This study explored high school teachers’ perceptions of the effects of standards-based grading (SBG) on planning, instruction, assessment, classroom management, and student behaviors. Findings indicated that despite some infidelity and an initial implementation dip, systemic (SBG) changes made teaching clearer, more purposeful, and more conducive to student needs while enhancing student growth mind-set and ownership. The researchers concluded SBG is a viable reform because it makes teaching and learning more focused, effective, and enjoyable. Findings also led to several recommendations for administrators and teachers.
BeattyI. D. (2013). Standards-based grading in introductory university physics. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1-22.
3.
BrookhartS. M. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.
4.
BrookhartS. M.GuskeyT. R.BowersA. J.McMillanJ. H.SmithJ. K.SmithL. F.. . . WelshM. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86, 803-848. doi:10.3102/0034654316672069
5.
CarifioJ.CareyT. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy recommendations. High School Journal, 93, 23-37. doi:10.1353/hsj.0.0039
6.
CoxK. B. (2011). Putting classroom grading on the table: A reform in progress. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 67-87.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DueckM. (2014). The problem with penalties. Educational Leadership, 71(6), 44-48.
10.
DuFourR.DuFourR.EakerR.ManyT. W.MattosM. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
11.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
12.
EricksonJ. A. (2011). Grading practices: The third rail. Principal Leadership, 10(7), 22-26.
13.
FleenorA.LambS.AntonJ.StinsonT.DonenT. (2011). The grades game. Principal Leadership, 11(6), 48-52.
14.
GlasserW. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
15.
GlasserW. (2010). The quality school curriculum. In K.RyanCooperJ. M. (Eds.), Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and classic readings in education (12th ed., pp. 128-133). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. doi:10.1177/019263659107553724
16.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsiveness and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Grading policies that work against standards . . . and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 20-29.
18.
GuskeyT. R. (2009). Bound by tradition: Teachers’ views of crucial grading and reporting issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
19.
GuskeyT. R. (2013). The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership, 71(1), 68-72.
20.
GuskeyT. R. (2015). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
21.
GuskeyT. R.JungL. A. (2013). Answers to essential questions about standards, assessments, grading, and reporting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
GuskeyT. R.SwanG. M.JungL. A. (2011). Grades that mean something: Kentucky develops standards-based report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52-57.
23.
JungL. A.GuskeyT. R. (2011). Fair & accurate grading for exceptional learners. Principal Leadership, 12(3), 32-37.
24.
JungL. A.GuskeyT. R. (2012). Grading exceptional and struggling learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
MarzanoR. J.HeflebowerT. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
27.
MaslowA. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MuñozM. A.GuskeyT. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64-68. doi:10.1177/0031721715579043
31.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
32.
O’ConnorK. (2009). How to grade for learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
O’ConnorK. (2011). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
PetersR.BuckmillerT.TownsleyM. (2016). Getting a fair shot: Do students from secondary schools using Standards Based Grading (SBG) have an equitable opportunity at university admissions? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
39.
PinkD. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
40.
RavitchS.RigganM. (2017). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
ReevesD. (2011). Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
42.
ReevesD.JungL. A.O’ConnorK. (2017). What’s worth fighting against in grading?Educational Leadership, 74(8), 42-45.
43.
SchimmerT. (2014). Grading with a standards-based mindset. Association for Middle Level Education, 2(4), 10-13.
44.
SchimmerT. (2016). Grading from the inside out: Bringing accuracy to student assessment through a standards-based mindset. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
45.
ScriffinyP. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.
46.
SeidmanI. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
SpencerK. (2012). Standards-based grading: New report cards aim to make mastery clear. Harvard Education Letter, 28(5), 4-10.
48.
StigginsR. J.FrisbieD. A.GriswoldP. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5-14.
49.
SwanG. M.GuskeyT. R.JungL. A. (2014). Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and traditional report cards. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 289-299. doi:10.1007/s11092-014-9191-4
50.
TovaniC. (2014). How we drive students to cheat. Educational Leadership, 71(6), 50-53.
51.
van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
VogelL. R. (2012). A leader’s journey: The challenges of implementing standards-based student grouping. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 323-349. doi:10.1177/0192636512467675
54.
WelshM. E.D’AgostinoJ. V. (2009). Fostering consistency between standards-based grades and large-scale assessment results. In T. R.Guskey (Ed.), Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading (pp. 75-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
