Grading Policies and Practices in Canada: A Landscape Study

Authors

  • Christopher DeLuca Queen's University
  • Heather Braund Queen's University
  • Adelina Valiquette Queen's University
  • Liying Cheng Queen's University

Keywords:

Grading, Assessment, Evaluation, Canadian Education, Policy

Abstract

Given the longstanding role of grades in education, and their increased use for high-stakes decisions including student mobility, admission, selection, and accountability, this paper paper presents a systematic review of grading policies across all 10 Canadian provinces and 3 territories. In total, 23 policies were inductively analyzed for their articulation of (a) the purposes of grades, (b) the methods used for generating grades, and (c) the relationship between grading and formative assessment. Our analysis revealed significant areas of consistency across Canada while also highlighting important areas of variation. Implications of these findings on the value and use of grades within and across educational systems in Canada are discussed.

Author Biography

Christopher DeLuca, Queen's University

Dr. DeLuca (Ph.D., Queen’s University) is an Associate Professor and Graduate Faculty member in Classroom Assessment and Curriculum Studies at the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University. Dr. DeLuca’s research examines the complex intersection of curriculum and pedagogy as operating within frameworks of educational assessment and educational inclusivity. His work largely focuses on supporting teachers in negotiating these two critical areas of their practice. In particular, Dr. DeLuca’s research centres on how pre-service and in-service teachers learn to engage the complexities of assessing student learning in relation to the evolving accountability culture in today’s classrooms

References

Allen, J. D. (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic achievement of classroom learning. The Clearing House, 78(5), 218–223.

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological

framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests.

Educational Researcher, 38, 665–676. doi:10.3102/0013189x09351981

Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved from http://assessmentreformgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/10principles_english.pdf

Bailey, J., & McTighe, J. (1996). Reporting achievement at the secondary level: What and how. Association for supervision and curriculum development-yearbook, 119-140.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102

Bowers, A. J. (2010). Grades and graduation: A longitudinal risk perspective to identify student dropouts. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 191–207. doi:10.1080/002206709033

Bowers, A. J. (2011). What's in a grade? The multidimensional nature of what teacher-assigned

grades assess in high school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(3), 141-159.

Brimi, H. M. (2011). Reliability of grading high school work in English. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(17), Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v¼16&n¼ 17.

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 35–36. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00182.x

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 279–301. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0704_2

Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2), 153–69.

Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Grading. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 257–272). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Brookhart, S. M. (2015). Graded achievement, tested achievement, and validity. Educational Assessment, 20(4), 268-296. doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1093928

Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., … Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86, 803-848. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069

Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 53–72.doi:10.1207/ s15324818ame1201_4

Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student

learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Friedman, S. J., & Frisbie, D. A. (1995). The influence of report cards on the validity of grades

reported to parents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(1), 5-26.

Guskey, T., & Bailey, J. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown.

Kane, M. (2012). All validity is construct validity. Or is it? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10(1-2), 66–70. http://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2012.681977

Kane, M. T. (2015). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 198–211. http://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1060192

Koch, M. J. (2013). The multiple-use of accountability assessments: Implications for the process of validation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(4), 2–15. http://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12015

McMillan, J. H. (2008). Assessment essentials for standards-based education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000). Teachers’ classroom assessment and grading decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

McMunn, N., McColskey, W., & Butler, S. (2004). Building teacher capacity in classroom

assessment to improve student learning. International Journal of Educational Policy,

Research, & Practice, 4(4), 25-28.

Moss, P.A. 2003. Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 13–25. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00140.x

Nagy, P. (2000). The Three Roles of Assessment: Gatekeeping, Accountability, and Instructional Diagnosis. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(4), 262-279. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585850 doi:10.2307/1585850

O’Connor, K. (2010). Grades: When, why, what impact, and how? Education Canada, 50(2), 38–42.

Pattison, E., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2013). Is the sky falling? Grade inflation and the

signaling power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42, 259–265. doi:10.3102/ 0013189x13481382

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Saint Paul, MN: Sage publications.

Popham, J. W. (2013). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). Examining the grading practices of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1372–1380.

Ryerson, E. (1868). A special report on the systems and state of popular education on the continent of Europe, in the British Isles, and the united states of America: with practical suggestions for the improvement of public instruction in the province of Ontario. Leader Steam Press Establishment.

Scott, E. L. (1995). " Mokita," the Truth That Everybody Knows, but Nobody Talks About: Bias in Grading. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 22(3), 211-16.

Simon, M., Chitpin, S., & Yahya, R. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ thinking about student assessment issues. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1-20.

Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324–328.

Stiggins, R. J., Frisbie, D. A., & Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5–14.

Stobart, G. 2008. Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London, UK: Routledge.

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449.

Thorsen, C. (2014). Dimensions of norm-referenced compulsory school grades and their relative importance for the prediction of upper secondary school grades. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 127-146.

Thorsen, C., & Cliffordson, C. (2012). Teachers’ grade assignment and the predictive validity of criterion-referenced grades. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18, 153–172. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.659929

Tierney, R. D., Simon, M., & Charland, J. (2011). Being fair: Teachers’ interpretations of principles for standards-based grading. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 210-227.

Volante, L., & Ben Jaafar, S. (2008). Educational assessment in Canada. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 201-210.

Waltman, K. K., & Frisbie, D. A. (1994). Parents' understanding of their children's report card

grades. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(3), 223-240.

Willis, J. (2010). Assessment for learning as a participative pedagogy. Assessment Matters, 2,

–84.

Zoeckler, L. G. (2007). Moral aspects of grading: A study of high school English teachers'

perceptions. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 83-102.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2017-12-21

Issue

No. 184 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.