GRADING SYSTEMS

AND THE GRADING

SYSTEM OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION
TOPIC

8.1 Norm- Referenced Grading

8.2 Criterion- Referenced Grading
8.3 Four Questions in Grading
8.4 What Should Go Into A Student’s Grade
8.5 Standardized Test Scoring
8.6 Cumulative and Averaging Systems of Grading
Assessment of Student’s Performance

 Student’s progress

 Teacher’s performance

Steps

1. Testing

a. Pencil-paper objective test

b. Performance based testing procedure

2. Grading
 GRADING SYSTEM
• A seven-point system (American System)

 Expressed in terms of letters (A, B, B+, B-, C, C- , D)

• An eight-point system (Philippine Colleges and Universities)

 Expressed in terms of numerical values (1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.0,

2.5, 3.0, 4.0)

• Percentages (Basic Education)

 Expressed in terms of percentages (80%, 75%)

NORM-REFERENCED GRADING
• Refers to a grading system where in a student performance is
evaluated relatively to the performance of the other student.

• This grading system rests on the assumption that the level of

student performance will not vary much from class to class.
Example: Consider the following two sets of scores in an English 1
class for two sections of ten student each:
A = { 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85 }
B = { 60, 65, 70, 80, 85, 90, 90, 95, 100 }

In the first class, the student who got a raw score of 75 would get a grade of
80% while in the second class, the same grade of 80% would correspond to a
raw score of 90.

If the test used for the two classes are the same, it
would be a rather “Unfair” system of grading.

This example illustrates one difficulty with using a norm-

referenced grading system. This problem is called The
Problem Of Equivalency.
Example: A teacher may establish a grading policy whereby the top 15
percent of students will receive a mark of excellent or outstanding,
which in a class of 100 enrolled students will be 15 persons.

1.0 (Excellent) = Top 15% of Class In norm-referenced grading, the

students, while they may work

1.50 (Good) = Next 15% of Class
individually, are actually in competition

2.0 (Average, Fair) = Next 45% of to achieve a standard performance that

Class will classify them into the desired grade

range. It essentially promotes

3.0 (Poor, Pass) = Next 15% of Class
competition among students or pupils
5.0 (Failure) = Bottom 10% Of Class in the same class.
Example: In a class of 100 students, the mean score in a test is 70 with a standard
deviation of 5. Construct a norm-referenced grading table that would have seven-
grade scales and such that students scoring between plus or minus one standard
deviation from the mean receives an average grade.

Solution: The following intervals of raw

Raw Score Grade Percentage
scores to grade equivalent are Equivalent
computed:
Below 55 Fail 1%
55-60 Marginal 4%
The underlying assumption in Pass
norm-referenced grading is that
61-65 Pass 11%
the students have abilities (as
reflected in their raw scored) that 66-75 Average 68%
obey the normal distribution. The
76-80 Above 11%
objective is to know the best
Average
performer in school.
81-85 Very Good 4%
Above 85 Excellent 1%
Norm Referenced Grading
Advantages
• It is very easy to use.
• It works well for the course with
retention policies and its limits only
few students to advance to the next
level.
• Focus on individual achievement
• Appropriate for large no. of students
Disadvantages
• The performance of the student is not
determined by his achievement, but
also the achievement of the other
students.
• It promote competition among the
students rather than cooperation.
• It cannot be used when the class size
is smaller than 40
• Not all students can pass the given
subject or course.
A more subtle problem with norm-referenced grading is
that a strict correspondence between the evaluation
methods used and the course instructional goals is not
necessary to yield the required grade distribution. The
specific learning objectives of norm-referenced classes are
often kept hidden, in part out of concern that instruction
not “give away” the test, or the teacher’s priorities, since
this might tend the skew the curve.
CRITERION-REFERENCED GRADING
• Based on a fixed criterion measure.

• There is a fixed target and the student must achieve the target

in order to obtain a passing grade in a course regardless of

how the other students in the class perform.

• The scale does not change regardless of the quality, or lack

thereof, of the students.

Example: In a class of 100 student using the table below, no
one might get a grade of excellent if no one scores 98 above
or 85 above depending on the criterion used.

1.0 (Excellent) = 98-100 or 85-100

1.5 (Good) = 88-97 or 80-84

There is no fixed percentage

2.0 (Fair) = 75-87 or 70-79
3.0 (Poor/Pass) = 65-74 or 60-69
5.0 (Failure) = below 65 or below 60
of students who are expected
to get the various grades in
the criterion-referenced
grading system.
• Criterion-referenced systems are often used in situations where the teachers
are agreed on the meaning of a “Standard of Performance” in a subject but
the quality of the students is unknown or uneven; where the work involves
student collaboration or teamwork; and where there is no external driving
factor such as needing to systematically reduce a poll of eligible students.

• Note that in Criterion-referenced grading system, students can help a fellow

student in a group work without necessarily worrying about lowering his
grade in that course. This is because the criterion-referenced grading system
does not require the mean (of the class) as basis for distributing grades
among the students.

• It is therefore an ideal system to use in collaborative group work.

When students are evaluated based on predefined
criteria, they are freed to collaborate with one
another and with the instructor. With criterion-
referenced grading, a rich learning environment is
to everyone’s advantages, so students are
rewarded for finding ways to help each other, and
for contributing to class and small discussion.
Since the criterion measure used in criterion-referenced grading is a measure
that ultimately rests with the teacher, it is logical to ask:

What prevents teachers who use criterion-referenced grading from setting the
performance criteria so low that everyone can pass with ease??

There are a variety of measures used to prevent this situation from ever happening in the
grading system.

First, the criterion should not be based on only one teacher’s opinion or standard. It
should be collaboratively arrived at. A group of teachers teaching the same subject must set the
criterion together.

Second, once the criterion is established, it must be made public and open to public
scrutiny so that it does not become arbitrary and subject to the whim and caprices of the
teacher.
FOUR QUESTIONS IN GRADING
Marinila D. Svinicki (2007) of the Center For Teaching Effectiveness of the
University of Texas at Austin poses four intriguing questions relative to
grading. We reflect these question here in this section and the corresponding
opinion of Ms. Svinicki for your own reflection:

1. Should grades reflect absolute achievement level or achievement relative to

others in the same class?

2. Should grades reflect achievement only or nonacademic components such

as attitude, speed and diligence?

3. Should grades report status achieved or amount of growth?

4. How can several grades on diverse skills combine to give a single mark?
WHAT SHOULD GO INTO A STUDENT’S GRADE

The grading system as instructor selects reflects

his or her educational philosophy. There are no
right or wrong systems, only systems which
accomplish different objectives.
1. Should grades reflect absolute achievement level
or achievement relative to others in the same class?
Norm-Referenced System
• The letter grade a student receives is • An outside evaluator has little
based on his or her standing in a class. additional information about what a
student actually knows since that will
• Such a system also takes into account vary with the class.
circumstances beyond the students’
control which might adversely affect • A student who has learned an average
grades, such as poor teaching, bad tests amount in a class of geniuses will
or unexpected problems arising for the probably know more than a student who
entire class. is average in a class of low ability.
• Presumably, these would affect all the • The system also assumes sufficient
students equally, so all performance variability among the student
would drop but the relative standing performances that the difference in
would stay the same. learning between them justifies giving
different grades.
1. Should grades reflect absolute achievement
level or achievement relative to others in the
same class?
Criterion-referenced System
• The instructor sets a standard of performance
against which the students’ actual
performances is measured.
• All students achieving a given level receive
the grade assigned to the level regardless of
how many in the class receive the same
grade.
• An outside evaluator, looking at the grade,
know only that the student has reached a
certain level or set of objectives.
• A possible problem with this is that outside
factors such as those discussed under norm-
referenced grading might influence the entire
class and performances may drop.
• Criterion-referenced grading does not provide
“selection” information. There is no way to
tell from the grading who the “best” students
are, only that certain students have achieved
certain levels.
• An advantages is that the criteria for various
grades are known from the beginning. This
allows the student to take some responsibility
for the level at which he or she is going to
perform
• A positive aspect of this foreknowledge is that
much of the uncertainly which often
accompanies grading for students is
eliminated.
• Since they can plot their own progress toward
the desired grade, the students have little
uncertainty about where they stand.
2. Should grades reflect achievement only or
nonacademic components such as attitude,
speed and diligence?
• It is a very common practice to
incorporate such things as turning in
assignments on time into the overall
grade in a course, primarily because the
need to motivate students to get their
work done is a real problem for
instructors .
• It may be appropriate to the selection
function of grading that such values as
timeless and diligence be reflected in
the grades.
• External users of the grades may be
interpreting the mark to include such
factors as attitude and compliance in
addition to competence in the material.
• The primary problem with such
inclusion is that it makes grades eve
more ambiguous that they already are.
It is very difficult to assess these
nebulous traits accurately or
consistently.
• Instructor must use real caution when
incorporating such value judgements
into final grade assignment.
1. To make students aware of this
possibility well in advance of grade
assignment
2. To make clear what behavior is included
in such qualities as prompt completion of
work and neatness or completeness.
3. Should grades report status
achieved or amount of growth?
• The background of the students is so varied • There are many problems with
that some students can achieve the end of “growth” measures as a basis for
objectives with little or no trouble while
others with weak backgrounds will work changes, most of them being related
twice as hard and still achieve only half as to statistical artifacts.
much.
• The ability to accurately measure
• This dilemma results from the same problem entering and exiting levels is shaky
as the previous questions, that is, the feeling enough to argue against change as a
that we should be rewarding or punishing
effort or attitude as well as knowledge basis for grading.
gained.
• Many courses are prerequisite to later
• A positive aspect of this foreknowledge is that courses and, therefore, are intended
much of the uncertainty which often to provide the foundation for those
accompanies grading for the students is courses. GROWTH scores in this case
eliminated. Since they can plot their own
progress toward the desired grade, the would be disastrous.
student have little uncertainly about where
they stand.
4. How can several grades on diverse skills
combine to give a single mark?
• The result of instruction are so varies that the single mark is a really a “Rube Goldberg” as far as
indication what a student has achieved.

• It would be most desirable to be able to give multiple marks, one for each of the variety skills which
they learned.

• There are, of course, many problems with such a proposal.

• It would complicate an already complicated task.

• There might not be enough evidence to reliably grade any one skill.

• The “Halo” effect of good performance in one area could spill over into others.

• Finally, most outsiders are looking for only one overall classification of each person so that they can
choose the “best”.

• Our system requires that we produce one mark.

• Therefore, it is worth our while to see how that can be done even though currently the system does
not lend itself to any satisfactory system.
STANDARD TEST SCORING
• Test Standardization
 A process by which teacher or research-made tests are validated and item analyzed.

• After a thorough process of validation, the test characteristics are established.

 Test Validity
 Test Reliability
 Test difficulty level
 Other characteristics as previously discussed

• Each standardized test uses its own mathematical scoring system derived by the
publisher and administrators, and these do not bear any relationship t academic
grading systems.

• Standardized tests are psychometric instruments whose scoring systems are

developed by norming the test using national samples of test takers, centering
the scoring formula to assure that the likely score distribution describes a
normal curve when graphed, and them using the resulting scoring system
uniformly in a manner resembling a criterion-referenced approach.
 CUMULATIVE AND AVERAGING
SYSTEMS OF GRADING
Averaging Cumulative

The grade of a student on a The grade of a student in a grading

particular grading period equals the period equals his current grading

period grade which is assumed to have

average of the grades obtained in
the cumulative effects of the previous
the prior grading periods and the
grading periods.
current grading period.