DAET - Grades and grading

By Tom Bird

Grading is both an important element of course design and a potentially vexing topic for instructors as well as teacher candidates and interns. This page includes both strategic advice and specific examples.

We do NOT grade (or teach) in fear

An instructor might fear that a teacher candidate or intern might file a grievance with the TE Department or a suit in a court. If the instructor has been doing her/his job, that fear is baseless. MSU policy puts instructors--of all ranks--in a very strong formal position. Specifically, see Article 2 of Academic Freedom for Students at MSU. There is only one ground on which a student can formally grieve a grade: The instructor did not give the grade in good faith. I can count on my left hand the number of times that has happened in the last decade. If it happens to a DAET instructor, I will be there, too. I know of one suit in that same period; MSU lawyers accompanied the instructor to court and the judge promptly threw out the case.

An instructor might fear a searing confrontation with a teacher candidate or intern who has adopted the stance of an aggrieved customer in a department store, and is threatening to complain to the Dean or a higher MSU official. If the instructor has been doing her/his job, that fear is baseless. Together, Article 2 of Academic Freedom for Students at MSU and the TE Department's policy for handling disputes between students and instructors make it perfectly clear that the student (a) does not know what s/he is talking about, (b) probably is violating the TE Department's Professional Conduct Policy for teacher candidates and interns and/or the elementary program's Criteria for Progression to the Internship, and (c) seems to have adopted a posture that is likely to lead to immediate or gradual failure in the preparation program. For that student's own sake, s/he should be referred to the aforementioned policies and asked to read them before s/he says something s/he will regret. If the instructor cannot accomplish that much then and there, the instructor should call in a team coordinator to assist. The student is in peril.

An instructor might fear that teacher candidates or interns who are disappointed with their grades will give the instructor low ratings on the Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS) surveys at the end of the semester. Curious about the matter myself, I quickly poked about and found a recent review of studies of the matter. It reported only weak (.10-.30) relationships between grades instructors gave and ratings they received from their students (Algozzine, et al., 2004). To me, it does not appear that we need to worry much about this. And it might help to recall for that for every student whom we might irritate by awarding a disappointing grade, there probably are two or three students whom we might irritate by awarding unearned grades to other students.

An instructor might fear that her/his approach to grading could undermine either the working relationships that s/he is trying to build with teacher candidates or interns, or undermine the assignments and work of the course, or both. This concern is part and parcel of the problem of designing a course. "Aligning a course ...," below addresses that matter.

We do not grade in fear. That fear-less attitude, shared among us, is a part of the resolution of the issue.

Top

Three ways to practice grading

So far, in my own practice, I have identified three main ways to practice grading, or to think about grading. Each has implications for instruction:

Grades could be estimates of the merits of teacher candidates' and interns' performances and products. In grades, we say whether a performance or product is good, bad, or indifferent, as soundly and fairly as we can. What do we say is good about work, and why? Following sections will address this question.

Grades could be a medium of exchange. We could give or withhold grades in order to get work from teacher candidates. In this narrow view, the central problem for the instructor is the rate of exchange--what do I get for what I give? And how does that compare with the rates of exchange with other instructors? But there also should be a broader view: What part might grades play in a general strategy for motivating teacher candidates and interns to learn to teach? A following section addresses this matter.

Grades could be a mode of communication. By way of grades, we talk to teacher candidates and interns about their current work and its relationship to the demands they will face in teaching. Collectively, elementary teacher candidates come into the program with GPAs on the order of 3.4. However, they are not likely to generate 4.0 teaching performances for some years, if ever. More nearly, they will face the usual problems of new teachers. How do we talk to them about that, in the language of grades?

Top

What the numbers must mean, if MSU and program policies guide us

As MSU instructors, we are obliged to take cues from existing MSU and program policies. In general, MSU undergraduates can get credit for a course with a grade of 1.0, and can graduate with a GPA of 2.0 (unless their college or department sets higher standards).  The TE program requires teacher candidates to earn a minimum of 2.0 in every TE course, and a cumulative average of 2.5 for the undergraduate TE course sequence. At the high end, honors are conferred on graduates who earn GPAs of 3.5 and above, and high honors on those who earn GPA's of 3.8 and above. In that context, the numbers must mean something like this:

  • 1.0 = Inadequate (but creditable) work.
  • 2.0 = Adequate work
  • 3.0 = Strong work (what we aim to help all to acheive, if they can, and will try)
  • 4.0 = Excellent work (work worthy of high honors)

The program requirements are saying that teacher candidates must do at least adequate work in every course (2.0) and must do somewhat better than adequate work (2.5) overall. An instructor who graded in such a way that 2.0 means "inadequate" would be overriding the requirement.

Top

How the numbers apply to the work

The numbers and labels acquire specific meaning only in relation to particular work, where some statement of expectations--or better, a rating rubric that provides teacher candidates a model of assessment--specifically and helpfully describes the work that is adequate, strong, or excellent. In general, we would want the rubrics to relate the grades either directly to aspects of teaching practice, or to other attributes of the work that arguably make it valuable to one who is preparing to teach.

The table below is an example of an attempt to describe what is wanted in all of the work of a course, including attendance. The grades 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 would used when, in the instructor's estimate, the quality of the work falls between the descriptions provided. A more specific rubric for rating a series of case-writing assignments also is provided as suggestion of what might be done in relation to a given assignment.

Number

Description

4.0

Excellent work. Uses and integrates readings, classroom discussions, and field experiences (where appropriate) to inform the writing. Meets all the requirements of the assignment, is deeply thoughtful, and provides many details and examples to support the arguments made. Work has minimal errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Misses no classes during the semester.

3.0

Strong work. Uses many readings, classroom discussions, and field experiences (where appropriate) to inform the writing. Meets all the requirements of the assignment, is thoughtful and provides some details and examples to support writing. Very few errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling. Misses no more than one class during the semester and makes up all work that is missed.

2.0

Adequate work. Uses some readings, classroom discussions, and field experiences to inform writing. Meets all requirements of assignment, shows attempt to engage with purposes of assignment, provides details and examples to support writing. Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation. Misses no more than two classes during the semester and makes up all work that is missed.

1.0

Inadequate work. Does not include appropriate references to relevant readings, class discussions, and field experiences to inform writing. Does not meet all requirements of assignment. Limited attempt to engage with purposes of assignment, few details and examples to support writing. Many errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Top

The special case of TE 401/2

In each of these courses, two instructors must coordinate to assign one grade for the course. They need to be clear with the teacher candidates how they will do that. Here is a guideline, drawn from the page of DAET's items for syllabi: In order to pass this section of TE 40X, each subject matter must be passed with a 2.0 or above. Also, a satisfactory report must be received from the teachers in the field experiences during TE 40X.  If you receive less than a 2.0 in either subject matter section of this course, the lower grade will be the final grade for the course.  The entire course would need to be repeated in order to continue in the Teacher Preparation Program.

Top

Grading in the intern year

The high stakes of the intern year (or high perceived stakes, which probably have the same effect) can make grading a particularly challenging project, as lifelong students whose identities may be based in some large part on their GPAs enter into the role of teacher, and so can easily confuse the matter of grading with the matter of learning to teach. Here is a statement of the Team practice.

Top

Grading in relation to motivation

Mastery and performance goal orientations. We want teacher candidates to adopt a mastery goal orientation (learning what is there to be learned) rather than a performance goal orientation (getting through the course with the grade one wants). We want that because the mastery goal orientation tends to induce deep processing that leads to considerable cognitive reorganization and retention, while the performance orientation tends to promote shallow processing, little learning,and little retention. (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, 1993). At the extreme, the performance goal orientation tends to produce a condition of cyclical amnesia, in which it appears that a teacher candidate in a given course had not taken the course that preceded it. 

A question that should not be to be answered as asked. Teacher candidates reveal a performance goal orientation when they ask the question, "What do you (instructor) want on this assignment?" The question declares that "good work" is a matter of an instructor's whim, as distinct from the instructor's informed professional judgment about work that will help candidates to progress toward good teaching. So, the question should not be answered as asked. Rather, we need to help the teacher candidates to get into a position where they can reason about the matter for themselves--or at least understand the instructor's reasoning. So, the question should be reformulated: "Let's recall how this assignment is intended to help you move toward good teaching..."

Instruction and goal orientations . Several instructional conditions influence the goal orientation that learners adopt.  These include the authenticity of course activity, relative to teaching; provision to learners of a degree of (bounded) choice and influence in their activity; and various considerations of authority and power, which prominently include grading.  The grading practice can force learners to adopt a performance goal orientation. (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, 1993)

Top

Aligning a course to manage grading and its effects

Many conversations with other instructors persuade me that there is an advanced practice, in which the the performance-for-grade exchange is embedded into the approach to the course as a whole. Here is my attempt to summarize the practice:

1. Design of assignments. Specifically design course assignments that, if the candidates undertake them with a mastery goal orientation, would tend to help teacher candidates move, in particular ways, toward successful teaching.  This might also be a way for the instructor to become, in teacher candidates' eyes, someone from whom they can learn something about teaching and learning.

2.  Rationales for assignments. For each assignment, teach explicit rationales and demonstrations that tend to show how undertaking the assignment from a mastery orientation probably will move teacher candidates toward successful teaching in particular ways.  It might be necessary to demonstrate something about teaching first, in order to make the case for the assignment.  We cannot assume that teacher candidates will see for themselves how the assignment could move them to successful teaching; probably, the most nearly correct generalization is that many of them will not see for themselves.

3.  Rating rubrics. For each assignment, construct a well-organized and printed evaluation rubric that emphasizes, describes, and analyzes those qualities of the response to the assignment that are most likely to constitute, or to move teacher candidates toward, successful teaching.   It may be desirable to engage the teacher candidates in constructing the rubric.  At least, explain, model, demonstrate, and scaffold the qualities of the work laid out in the rubric.  We cannot assume that they will get it by themselves.

4.  Teaching, modeling, labeling. In all course activity, look for ways to label, demonstrate, practice, and discuss the qualities of work described in the rubrics for assignments, and to link those qualities to other experiences in or related to the course.  Think of the qualities in the rubric as habits of mind that are practiced in a variety of contexts.  Often enough, explicitly label those qualities or habits of mind as they appear in different contexts. We cannot assume that candidates will get it by themselves.

5. Opportunities to perform. In normal course activity, create opportunities--questions, small group tasks--for teacher candidates to enact the qualities of work and habits of mind described in the assignments and rubrics.  Watch what they do in those opportunities, to see how it's going.  If it's not going, it is reasonable to point to missed opportunities.

6. Applying rubrics. Apply the rubrics to the assignments systematically and visibly.  For example, photocopy the rubric to mark and write notes on as feedback to each teacher candidate.  To the whole class, comment on the range of work you saw, in relation to the rubric, noting progress and stuff to work on. 

7.  Fidelity in grading. Approach the use and marking of the rubrics as an act of loyalty (some say "fidelity") to the teacher candidates, to the students they might teach, and to your colleagues who will work with them later in the program.  If you are carrying out this approach, and marking the rubric leads to the conclusion that the grade is 1.0, the teacher candidate really needs to know that.  Withholding that information by fudging the grade would be an act of disloyalty--to the teacher candidate, to subsequent instructors who have to cope with a person who's been given a bye, and to children the candidate might one day teach.

8.  Provide opportunities to revise.  Possibilities: Promote study groups that help each other with assignments. Have candidates bring drafts a week before due date and design a small group task in which they help each other to rate the drafts against the rubric.  Within limits of time and energy, and guided by some principle of justice, provide opportunities for revision after you have marked and rated the work.  Consider repeating high-gain assignments so that candidates can repeat the same genres and pursue their virtues.  In general, a few comments followed by revision is better than many comments with no opportunity or support to act on them.

Top

---------

Algozzine, B., Beattie, J., Bray,M. Flowers, C., Gretes, J., Howley, L., Mohanty, G., and Spooner, F. (2004). Student Evaluation of College Teaching. College Teaching 52 no4 Fall 2004.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993).  Beyond cold conceptual change:  The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.  Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 167-199.