Understanding Grading Beliefs of In-Service and Preservice Teachers in the United States

• In Event: More Than a Mark: Understanding The Social and Cultural Dimensions and Consequences of Grading

Abstract

Objectives: We document more than a decade of our empirical research on the beliefs about grading that influence many inservice and preservice teachers in the United States of America (USA) to include non-achievement factors. The main objectives are twofold: (1) presentation of a validated instrument to measure teachers’ grading beliefs: the Survey of Grading Beliefs (SGB), and (2) presentation of research on contextual factors that further influence teacher beliefs about grading.

Perspectives: In the USA, most teachers assign grades to students from grade 2 through university. Interest in the grading process is ongoing because of what grades represent and the consequences they have on school decision-making. Experts in classroom assessment generally recommend that grades should solely represent and communicate students’ academic performance because this constraint allows clear and consistent interpretation and aligns with major goals of schooling (Brookhart et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2013; Munoz & Guskey, 2015). However, many teachers continue to support grading practices that are inconsistent with recommended practices (Authors, 2009, 2017, 2020, under review), for reasons that had not been understood.

Methods: We used quantitative and mixed-methods research designs. Through multiple iterations of development, we designed a vignette-based instrument, the Survey of Grading Beliefs (SGB), a 17-item survey that measures four factors. Confirmatory factor analysis and correlational studies have provided evidence of this survey’s internal and external structural validity. Concurrently, we conducted qualitative studies using open-ended questions to elicit more nuanced information on teachers’ reasons for endorsing certain practices. Altogether, we have studied grading beliefs among more than 1,000 inservice and preservice teachers.

Results: The SGB consists of scales on four factors related to grading beliefs: 1) a lenient approach; 2) a behavior-management approach; 3) consideration of student effort and engagement; and 4) “rooting or pulling” for student success. We found similarities between inservice and preservice teachers; differences between elementary, secondary, and special-education teachers; and relationships between dimensions of grading beliefs, constructivist and traditional teaching views, and views on testing. Through qualitative research, we found that teachers’ grading beliefs are further influenced by contextual concerns such as consideration of the whole child, children’s special or new language learning needs, as well as content-area characteristics.

Significance: Through measurement development with samples of teachers in the USA, we found distinct dimensions to the unorthodox considerations that relate to teachers’ grading beliefs. These results counter the assertion that teachers use a “hodgepodge” approach to grading, as is sometimes described in the grading literature. Our studies, which contribute a validated instrument to measure teachers’ endorsement of unorthodox grading practices, afford other researchers a ready tool for measuring these beliefs. The SGB has been useful for uncovering information about the relationship between beliefs and practice, and about sources of variance not accounted for in grades determined by achievement tests. Both our quantitative and qualitative work can inform teacher education and professional development by supporting teacher-educators to focus their instruction on sources that affect how teachers make grading decisions.

Authors

• Sarah M. Bonner, Hunter College - CUNY

• Peggy P. Chen, Hunter College - CUNY