Teachers Grading Practices Influencing Factors and Methods Used

Teachers' Grading Practices: Influencing Factors and Methods Used Youyi Sun & Liying Cheng Queen’s University, Kingston, ON 8 ys 9@queensu. ca TESL Ontario 2010 Conference Oct. 28 -30, Toronto 1

Rationale n n n 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.

Teachers’ Grading Practices n Studies have investigated the various factors that determine teachers’ grading n the grade-level at which teachers teach (Randall & Engelhard, 2009), n the amount of assessment training teachers receive (Brookhart, 1993), and n subject matter which teachers teach (Mc. Millan, 2001).

Teachers’ Grading Practices n n 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.

Language Teachers’ Grading Practices n n 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).

Context of the study n n 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.

Research Questions n n 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?

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

Participants n n n n n Chinese secondary school teachers (n=350) N=188 junior high school; n=162 senior high Female = 76. 1%; Male = 23. 9% 26 -30=23. 9%; 31 -35=31. 6%; 36 -40=21. 8% Certificate/Diploma=55. 3%; BA=38% Full assessment course=33. 7%; partial assessment course=32. 2%; no training=24. 4% Yr. of teaching=12. 6 Hour of teaching = 9. 2 per week Class size = 54. 5

Results of the study: Descriptive Statistics Factors considered in determining grades

Results of the study: Descriptive Statistics: Type of Assessment Methods Used

Results: Factor Analysis n Principal Components with Varimax n The factors that determine the grades assigned n n 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 n n n Performance and project-based (5 items) Teacher self-developed (3) Summative assessment (2)

Results of the study: Rotated Component Matrix ---Factors Considered in Assigning Grades Component 1 Grade distribution of other teachers . 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 3 . 713 Specific learning objectives mastered 2 . 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

Results of the study: Rotated Component Matrix ---Types of Methods Used in Assigning Grades Component 1 2 Major examination 3. 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

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 <. 05. • Senior school teachers (M =. 21) used summative assessments more often than junior school teachers (M= -. 18), t (324) = -3. 59, p <. 01. • No significant difference in terms of teacher self-developed assessments.

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 <. 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 <. 05. • Teachers with training (M =. 27) used self-developed assessments more often than teachers without (M = -. 17), t (284. 25) = -4. 04, p <. 01. • No significant difference in terms of summative assessments.

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

References n n n n 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. Mc. Millan, 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), 249– 5