philosophy on each instructor in that administrative unit. Departments often have written statements which specify a method of assigning grades and meanings of grades. If such grading policies are not explicitly stated or written for faculty use, the percentages of A's, B's, C's, D's, and E's given by departments and colleges in their level, level, level and graduate courses may be indicative of implicitly stated grading policies.
In practice grade distributions vary by department, by college and over time within each of these units. The grading standards of a department or college are usually known by other campus units. For example, a "B" in a required course given by Department X might indicate that the student probably is not a qualified candidate for graduate school in that or a related field.
Or, a "B" in a required course given by Department Y might indicate that the student's knowledge is probably adequate for the next course. Grades in certain "key" courses may also be interpreted as a sign of a student's ability to continue work in the field. The faculty member who is uninformed about the grading grapevine may unwittingly make misleading statements about a student and also misinterpret information received.
If an instructor's grading pattern differs markedly from others in the department or college and the grading is not being done in special classes e. For example, the department and instructor may be using different grading standards, course structure may seem to require a grading plan which differs from departmental guidelines, or the instructor and department may hold different ideas about the function of grading. Usually in such cases, a satisfactory grading plan can be worked out.
A grade should communicate something important about a student. It should measure subject mastery, growth, or another element that a teacher deems useful. At same time, measuring analytic reasoning or reading comprehension is inherently subjective and complex. Without direct measures, teachers rely on indirect evidence such as tests, assignments, and observations.
This challenge is not unique to education. Psychometrics, the science of measuring mental capacities, has struggled with it for decades. In response to these challenges, psychometrics developed a concept of validity. Educators already employ a variety of strategies to alleviate grade validity concerns, but psychometrics offers some insights that may further strengthen these efforts. Here are three steps, derived from those insights, that can improve the validity of grades.
Educators will have their own answer to this question, and their institutions may define or limit their answer, but a clear construction of the intended meaning creates a useful reference point for assessment.
0コメント