1 / 18

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 8ys9@queensu.ca. Rationale. Grading is one of the most challenging aspects in teaching for teachers to do well (Brookhart, 2004; Cheng & Wang, 2007).

janette
Download Presentation

Teachers' Grading Practices: Influencing Factors and Methods Used

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teachers' Grading Practices: Influencing Factors and Methods Used Youyi Sun & Liying Cheng Queen’s University, Kingston, ON 8ys9@queensu.ca TESL Ontario 2010 Conference Oct. 28-30, Toronto

  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 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 • Gender, age, degree, yr. of teaching, teaching level, hours of teaching per week, class size, and assessment training

  9. Participants • 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

  10. Results of the study: Descriptive StatisticsFactors 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

  14. Results of the study:Rotated Component Matrix ---- Types of Methods Used in Assigning Grades

  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 < .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.

  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 < .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.

  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), 249–5

More Related