Standardsbased Grading in Physical Education

1
Standards-based Grading in Physical Education
2
Grading Problems

• A grade is an inadequate report of an inaccurate
  judgment by a biased and variable judge of the
  extent to which a student has attained an
  undefined level of mastery of an unknown
  proportion of indefinite material.
• Paul L. Dressel (1957, p. 6)

3
Giving v. Earning

• In a standards-based environment teachers do not
  give grades. Teachers assign grades based on
  what the student earns. Students supply evidence
  that is documented by the teacher. That body of
  evidence is compared to learning targets
  (standards) resulting in a grade.

4
Judgment is Essential

• Cizek (2001b, p. 21) stated that judgment is an
  unavoidable part of the assessment process by
  stating, Each judgment should be based on
  sound information and the information should be
  combined in some deliberate, considered,
  defensible manner.

5
Grades are only as good as your assessment
practices

• Allow for revision, re-instruction, guidance
• Involve students in assessment
• New evidence replaces old evidence
• Require students to apply skills in realistic
  contexts/environments
• Demonstrate learning in variety of ways for
  diverse skills levels and learning styles
• Transparency - No surprises to students

6
Quality Assessment

• Use explicit learning targets
• Understand why you are assessing
• Transform the target into an appropriate
  assessment and create a scoring guide
• Gather a proper sample - amount and type of
  evidence - use mounting evidence method
• Control measurement error/bias - tell truth
• Provide quality ongoing feedback

7
What is (traditional) grading?

• A single symbol (A, S, 4.0, M) serves as a
  summary statement of all that a student achieved
  during a marking period.
• It is often norm-referenced (bell curve) -
  student performance is compared to that of peer
  group - RANKING

8
Problems with Traditional grading

• Does not inform the learner of strengths,
  weaknesses or what needs to be done to improve
• Have different meanings between teachers, grade
  levels and schools
• Represent targets/criteria unknown to students
• Competitive students focus on grades not the
  learning required to earn grades

9
Problems with Traditional Grading

• High grades are used to reward compliance -
  dressing out, putting forth effort,
  participation, attendance
• Low grades are used to punish those who do not
  comply
• Grades should represent achievement in relation
  to standards

10
Problems with Traditional grading

• Scores, marks and grades CLOSE communication
  between the teacher and student
• Teachers should instead focus on remediation -
  continuous improvement of performance and NOT
  hanging scores on student performances and
  products

11
Problems with Traditional Grading

• Students do NOT need grades to learn
• Teachers do NOT need to assign grades to help
  students learn
• Students DO need specific feedback that informs
  them of their strengths and weaknesses relative
  to learning targets and what they need to do to
  improve

12
Standards-based GradingPresentation Overview

• Grading dilemmas
• Assigning single summary grades
• Using many grades instead of single grades

13
1. Grading Dilemmas

• Arbitrary cut-off scores
• Process, product and progress grading (hodge
  podge)
• Dressing out, participation and attendance
• Grading Effort
• Grading to Promote Compliance
• Devil and Halo effect
• Averaging scores
• Zeros
• Term referenced or benchmark referenced?
• Insufficient evidence
• Unbalanced curriculum
• Homework
• Group grading
• Grading the student on an IEP
• Passing and Failing decisions
• Appeals

14
Dilemma - Arbitrary cutoffs

• Traditional grade cutoffs (100-90 A, 80-89 B)
  do not communicate achievement well
• 79 and a 70 can both represent a C
• 0-65 could be an F while a 66 is a D

15
Dilemma - Grade Pollution
16
Dilemma - Process, Product and Progress grading

• Product grading - preferred in standards-based
  systems summative judgement of performance
• Process grading - criteria includes
  participation, work habits, effort
• Progress grading - shows how much students have
  gained
• Combine all three Hodge podge grading
  mis-communicates standards-based achievement

17
Dilemma - Dressing Out
18
Dilemma - Dressing out

• Not dressing for physical education is a
  managerial concern, not a grading concern
• Dressing is not a skill nor a major program goal
• Participation is a prerequisite for learning
• The student should create a plan to solve
  problem
• The grade is used to promote compliance

19
Dilemma - Grading Effort

• Effort is impossible to quantify and it
  contaminates the grade
• To improve motivation and recognize hard work
  teachers provide a grading reward (to low
  achievers) all should receive this bonus
• Criteria for measuring effort is unknown to the
  teacher and student
• Students could manipulate their level of effort
  if they knew it was part of grading
• Some do not need to work hard to achieve

20
Dilemma - Grading to Promote Compliance

• Lowering grades based on non-compliance results
  in poor communication
• A student could achieve the goals of a unit while
  demonstrating non-compliant behavior
• Compliance can be part of standard 5 (table 10)

21
Dilemma - Devil and Halo Effect
22
Dilemma - Devil and Halo Effect

• Teacher bias toward students can result in
  misrepresentation of what the student has
  achieved
• Halo A positive view or expectancy of behavior
  unfairly influences judgment
• Devil A negative view or expectancy of behavior
  unfairly influences judgment

23
Dilemma - Bias

• Ways we can misrepresent what the student has
  achieved
• Student - misunderstanding of instructions,
  fatigue, illness, traumatic event, cheating,
  guessing
• Teacher - misjudgment, insufficient evidence or
  type, poor instructions, mis-calcuations

24
Dilemma - Averaging Scores

• Achieving satisfactory performance should not be
  punished because mistakes were made as a novice

25
Dilemma - Averaging scores

• If new evidence shows that old evidence does not
  reflect what the student can do, old evidence
  should be tossed out.

26
Dilemma - Assigning Zeros

• A zero (0) designed to punish lets students off
  hook for learning - Use Incomplete
• The 0 may not represent what the student learned
• Grading as a punishment does not work (Guskey,
  2000)
• A zero should not be part of a 100 point grading
  system (Reeves, 2004)

27
Dilemma - Term or Benchmark referenced

• Term-referenced grade represents what students
  should achieve by the end of a marking period
• Benchmark-referenced grade represents what
  should be achieved by the end of a grade level or
  several grade levels
• Parents want As available each term

28
Dilemma - Term or Benchmark-referenced

• Solution Use a term and a benchmark-referenced
  score or grade
• Inform parents of the time frame associated with
  the achievement of learning targets as early as
  possible

29
Dilemma - Insufficient evidence

• If we have not gathered enough evidence to
  determine what a student has learned relative to
  a learning target use I for Incomplete
• Until we can gather more evidence in order to
  draw a conclusion
• Define expectations for tasks/assignments

30
Dilemma - Unbalanced Curriculum

• When a curriculum is unbalanced in favor of
  games/sport only those who perform well in those
  areas receive high grades
• A balanced curriculum focuses on psychomotor,
  cognitive and affective targets in games,
  gymnastics, dance, and physical activity/fitness

31
Dilemma - Homework

• Homework (process criteria) or practice on
  developing skills is often necessary to achieve
  program goals but should not be factored into a
  standards-based grade
• However, the results of homework can help decide
  borderline grading situations

32
Dilemma - Group Grading

• Include procedures to permit individuals to
  demonstrate achievement of learning targets
• Group grades can punish learners who work hard
  and have partners who dont
• Group grades can reward learners who do not
  achieve desired results

33
Dilemma - IEP students

• A student on an IEP should receive a grade that
  reflects achievement in relation to objectives on
  their IEP
• (tables 1, 11, and 12)

34
Dilemma - IEP grading

• Modified learning targets should be explicitly
  linked to grade level targets
• Grades should be based on achievement relative to
  modified learning target without penalty for
  accommodations (Jung, 2009).

35
Dilemma - Passing Failing

• Students who have achieved the prerequisites for
  success at the next level of instruction should
  pass
• Those who do not should fail
• Students at or near bottom of norm group may not
  necessarily fail
• If student refuses to show proficiency a failing
  grade may be assigned

36
Dilemma - Appeals

• Appeal decisions lie within school boards policy
  manual and the due process and equal protection
  provisions of the 14th Amendment
• Teachers should respect appeals and change
  incorrect grades - due to miscalculations, typing
  errors and so forth

37
Dilemma - Appeals

• Grading policies should be clearly communicated
  to students and parents at the beginning of the
  school year.
• A grading policy could identify an assessment
  plan - what will be assessed and when how each
  assessment will be scored how scores will be
  combined and how achievement will be
  communicated.

38
Recommendations

• Grades promote competition, peer comparisons, and
  reduce focus on learning (Butler, 1988)
• Use the mounting evidence method
• Avoid hodge-podge grading
• Provide explicit feedback
• Inform students about grading practices

39
Recommendations

• If we fail to supplement standardized test scores
  with more descriptive alternatives, we invite
  people to measure schools solely on test scores
  (Schmoker, 1996)
• Let parents know what and how well your students
  are learning and achieving in physical education

40
2. Assigning single grades

• The harmful effects of grades can be eliminated
  by changes in grading systems that provide more
  chances for success, more guidance, feedback,
  re-instruction and encouragement.
• Thomas Haladyna (1999, p. 12)

41
2. Assigning single grades
42
2. Assigning single grades

• Create an assessment plan
• Identify weight for learning targets
• Identify cut scores
• Choose a grading method
• Percent correct
• Total points
• Weighted average

43
Assessment Plan

• Create and match an assessment to each valued
  learning target or learning targets for each unit
  or course (table 2)
• Identify a weight for each assessment
• Identify a performance mastery cutoff (PMC) for
  each assessment
• Identify a PMC for the marking period
• Identify a method for combining scores
• Identify grade symbols (A, 3.0, S)

44
Assessment Plan (weighted average)
45
Weight

• Identify a weight for learning targets and
  corresponding assessments. Weight items and
  tasks within assessments.
• (Table 2)

46
Identify Performance Mastery Cutoffs

• What score represents a minimal level of
  satisfactory achievement for each test, quiz,
  performance task and summative assessment
• What grade represents a minimal level of
  satisfactory performance for a given marking
  period

47
Choose a Grading Method
48
Percent Correct Method

• The percent correct method requires converting
  each students performance on each summative
  assessment into a percentage of total possible
  points for that assessment
• Each assessment is assigned a weight
• A final percentage is identified (Table 2)

49
Total Points Method

• This method requires that each assessment
  contributes a certain number of points to a total
  number of points for a marking period
• Points earned on each assessment represent an
  appropriate proportion of the total points
  available (Table 3)

50
Weighted Average

• Each learning target is assigned a weight
• Four level rubrics with half point values are
  used to score summative performances
• Multiply assessment scores by weight of
  corresponding learning target quality points
• Divide quality points by total weight (Tables 4
  and 5)

51
3. Using many grades instead of single grades
52
Using many grades

• Instead of assigning one single summary grade for
  each marking period assign a grade for each
  learning target
• Identify the most important learning targets and
  report student achievement relative to each one
• Identify a PMC for each learning target/assessment

53
Mounting Evidence Method

• Look at student performance against each learning
  target to determine if students have demonstrated
  mastery
• Make a judgment Do the most recent performances
  indicate that a standard has been achieved?
• If new evidence demonstrates that old evidence
  does not represent student ability toss out old
  evidence (Table 6)

54
Mounting Evidence Method

• 4 or 5 assessments are recommended for each
  target you are measuring
• When a student has provided enough evidence to
  show that a given performance level has been
  achieved, we then seek evidence for the next
  level up (Marzano, 2006)

55
Mounting Evidence Method

• Pacos catching evidence (Tables 9, 11, and 12)
• Simple context 1,1.5 (Sept.)
• Intermediate context 2, 2 (Oct.)
• Complex context 1.5, 2, 2, 2 (Dec.)

56
Mounting Evidence Method

• Evidence of student performance against NASPE
  standard 5 (Table 10)
• Pacos scores for term 1
• 1.0, 1.5, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.5

57
Summary

• Assess students after they have had sufficient
  time to develop necessary skills and
  understanding
• Students know at the beginning of instruction
  what assessments count and how they will be
  scored and combined
• A grade represents the most recent and consistent
  level of performance
• Students should receive multiple opportunities to
  improve scores, feedback

58
Summary

• Clear descriptors of performance standards
  (rubrics) help teachers identify levels of
  student achievement
• Parents want to know if their childs present
  performance is indicative of future success
• Parents want to know how their children are
  performing in relation to peers

59
References

• Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining
  intrinsic motivation the effects of task
  involving and ego involving evaluation on
  interest and performance. British Journal of
  Educational Psychology, 58, 1-14.
• Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences
  of high stakes testing. Educational Measurement
  Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19-27.

60
References

• Dressel, P.L. (1957). Facts and fancy in
  assigning grades. Basic College Quarterly, 2,
  6-12.
• Guskey, T. R. (2000). Grading policies that work
  against standards and how to fix them. NASSP
  Bulletin, 84(620, 20-29.

61
References

• Haladyna, T. M. (1999). A complete guide to
  student grading. Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon.
• Jung, L. E. (2009). The challenges of grading
  and reporting in special education An inclusive
  Grading model. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.). Practical
  solutions for serious problems in standards-based
  grading. (pp. 27-40). Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin
  Press.

62
References

• Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment
  grading that work. Alexandria, VA Association
  for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Reeves, D. B. (2004). The case against the zero.
  Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325.
• Schmoker, M. (1996). Results the key to
  continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA
  Association for Supervision and Curriculum
  Development.