Teachers' Grading Practices: Influencing Factors and Methods Used

1
Teachers' Grading Practices Influencing Factors
and Methods Used

• Youyi Sun Liying Cheng
• Queens University, Kingston, ON
• 8ys9_at_queensu.ca

2
Rationale

• Grading is one of the most challenging aspects in
  teaching for teachers to do well (Brookhart,
  2004 Cheng Wang, 2007).
• It is a complex decision-making process that
  requires teachers to make professional judgment.
• In addition, grades are often used for various
  purposes by different stakeholders in education,
  which, in turn, impacts teachers grading.

3
Teachers Grading Practices

• Studies have investigated the various factors
  that determine teachers grading
• the grade-level at which teachers teach (Randall
  Engelhard, 2009),
• the amount of assessment training teachers
  receive (Brookhart, 1993), and
• subject matter which teachers teach (McMillan,
  2001).

4
Teachers Grading Practices

• Merwin (1989) suggested that grades should be
  based on students academic achievement without
  including confounding factors such as effort and
  work habits.
• In fact, however, teachers tend to consider a
  hodgepodge of factors when assigning grades
  (Cross Frary, 1996). The discrepancy may
  present construct-irrelevant variance in
  teachers grading that threatens the validity of
  the grades they assign.

5
Language Teachers Grading Practices

• Compared with the literature in education,
  research on classroom-based assessment practices
  conducted by teachers of English as a foreign and
  second language has recently emerged
  (Rea-Dickins, 2004 Brindley, 2007).
• However, relatively few studies conducted so far
  have focused on teachers grading practices with
  the exceptions of Davison (2004) and Cheng Wang
  (2007).

6
Context of the study

• Many of the studies focused on system-wide
  evaluation and scoring reforms in large-scale
  high-stakes testing (e.g. Guo, 2007 Liu, 2007),
  comparisons of different grading procedures such
  as percentage grading and letter grading (Liu,
  2005), and standards-based grading (e.g. Bian
  Shan, 2006).
• Empirical studies on English language teachers
  grading practices within the Chinese school
  classroom context are non-existent.

7
Research Questions

• What are the factors that determine the grades
  assigned and the assessment methods used by
  Chinese secondary school English language
  teachers?
• What meaning and values are associated with the
  grades assigned by these teachers in the Chinese
  secondary school context?

8
Method

• A questionnaire consists of three sections
• Factors teachers consider when assigning grades
  (17 items on a scale of 5always consider 1never
  consider)
• Type of assessment methods used to determine
  students grade (10 items on a scale of 5always
  use 1never use)
• Teachers demographical data
• Gender, age, degree, yr. of teaching, teaching
  level, hours of teaching per week, class size,
  and assessment training

9
Participants

• Chinese secondary school teachers (n350)
• N188 junior high school n162 senior high
• Female 76.1 Male 23.9
• 26-3023.9 31-3531.6 36-4021.8
• Certificate/Diploma55.3 BA38
• Full assessment course33.7 partial assessment
  course32.2 no training24.4
• Yr. of teaching12.6
• Hour of teaching 9.2 per week
• Class size 54.5

10
Results of the study Descriptive Statistics
Factors considered in determining grades
11
Results of the study Descriptive Statistics
Type of Assessment Methods Used
12
Results Factor Analysis

• Principal Components with Varimax
• The factors that determine the grades assigned
• Referential factor (learning objectives, school
  policy) (6 items)
• Learning skills (effort, study habit, homework)
  (6)
• Performance (academic performance and ability)
  (4)
• The assessment methods used for grading
• Performance and project-based (5 items)
• Teacher self-developed (3)
• Summative assessment (2)

13
Results of the study Rotated Component Matrix
---- Factors Considered in Assigning Grades
Component Component Component
1 2 3
Grade distribution of other teachers .713
Specific learning objectives mastered .697
Inclusion of zero for incomplete assignments .670
Formal or informal school policy .642
Performance compared with other students from previous years .602
The degree to which student pay attention, participate in class or both .572
Completion of homework .722
Student effort .704
Quality of completed homework .689
Study habits .604
Improvement of academic performance .567
Disruptive student behavior .545
Academic performance .733
Academic ability level .672
Extra credit for non-academic performance .594
Performance compared with other students .552
None-test indicators for borderline cases
14
Results of the study Rotated Component Matrix
---- Types of Methods Used in Assigning Grades
Component Component Component
1 2 3
Major examination .802
Oral presentation .712
Objective assessment .741
Performance assessment .533
Assessment provided by publishers .671
Assessment designed by yourself .765
Essay-type questions .786
Projects by teams .827
Projects by individuals .647
Quizzes .788
15
Results T-tests

• Junior school teachers Vs. Senior school
  teachers
• Factors
• No significant differences across all the three
  components.
• Methods
• Junior school teachers (M .11) used
  performance and project-based assessments
• more often than senior school teachers (M
  -.13), t (324) 2.19, p lt .05.
• Senior school teachers (M .21) used summative
  assessments more often than junior
• school teachers (M -.18), t (324)
  -3.59, p lt .01.
• No significant difference in terms of teacher
  self-developed assessments.

16
Results T-tests

• Teachers with assessment training Vs. Teachers
  without
• Factors
• Teachers with training (M .20) considered
  referential factors more often than
• teachers without (M -.10), t (269)
  -2.41, p lt .05
• No significant difference in terms of learning
  skills and performance factor.
• Methods
• Teachers with training (M 1.92) used
  performance and project-based assessments
• more often than teachers without (M
  -.07), t (276.79) -2.32, p lt .05.
• Teachers with training (M .27) used
  self-developed assessments more often than
• teachers without (M -.17), t (284.25)
  -4.04, p lt .01.
• No significant difference in terms of summative
  assessments.

17
Discussions and Implications

• Teachers consider a hodgepodge of factors in
  grading.
• Teachers use various methods to determine
  grades.
• Grading is a complex decision-making process,
• reflecting teachers belief and value systems
  and
• needs to be studied in relation to the
  context.
• Implications for teacher training

18
References

• Brindley, G. (2007). Editorial. Language
  Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 1-5.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Grading. Upper Saddle
  River, NJ Pearson-Merrill-Prentice Hall.
• Cross, L. Frary, R. (1996, April). Hodgepodge
  grading endorsed by students and teachers alike.
  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
  National Council on Measurement in Education, New
  York.
• Cheng, L., Wang, X. (2007). Grading, feedback,
  and reporting in ESL/EFL classrooms. Language
  Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 85-107.
• McMillan, J.H. (2001). Secondary teachers
  classroom assessment and grading practices.
  Educational Measurement Issues and Practice,
  20(1), 20-32.
• Merwin, J. C. (1989). Evaluation. In M.C.
  Reynolds (Ed.) Knowledge base for the beginning
  teacher (pp. 185-192).Oxford Pergamon Press.
• Randall, J., Engelhard, G. (2009). Differences
  between teachers' grading practices in elementary
  and middle schools. Journal of Educational
  Research, 102(3), 175-85.
• Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Editorial understanding
  teachers as agents of assessment. Language
  Testing 21(3), 2495