Transcript Grades and Motivation - College of Education at California State

Classroom Grades: ‘Keeping Hope Alive’
1
K E N I B R AY T O N C O X
F E B R U A RY 1 6 . 2 0 11
C A L I F O R N I A S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y, F U L L E R T O N
Cox, K. (In Press). Putting classroom grading on the table: A
reform in progress. American Secondary Education Journal.
A boy named Manual
2
Traditional Grading Practices
3
Tendency to do to our students what was done
to us (Graham, 2005)
 Competitive, zero-sum game with grades
used as leverage
 System of rewards and punishments
 A “hodgepodge” of factors which may differ
considerably from teacher to teacher
Significance of the study
4
 Reform in grading lags behind other reforms
necessary for standards-based practice.
(e.g., Guskey, 2009; McMillan, 2001; Stiggins, 2005)
 Grades affect student motivation and sense
of self efficacy
(Brookhart, 2004; Carifo & Carey,
2009;DeLisle & Hargis, 2003; Reeves, 2004; Stiggins, 1999)
Ending the Cycle of Predictability
5
Academic success and high school
completion continue to be
statistically predictable based on
color, class and language.
Background
6
 18 month study of an urban secondary
school district in reform (2006 – 2008)
 Majority
Hispanic
 >60% SED
 20% English learners
 Common assessments and course-alike data
meetings previously institutionalized
Districtwide Initiative: Grading Reform
7
Purpose: To establish new norms for grading,
norms to support the learning and improve
the academic success of students at risk
Goal: To close the achievement gap by
keeping hope alive while holding students
accountable
Motivation
8
”hope and optimism in a given situation and
relative to a given problem have been shown
to be strong determiners of both motivation
and achievement” (Carifo & Carey, 2009)
Accountability
9
 “We want to keep the hope there for the kids…it’s
hard to motivate them without hope and they are
looking for excuses not to do anything.” (Al)
Reforms in Grading
10
1. Consistency among course-alike teachers—
2. Acceptance of “late” work, no penalty
3. Minimum 50% F—elimination of the zero
4. Test-retake policy—permitting students to
retake tests for full credit
Focus: Non- traditional Grading
Practice
11
Grading practices of a group of
classroom teachers – pioneers in
grading reform
1.
2. What they have to say about what
they do and why
Focus: Practices and rationale of the “reformed graders”
12
Reported practices of high implementer focus group
Focus
Group
7 Algebra I
Teachers
Course Alike
Agreement
YES
Minimum
50%
“F”
YES
Test Retake
Policy
YES
Full Credit
“pioneers”
Late Work
Policy
YES
What they said
13
Consistency in Grading
14
“Before …students would complain that if they
got teacher A, they could get an A, but if they
had teacher B, they’d only get a C…it wasn’t
fair for the students. [Now] they’re pretty
much going to end up getting a similar
grade.” (Cal)
Consistency in Grading
15
“Before, you might have felt you were giving a
grade as to what you felt was important so it
was teacher to teacher…but with common
assessments there needs to be an agreement
as to what we want the students to
understand…”(Jesus)
On late work policy…
16
“I realized I had given my kids a test and some
had done quite well [but] they had really
poor grades…because they weren’t doing the
busy work, the homework…I asked myself,
‘what are my grades reflective of?’ (Stan)
And..
17
“We all make mistakes. You have more than
one chance to learn.” (Al)
Rachel: “These are kids who are still building
their confidence and figuring out like who
they are…”
50% Minimum F
18
“The thing is, we want to keep the
hope there for the kid. It’s very
important. It’s hard to motivate
them to do anything without
hope” (James)
50% Minimum F
19
“Once a kid gives up, you can’t get through to
them; they don’t come to school; they come
late” (Jesus)
“It’s still an F, but it does give the kid the
opportunity to get out of the basement and
get a passing grade [in the class]” (Cal)
Another thing,
20
“It’s also hope for the teacher…when you
have too many students who get an F,
who are on the bottom, it’s pretty hard
to motivate” (Jesus)
Re-testing
21
“We know we can definitely drop the ball on
certain topics and we don’t want our
students to pay the price for that; and if
there is something I totally misjudged or I
assumed the kids would get quickly and they
don’t, a retest is a fair opportunity to make
up for that.” (Cynthia)
And,
22
 “Do I care when they learn it? NO. I
just want them to learn it. For some
kids it takes more time.” (Michelle)
 “The assessment is really to help the kid
to learn…testing without penalty.” (all)
The Rest of the Story
23
Traditional graders also have a story to tell..
Equally passionate and committed
Believe they are doing the “right” thing
Implications
24
Need to put “classroom grading on the table”
 What is the purpose of grades?
 What should grades convey?
 To whom?
What should be the purpose and nature of
schooling?
Limitations
25

“Putting Classroom Grading on the Table: A
Reform in Progress” – status check only

One district and 15 teachers within that district

Mathematics over represented
References
26
Brookhart, S. (1994). Teacher grading: Practices and theory. Applied Measurement in Education. 7 (4),
279-301.
Brookhart, S. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in theory and practice.
Teacher College Record, 106(3), 429-456.
Carifio, J.& Carey, T. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy
recommendations. The High School Journal, 93(1), 23-37.
Crooks, T.J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational
Research, 58(4), 438-481.
DeLisle, R. & Hargis, J. ( 2003 ). The big fish. Education, 125(4), 702-705.
Docan, T.N. (2006)). Positive and negative incentives in the classroom: An analysis of grading systems
and student motivation. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 21-40.
References (cont.)
27

Graham, P. (2005) Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice
through preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607-621.
Guskey, T. R. (Ed.) (2009). Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based
grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McMillan, J.H. (2001) Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading
practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
1, 20-32.
Stiggins, R.J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path
to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4), 324-328.
Retrieved February 11 from Academic Search Premiere database.
28
Keni Brayton Cox, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Department of Educational Leadership
657 278 5663
[email protected]