Abstract
Two comparable samples of sixth-grade pupils were recipients of information furnished by two different systems of reporting pupil progress: (a) one involving use of a traditional competitive and comparative A-F letter grade approach and (b) the other embracing a highly individualized procedure which consisted of detailed narrative statements providing evaluative feedback on performance in the school setting. A 2 × 2 × 2 quasi-experimental design (reporting system × IQ × sex) was employed with dependent variables including measures of (a) reading achievement, (b) school attitude, and (c) self-responsibility for intellectual attainments. Results from three univariate analyses of variance revealed significant main effects for each dependent variable favoring the individualized reporting system over the traditional one, high ability children over low ability children, and girls over boys. In the instance of the measure of intellectual self-responsibility a significant interaction occurred between ability level and mode of reporting which suggested that as compared with the traditional competitive mode an individualized reporting system would yield differential outcomes indicating a higher average level of intellectual self-responsibility for children of low ability but no appreciable difference in average level of self-responsibility for children of high ability. Implications of the use of individualized reporting systems for improving the validity of evaluating pupil progress are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.