“As a business school activity, grading is understood to include the process of making judgments about the knowledge or lack of it among students. Generally a domain of faculty, grading has always been a big issue both among faculty and students, and also at the institutional level. Based on a focus group discussion and utilizing insights of the qualitative characteristics and the conventions of accounting theory, this paper presents a framework for grading in management education. This framework suggests that strategies for correct grading should also take into consideration the institutional viewpoint and students perspective, apart from making grading a reliable and relevant exercise in itself.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomB. S. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay, 1956.
2.
BrookhartSusan M.“Teachers’ Grading: Practice and Theory”Applied Measurement in Education, 1994, 7(4), pp. 279–301.
3.
BursuckWilliam D.MunkDennis D.“Can Grades Be Helpful and Fair?”Educational Leadership, 1998, 55(4), pp. 44–47.
4.
BurtonFredrick“A Study of the Letter Grade System and Its Effect on the Curriculum” Apr 1983.
LowmanJ.Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
23.
MacIverDouglas J.ReumanDavid A.“Giving Their Best: Grading and Recognition Practices That Motivate Students to Work Hard”American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 1994, 17(4), pp.24–31.
MeadJames V.“Teachers’ Evaluations of Student Work”National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, East Lansing, MI. Jul 1992.
26.
MiltonO.PollioH. R.EisonJ. A.Making Sense of College Grades: Why the Grading System Does Not Work and What Can Be Done About It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
ReedyRandyFormative and Summative Assessment: A Possible Alternative to the Grading-Reporting Dilemma. NASSP Bulletin, 1995, 79(573), pp. 47–51.
31.
ScrivenM.“Evaluation of Students.” Unpublished manuscript, 1974.
32.
Stiggins, Richard J.; And Others. “Inside High School Grading Practices” The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Program Report. Northwest Regional Educational Lab., Portland, 30 Nov 1986.
33.
SvinickiM. D.“Comprehensive Finals”Newsletter, Publication of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Texas at Austin, 1987, 9(2), pp. 1–2.
ThomasWilliam C.“Grading — Why Are School Policies Necessary? What Are the Issues?”NASSP Bulletin, 1986, 70(487), pp. 23–26.
37.
WarrenJonathan R.“The Continuing Controversy over Grades” TM Report 51. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, Princeton: N.J., Nov 1975.
38.
WerginJ. F.“Basic Issues and Principles in Classroom Assessment.” In McMillanJ. H. (editor), Assessing Students’ Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 34. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.
39.
WoodsD. R.“Problem Based Learning”Waterdown, Ontario, Donaldwoods CA, 1994.
