THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED TEA(:HER .
CHARACTERISTICS To THE TEACHERS RATICNALE CH , f
GRADING ” * * ‘ '

Dissertationfor The Degree of Phi DI}- : .’
MICHICAHISTATE UNIVERSITY , - »
' , RAY RCBERTKEECH
¥ 1975] *

 
  
 
 

  

LIBRAUQY
Michigan Stat:

U333?" (3.” it“;

.I--»q

3 1293 10180 6317

 
 

This is to certify that the

thesis- "_d- I
7A4 /\<}L\+.0I\5L\I IL Selec‘llei flac‘xe r
Q“Q¢QC'\€F|3T‘\L +0 +1\~( Teacher-5
RHTAOLWK\€ o o Grandma.

presented by

flfly P0 barf 7‘/€EQ%

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for I

PA - D degree in [CL u Q HT“) 06d “J ¥V\(H\i13£’x£:itfl‘

Major professor

Date '-

 

0-7 639

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED TEACHER
CHARACTERISTICS TO THE TEACHER'S
RATIONALE ON GRADING

BY

Ray Robert Keech

Purpose of the Study

 

1. To identify teachers' rationale regarding
various aspects and practices of grading.

2. To determine if there are possible relation-
ships that may exist between teacher grading practices and

selected teacher characteristics.

Design of the Study

 

The study was designed to explore teachers' rationale
for grading practices and the existing relationship between
these practices and selected teacher characteristics.

Twenty different practices were used to explore teachers'
rationale and eleven teacher characteristics were related
to these.

The random sample of ninety—six teachers used in
the study represented various types of school locations
(rural, suburban, and city) and all subjects taught in a

typical secondary school.

Ray Robert Keech

A Grading Questionnaire was developed and used to
obtain information which would indicate the grading
rationale held by teachers. Each question was designed
to identify grading practices regarding purposes for
grading, criteria used in determining grades, methods
used in grading, and inferences extracted from grades.

The obtained data were placed in frequency tables according
to the four aspects mentioned above, making it possible

to distinguish between responses and determine the amount
of consensus among teachers.

The study was also designed to explore possible
relationships that may exist between teacher rationale
and teacher characteristics, categorized as psychological,
sociological, and philosophical. These possible relation—
ships were included to seek an understanding of the vari-
ables that may be instrumental in determining teacher
rationale about grading practices.

Each subject completed a Personal Information Form,
which was used to collect the philosophical and socio-
logical information. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was used
to collect information pertaining to the psychological
characteristic examined.

The chi—square test was used to determine whether
relationships exist between the selected teacher character—

istics and grading practices in the questionnaire.

Ray Robert Keech

Differences found to be at or beyond the 5 percent level

of confidence were accepted as significant.

Findings

1. Teachers hold a wide range of rationale about
four aspects of grading: (a) purposes for grading,
(b) criteria used in assessing student progress, (c) methods
used in determining grades, and (d) inferences extracted
from grades.

2. Certain selected teacher characteristics
(psychological, sociological, and phiIOSOphical) have a
statistically significant relationship with the grading

practices of teachers.

Conclusions

 

The fact that each of the practices described in
the grading questionnaire did receive statements of agree-
ment would indicate a wide usage of practices in grading.
Because each practice did not receive the same prOportion
of agreement, it can also be inferred that there is a
difference of opinion among teachers about the appropriate—
ness of each practice for grading.

Statistically significant relationships between
grading practices and certain teacher characteristics
were found for 17 of the 220 chi-squares computed. Even
though there were only seventeen found to be significant,

each relationship did indicate one distinct variable that

Ray Robert Keech

may affect grading rationale of teachers. In addition to
examining possible relationships between different kinds
of characteristics that might be instrumental in affecting
grading rationale, these relationships also gave insight
into how varied these characteristics can be.

The significant relationships found were distributed
among all three characteristics selected for the study,
and all four aspects of grading. This not only demon—
strated possible explanations for why teachers may have
agreed to a variety of practices, but also offered insight
into the complications in ascertaining all of the different

factors affecting the assignment of grades.

Questions for Further Study

1. Research similar in nature and intent to this
study should be conducted to test the validity of the
conclusions for other teacher populations.

2. How do grading practices affect behaviors of
persons intimately involved with grades (i.e., parents,
students, and teachers)?

a. What is the relationship between parents' accep—
tance or rejection of a child and his assigned
grades?

b. What is the relationship between student insecurity

or classroom rebellion and his assigned grades?

 

Ray Robert Keech

c. What is the relationship between a teacher's self—
image and his grading practices?

3. What kinds of knowledge, attitudes, and skills
do educators and academic scholars feel should be reported
through grades?

4. What kinds of grading practices are most
appropriate for different types of subject matter?

5. Longitudinal studies on the influence of grades
for learning knowledge, skills, and attitudes should also

be done.

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED TEACHER
CHARACTERISTICS TO THE TEACHER'S

RATIONALE ON GRADING

BY

Ray Robert Keech

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1975

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 6
Specific Questions and Hypotheses . . . 7
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Significance of the Research . . ll
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study . 13
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 16
III. THE DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . 32
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . 33
Specific Questions and Hypotheses . . . . . 33
Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . . . . . . . 44
The Grading Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 46
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Frequency Responses to Grading
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 52
Findings for Purposes of Grading . . . . 53
Findings for Criteria in Determining
Grades . . . . . . . . . 55
Findings for Methods Used in
Determining Grades . . . . . . 57
Findings for Inferences Extracted from
Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ii

 

Chapter
Significant Relationships Between Selected
Teacher Characteristics and Rationale
for Grading . . . . . . . .
Discussion of Significant Findings on
the Dogmatism Scale . . .
Findings for Purposes for Grading and
Sociological Characteristics . .
Findings for Criteria for Grading and
Sociological Characteristics .
Findings for Methods Used in Grading and
Sociological Characteristics .
Findings Related to Inferences Extracted
From Grades and Sociological Char-
acteristics . .
Discussion of Significant Findings on
Sociological Scale . . . . .
Discussion of Significant Findings on
Philosophical Positions . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
Purposes of the Study .
Assumptions and Limitations of the
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of the Literature . . . . . .
Design of the Study . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . .
School Districts . . . . . . .
School Personnel . . . . . . . .
Teacher Education Programs . . . .
Recommendations for Further Research . . .
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

62
65
67
69

71

72
73

83
86

88

88
88

89
89
90
93
94
118
118
119
120
120

123

151

 

LIST OF TABLES

Frequencies of Responses to Purposes for
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of Responses to Criteria for
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of Responses to Methods of
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of Responses to Inferences
Extracted From Grades . . . . . . . . .

Chi-Square Analysis for Rokeach Dogmatism
Scale and Twenty Dependent Variables

R.Q.l--Purposes for Grading . . . . . . .
R.Q.2--Criteria for Grading . . . .
'R.Q.3--Methods Used in Grading . . . . . .

R.Q.4--Inferences Extracted From Grades .

Data on Relationship Between Philosophical
Position and Twenty Dependent Variables

iv

. -m- “51—h- .:. ..$.—. A— -.

Page

54

56

58

59

64
68
70
71

72

82

 

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The practice of reporting pupil progress to the
home has been an extremely important phase of our public
school systems since the 1890's. Strang asserts:

Of all the bridges between the school and community,
the report to the parents is the oldest and most
widely used. . . . Depending upon the kind of mes—
sage it bears, this report builds good will or ill
will; it enlists or alienates the cooperation of
the pupil and parent.1

Because this particular phase of our educational
process has received so much emphasis, there has been a
never-ending search for improved methods of informing
parents and pupils of the latter's progress in school.
The search is continuous because, like all aspects of
education, the communication of information to the home
must frequently be altered if it is to keep pace with the
changing philosophy of education.

It would be a false assumption to imagine or claim
that a perfect report, suitable for every school's needs,
could ever be devised. As Wrinkle points out:

lRuth Strang, Reporting to Parents (New York:

Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer—
sity, 1954), p. l.

 

 

I doubt if there is one. For what might be good
for one school might not be good for another.

Each school has to work out its own forms and prac—
tices on the basis of its own objectives, its own
philosophy and its own staff.

Many changes in methods of reporting pupil prog—
ress have taken place during the last seventy years. In
discussing the history of grades, Kirshenbaum et al.
note:

A variety of different symbols for marking are
used by different school systems. Some schools
use numbers, others letters. Some use percentage
marks, other verbal descriptions.

Research from the National Education Association
shows schools moving from percentage to a letter classi-
fication (usually A, B, C, D, and F) to a pass or fail, to
check list, to letter writing, to parent conferences, to
no grades, descriptive reports, and back to grades. The
list is extensive in searching for an effective method to
communicate a pupil's progress. However, the literature
reveals that the confusion surrounding grades has continued
if not increased, in spite of these efforts.

There appears to be no unanimity on what should be
graded (i.e., whether it should be skills, behaviors, etc.).
There appears to be no strong endorsement for any one type

2William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and Report—
ing Practices in the Elementary and Secondary Schools
(New York: Rinehart and Company, 1947), p. 4.

3Kirshenbaum et al., Wad-Ja—Get? The Grading Game

in American Education (New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1971), p. 23.

_’.'

of grading system. There appears to be no agreement on
what grades measure. Furthermore, there seems to be no
standard agreement regarding what a grade means.

School administrators and researchers have been
more interested in hgw to report pupil progress than in
wha; to report.

Educators themselves are beginning to admit openly
that there is much confusion surrounding the purposes for
assigning grades and what to report. It should be clear
that, whatever the scheme, the symbols themselves have no
inherent meaning. The meaning is assigned to a mark by
the people who use it. In a dissertation study, Howard
Kingsley states:

Parents, teachers, and students expressed a strong
desire for a report card having clearly stated pur-
poses and a marking system readily understood by
all concerned with a statement explaining the mean-
ing of the symbols used in marking.4

In a recent recommendation (March, 1974) by a study
committee composed of students, teachers, parents, and
administrators in the East Lansing Public Schools, East
Lansing, Michigan, the top priority was a clear under-

standing of the meaning of whatever symbols are used to

report pupil progress.

4HowardKingsley,"Communication Between the School
and Home" (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1959),
p. 17.

Within many school systems, the staff has reached
no specific agreement about the meaning of the marks they
use, so the mark given by one teacher does not mean the
same as the identical mark given by another. Ludeman
reports: "Many students are given higher marks than they
deserve because they conform to the teacher's expectation
in social rather than academic areas."5

A number of writers have reported that girls tend
to be graded more favorably than boys for similar levels
of achievement. Where letter grades are employed, there is
variability among teachers within the same system. Studies
have revealed that the way teachers perceive a child
affects their assignment of marks. According to Wrinkle:

Marks are the chief means employed by the school
in giving information to students and parents
regarding the student's achievement, progress, and
success or failure in his school work.

It can be argued that the purpose for grades is
motivation, guidance, administrative, etc. However, one
point is clear, interpretation of marks is important.
According to Ebel:

Only to the degree that marks do have the same

meaning for all who use them, it is possible for
them to serve the purpose of communication.

5W. W. Ludeman, "Overhauling School Evaluation,"
American School Board Journal 140 (February 1960): 37.

6

 

Wrinkle, op. cit., p. 36.

7Robert L. Ebel, Measuring Educational Achievement
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 405.

The value of a reported grade will be increased to
the extent that the pupil is helped to understand its
meaning. This implies that the teacher is prepared to
defend its accuracy and to show its significance.

The preceding information points to the ambiguity
of grading practices and the need for more understanding
into teachers' rationale for grades if reporting systems
are to be clearly understood and interpreted.

When reviewing the literature on the use of grading
systems in American schools today, it becomes quite obvious
that one of the major factors contributing to the confusion
surrounding grades is that grades are used for so many
different purposes. Grading systems have been reported as
used for communication of achievement, motivation to learn,
measuring of individual differences, prediction of future
achievement, promotion of students, grouping of students
for instruction, and reporting levels of behavior and per—
sonality traits. These purposes for grading can be seen
in the use of traditional grading systems and the recent
trends which attempt to report behavior and traits.

It seems that a first step in an investigation of
the confusion of grading systems and practices would
include a study of teachers' rationale to determine the
extent to which there is diversity of opinions among teach—
ers about what a grade means. Until we identify grading

practices of teachers responsible for assigning grades,

they will have little or no interpretive meaning outside
the classroom situation (e.g., parents, counselors, etc.),
and there is some question as to how meaningful they are to
students in the classroom.

A related concern having importance to teachers'
rationale is teacher characteristics affecting grading
practices. In the examination of the literature, there
were a number of studies discovered which showed the
teachers had a tendency to give high grades to certain
students depending on sex, likeableness, and whether the
student is personally known by the teacher. These studies
are a one that there could be other teacher characteris-
tics which affect grading practices. Knowing the existence
of any relationship would be helpful in gaining an under-
standing of and in clarifying the grading practices of

teachers.

Purpose of the Study
1. The purpose of this study is to identify
secondary teachers' rationale regarding the four aspects
of grading as identified in the literature:
A. Purposes for grading
B. Criteria used in assessing student progress
C. Methods used in determining grades

D. Inferences extracted from grades

2. To determine if there are relationships
between teachers' grading practices and certain selected
teacher characteristics, such as psychological, socio—

logical, and philosophical.

Specific Questions and Hypotheses

This dissertation is designed to be an analytic,
descriptive research study. It is designed to answer the
I general research problems stated above. To answer these
two problem questions, specific questions listed below
will be examined on the basis of teacher responses.

The research is designed to obtain responses to
the following four questions:

Q1: To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on each of the following purposes for grading:

A. Communication of student progress regarding
individual teacher objectives

B. Motivation toward greater student progress

C. Measurement of specific aspects of student
progress (i.e., aptitude, interest, and
achievement)

D. Prediction of future student progress (i.e.,
grouping of students for course instruction
and college success)

E. Reporting personal—social—moral traits

F. A simple system of administrative shorthand
for determining promotion and graduation

To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on the use of the following criteria in the pro-
cess of deciding grades:
A. Aptitude

. Teacher—pupil relationships

. Punctuality and attendance

B
C
D. Conformity and personal appearance
E. Effort

F. Interest

G

. Achievement

To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on the methods used in determining grades:

A. Standard normal curve

B. Variation of expectations

C. Danger of inflexible approach

To what extent do secondary teachers agree that

the following inferences can be extracted from
grades:

A. Mastery of subject matter as measured by
actual achievement on recall tests.

B. Individual differences as measured by teacher
observations of motivation, intellectual
abilities, and person-social—moral traits.

C. College success as measured by individual
course grades and cumulative grade point
averages.

D. School standards as measured by the percent-
age of high and low grade point averages in
a student body.

In addition to the above questions, these hypotheses

will be tested:

HO

1

There will be no significant relationship between
the scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale which
measures open and closed mind and

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.2

R.Q.3 Methods used in determining grades
R.Q.4 Interences extracted from grades

There will be no significant relationship between
certain sociological characteristics of teachers
(i.e., age, sex, marital status, children,
father's occupation, number of teaching years,
teaching field, type of school system currently
teaching in, and place of teacher training) and

H0

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.2

R.Q.3 Methods used in determining grades

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades
HO There will be no significant relationship between
the progressive and traditional philosophical
points of View of education, and

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q. Selected teacher criteria for determining
2
grades

R.Q.3 Methods used in determining grades

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades

Definition of Terms

 

Dogmatism Scale: A scale designed to measure the
extent to which the organization of beliefs and disbeliefs
in the mind of a person are either open or closed.

Belief system: A set of beliefs that one accepts.

Disbelief system: A series of belief systems that
one rejects while in the process of evolving a set of

beliefs.

10

Open belief system: A person is considered to have

 

an Open belief system to the extent to which he is able
to distinguish between the many beliefs (disbelief sub-
systems) that exist in opposition to those he has accepted.

Closed belief system: A person is considered to

 

have a closed belief system to the extent to which he is

£93 able to distinguish between the many beliefs (dis-

belief subsystems) that exist in opposition to those he has
accepted. The more closed a system, the more likely a per-
son will view all disbelief subsystems as one, will iden-
tify strongly with absolute authorities, will feel threatened
by the world and peOple, and will involve his own unrelated
needs when receiving, evaluating, and acting on outside
information.

Progressive: Favoring "permissive," "liberal"

 

policies and practices, favoring autonomy and independence
for the child, individual differences, discipline from
within, etc.

Traditional: Favoring the more traditional out-

 

look in education, teaching, and learning; emphasis is on
subject matter, external discipline, conservative social
policies, hereronomy and dependence for the child and the
teacher.

Actual achievement: Mastery of skills and infor-

 

mation which can be measured by memory tests.

ll

Subjective grading criteria: Factors used in

 

grading (e.g., effort) which can only be measured by
teachers' intuitive judgments and are affected by personal
bias, emotional background, etc.

Gradingypractices: The rationale(s) and proce-

 

dure(s) used by teachers in grading students.

Significance of the Research

 

Teachers' perceptions of grades and the character—
istics of teachers as they are related to these percep-
tions are the two major areas of concern in this study.
Assuming that the results of the study indicate a wide
range of teacher perceptions of the purposes, the criteria,
the approaches, and the measurements used in determining
and interpreting grades, and that there are certain char-
acteristics of teachers which are related to these percep-
tions, the results may be significant for a number of dif—
ferent people in education.

Teachers who are responsible for assigning grades
would be made aware of the variety of perceptions held and
any related corresponding teacher characteristics. Since
many of the perceptions held may disagree with the review
and the discussion of the available literature, the results
of this study could be significant help to teachers in
making a self—evaluation of their own perceptions. If
marking systems are to be understood by everyone concerned,

a first step is the teacher's understanding of the purposes,

12

criteria, approaches, and measurements that are attributed
to any method of reporting pupil progress.

School counselors who are responsible for helping
students with their vocational and educational plans should
understand the basis for the grades given by various
teachers, the multiplicity of factors related to marking,
and clarify the meaning of grades obtained by students if
grades are to be used as sufficient evidence for making
decisions about students' abilities or about the courses
they should take. Through an awareness of the wide range
of teacher perceptions regarding reporting pupil progress,
counselors may be encouraged to seek clarification of
criteria being used by the individual teacher to assess a
student's classroom progress.

Marks are the chief means employed by the school
in giving information to students and their parents regard-
ing the student's achievement, progress, and success or
failure in his school work. A pupil's knowledge of the
results of his study is one of the conditions for effec-
tive learning, and hence, interpretation of marks is
important. Students and parents should be aware of the
many different criteria used by teachers to judge their
classroom progress, and encouraged to seek clarification
of individual teacher perceptions when they are not sure
about the factor related to a grade when attempting to

interpret its meaning.

13

School administrators should recognize the need to
have school grading policies which are in line with the
philosophy and goals of the local school. Curriculum
coordinators should organize inservice seminars to examine
individual grading patterns and seek ways in which pit-
falls in grading could be avoided. Professors in teacher
preparation institutions should seek to create realistic
grading viewpoints among preservice students and explain
that teachers have a tendency to permit their own subjec—
tive biases to enter into the grading process which con-
tributes to the ambiguousness of grades. Researchers in
education should be concerned with ways in which grading
systems could be improved and the ways in which divergent

teacher behavior might be changed.

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study

There are two assumptions important to the design

and conduct of the study:

1. That the teacher's self-report of his behavior
on the questionnaire will reflect his actual
grading rationale and grading practices.

2. That a teacher will report his actual beliefs
and give appropriate information when respond-
ing to the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the
information form. The methods selected for
scoring the data were not designed as a check

to see if there is a difference.

 

14

One assumption to be analyzed in the study implies
a relationship between grading practices and certain
selected teacher characteristics. Because of the nature
of the research, however, it is possible only to show
whether or not a relationship exists. It is not possible
to test the nature of the relationships as to cause and

effect.

Overview

It has been the intent in Chapter I to discuss
the purpose of the study and explain why it is important
to understand teachers' rationale for reporting pupil
progress and relationships with selected teacher char—
acteristics. The first chapter also defined terms which
will be used throughout the study, stated the general
research hypotheses, and recognized limitations of the
study.

In Chapter II a review of the related literature
will be explored for its pertinence to the study. The
major emphasis in this chapter will be teachers' rationale
and approaches to reporting pupil progress.

The research design of the study will be discussed
in Chapter III. Included in this chapter will be the
sample to be usedeTthe study, techniques that will be

used to gather data, and the instruments to be used.

 

15

Chapter IV will be devoted to an analysis of the
data gathered and relate the results to the hypotheses
and research questions.

The last chapter will contain a summary of the
study and findings. Concluding this chapter will be
implications and recommendations for further study.

Having presented the purpose of this study, its
need, and some questions to be resolved, it is now essen—

tial that a review of the literature be undertaken.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Grading is one of the most controversial topics
in American education today. From the elementary to the
graduate level, most of the student's or the teacher's
life in school revolves, directly or indirectly, around
the grading system. In recent years, the traditional
grading system using A's, B's, and C's has come under
increased criticism. Thousands of schools have been beset
by controversies concerning grading and evaluation. As
a result, hundreds of schools and colleges have already
introduced changes in their grading systems. It is inter-
esting to note, however, that most schools have been more
concerned with hgw to report pupil progress than in what
to report.

Is the traditional system of grading, the one most
of us experienced throughout many years of schooling, the
most educationally useful system of evaluation? This is
the basic question the schools and colleges across the
country have been grappling with.

Kirshenbaum, who has become an outspoken critic

in the field of education, has taken the pOSition that the

16

 

17

present system of grading utilized by educational insti—
tutions inhibits rather than promotes learning. His posi—
tion is well summarized in his statement that:

The following arguments seem representative of much

of the criticism concerning grades at the time:

1. Grades are unscientific, subjective and seldom
relative to educational objectives.

2. They are misleading and focus only on one aspect
of the child.

3. They promote superficial, spurious and insincere
scholarship.

4. They lead to uncreative teaching.

5. They form a barrier between students and teachers.

6. Pupils perform for the grade and, as a result,
show less initiative and independence.

7. Grades tend to divide students into recognizable
groups, reflecting inferior and superior quali—
ties, thus often becoming the basis for social
relationships.

8. They establish a competitive system, with grades
as the basis for achievement.

Goodman's position was well summarized in his
statement, "the retaining of grading in the colleges is
an interesting use of bureaucratic inertia and subservi—
ence to the social climate."2 To support his accusation,
he referred to the present approach as: (l) a way of
appeasing the anxiety of parents; (2) a vehicle for pro—
ducing structure for the insecurity of students which
consequently militates against the development of indi—
vidual independence; (3) an open invitation to the student

lKirshenbaum et al., Wad-Ja—Get? The Grading Game
in American Education (New York: Hart Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1971), p. 62.

2Paul Goodman, "In What Ways Does the Present

Marking and Credit System Inhibit or Promote Learning?"
Current Issues in Higher Education, 1964, pp. l23-24.

18

to cheat, to fake, to distort which in turn "destroys the
use of testing"; and (4) finally a continuance of the
logistic mentality thati£;"exactly what we do not need
in the automated future."3 To those critics who respond
to his charges by emphasizing the motivational aspect of
grades, he dismisses this as a form of neuroses.4
Goodman's criticisms are supported in the writ-
ings of Ahmann and Glock.5 In discussing motivation, they
reported that grades (1) do create defensive behavior in
students, (2) do lead to pressures which result in cheating
and conformity, (3) do arouse threats of failure which
lead to excessive fear causing a disorganization of the
student's learning ability, (4) do lead to feelings of
inferiority affecting the student's self—concept, and
(5) that teachers do use them as an attempt to motivate
rather than as a means to provide interesting and worth-
while classroom experiences for pupils.6 This is what
happens when perspective in the defensible use of marks
is lost.7

Of course, these accusations are not necessarily

new. Lucius Smith writing in 1935 reported after making a

 

3Ibid., p. 123. 41bid., p. 124.

5J. Stanley Ahmann and Marvin D. Glock, Eval-
uating;Pupil Growth (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1963),
pp. 579-80.

61bid. 7Ibid., p. 580.

19

a review of the research literature on grading systems
that there was wide disagreement on the purpose of grades
and that grades had little reliability.8 Smith reported
then that more educators agreed upon the system to be used

9

than on "any other element pertaining to the mark." She

concluded her summary with the statement that there were
"some grave problems attached to marks."lo

Rothney, in reviewing the research in 1955, indi—
cated some of these grave problems. He warned that grades
are "invalid indexes of growth," and that they "direct
attention away from the real purposes of education."ll
He also noted that they "frequently permit and encourage
the calculation of a meaningless mark."12

Smith and Dobbin made a complete review in 1957
and concluded that basically the research focused on two
separate, yet related, aspects of grading. The research
done in earlier periods of this century was concerned with

the variability and unreliability of grades and the mechan-

ical improvement of grading systems. Much of this research

8Lucius Smith, The Status of Marking in Negro
Colleges (Bluefield, West Virginia: Bluefield State
Teachers College, 1935), p. 25.

 

9Ibid., p. 25. lOIbid., p. 26.
11John W. M. Rothney, Evaluating and Reporting Pupil
Progress (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa-
tion, 1955), p. 8.
12

Ibid., p. 9.

20

was concerned with the adapting of reported grade distri-
butions to the normal probability curve and the analysis
of different grading patterns. It did little, however,
to increase the reliability or validity.13
The emphasis in the literature since 1940 has
changed from the mechanical to "a growing conviction that
marking practices must be consistent with educational
objectives." This new emphasis has led to a concern with
grades as they relate to the process of learning. It was
found when looking at grades from this perspective that
they say little about what the student has learned or his
strengths or weaknesses. Consequently, there currently
is a need "for greater specificity in what is graded and a
broader involvement among all those concernedwithgrades."l4
Some proponents for the elimination of grades argue
as to whether or not poetry should be graded. How can a
school grade creativity and originality? An original idea
to one person might be a hackneyed idea to another person.
But let's face it. Everyone wants good grades and
will do whatever he can to get them. If the school does

not give grades for creativity, then students will not make

l3Ann Z. Smith and John Dobbin, "Marks and Marking
Systems," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Chester
Harris, 3rd ed. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960),
p. 782.

l4Ibid., p. 787.

21

any effort to be creative. They will spend their time and

energy doing those things which will be rewarded.
Kirshenbaum outlines some student comments in

his book, Wad—Ja-Get?:

The first criticism we have of grades is that
they put the emphasis on the type of learning which
can be graded easily. That is why we have so many
multiple choice, fill—in, matching, and true—false
tests—-they're easy to grade. (They probably also
take less time to grade.) But what does this do to
our education? For the convenience of the teachers
who are forced to grade us, the more important aspects
of our education-—the ones which are not easy to
grade——are neglected.

Grades also turn students into a bunch of robots.
We do whatever teachers want us to do, even if we
know that what we are being required to do is only
“busy work," and even if we think such work is only
a waste of time. The fact is, we're scared of many
of our teachers because of the power that grading
gives them over us.

Thirdly, we do not feel that grades are fair.
For example, if one student has trouble in French and
words hard at it and gets a C, and another student
finds French easy and doesn't work at it and gets a
B, is that fair? If a student really tries hard in a
subject and gets a low grade, he might get discouraged
and stop trying. We've seen this happen to some of
our classmates. So grading isn't fair to kids who
have trouble in school but who really try hard.
Teachers sometimes say they take effort into account,
but how do they know how hard we have worked on some—
thing? And how do they know how hard it was for us to
do a particular assignment? How can a teacher really
be fair when he or she has 130 students to grade?

Finally, we're against grading because it encour—
ages cheating. From what we've seen, most people in
this school cheat, in one way or another. How can we
pretend this is a good school if so many people care
so little about their education that they are willing
to cheat their way through it?

Maybe it's time we thought about the problems that
grading creates. We think this would be a much better
school if marks were completely eliminated."1

lsKirshenbaum et al., op. cit., pp. 23—24.

 

22

Pressey advocated that many educators felt grading
conditioned the student with less ability to accept failure
and to accept himself as a failure.16

When reviewing the literature on the use of grad-
ing systems in schools today, it becomes quite obvious that
one of the major factors contributing to the confusion
surrounding grades is that grades are used for so many
different purposes. Grading systems have been reported
as used for communication of achievement, motivation to
learn, measuring of individual differences, prediction of
future achievement, promotion of students, grouping of
students for instruction, and reporting levels of beha-
vior and personality traits. These purposes for grading
can be seen in the use of traditional grading systems and
the recent trends which have attempted to report behaviors
and traits.17

There are four grading systems which are referred
to as the traditional one: numerical, combination of
numerical and letter, letter system, and pass or fail.

The reasons given for the employment of any one of these
systems lack agreement. Clark saw the purpose as repre—
senting the attempts of the teacher to keep the student

168. I. Pressey, "Fundamental Misconceptions
Involved on Current Marking Systems?" School and Society
21 (June 1965).

17William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and Report-

ing Practices in Secondary Schools (New York: Rinehart
and Company, 1947), p. 53.

 

23

abreast of his accomplishments.18 Finkelstein concluded
that a mark could be defined only in terms of the fre—
quency with which it can be secured by students on a normal
probability curve.19 Smallwood, in studying marking systems
in early American universities, found that legislation
passed on the adoption of marking systems resulted from an
attempt to measure individual differences and establish
standards.20 Rothney reported his observations by comment-
ing that marks continue to be the measures of school——the
key that opens doors of educational institutions for
entrance and for exit.21 Burton summarized the traditional
purposes by referring to them as a way to motivate the pupil
to greater effort and as a simple system of administrative
shorthand for such routine purposes as classification and
promotion.22

Among the newer, more descriptive efforts are the
checklist, the letter form, and the parent—teacher confer—
ence. Two basic purposes for the use of these new methods

18Paul E. Clark, "Can College Students Grade Them-
selves?" School and Society 47 (May 1938): 614.

19E. Finkelstein, The Marking System in Theory and
Practice (Baltimore: Warwick and York, Inc., 1913), p. 82.

 

20Mary Lovett Smallwood, An Historical Studyiof
Examinations and Grading Systems in Early American Univer—
sities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), p. 111.

21Rothney, op. cit., p. 8.

22William H. Burton, The Guidance of Learning
Activities (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1962), p. 509.

24

in reporting are to try to describe levels of behaviors
and personality traits rather than just mastery of subject
matter. The research literature does not indicate just
how effective and worthwhile these new methods are. How—
ever, it does mention some of the many obstacles encountered
in the use of these new methods (e.g., stereotyping of
students; training teachers to conduct interviews, to
write meaningful letters, to interpret behavior traits;
convincing parents to attend conferences; and developing a
standardized system for permanently recording the informa—
tion).

The traditional approaches are also made question-
able by many obstacles. Finkelstein investigated whether
grades were a reliable measure of student differences by
plotting more than 20,000 marks at Cornell. He discovered
the pattern of marks to be disproportionately distributed
toward the upper range.23 In investigating causes, he
found that student effort and zeal, professors' personal
equations for grades, and cut—off points for failing and
honors were uncontrollable variables which made grades an
unreliable measure of student differences. Lobaugh inves-
tigated the same problem by comparing senior grade point

. . . . 24
averages and 1nd1v1dua1 scores on standardized tests.

23Finkelstein, op. cit., p. 29.

24Lobaugh, "Girls, Grades and I.Q.'s," Nation's
Schools 30 (November 1942): 42.

25

She did this for a period of three years, and found that
persons with high grade point averages had a tendency to
fall in the average range on standardized tests.

It has been assumed for many years that the best
predictor of college success is high school grades. But
as early as 1934, Segel questioned this. Even though
general mental tests produce a slightly lower coefficient,
just what marks from any one high school mean is not known
accurately.25 Feder saw grade point averages having an
inherent unreliability, since they are computed from
teachers' marks with the result that any yielded coeffi-
cient will have a large area of unpredicted variability.26
Strang, in her study, reported that a college's acceptance
of a high school's evaluation of a student's achievement
depends a great deal upon the soundness of the school's
recommendations in previous years.27

Endler and Steinberg saw college success as a func—

tion of an interaction of many complex factors which include

25David Segel, "Prediction of Success in College,"
U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin 20 (1934): 1—98.

26David D. Feder, "Intriguing Problems of Design
in Predicting College Success," Educational and Psycho—
logical Measurement 25 (Spring 1965): 29—37.

27Ruth M. Strang, "Reporting Pupil Progress,"
School Executive 72 (August 1953): 38.

 

 

26

personality and health, social factors, parental and
familiar attitudes, and maturity.28

Besides these obstacles operating in both tradi-
tional approaches and in newer trends in grading, there
are also the subjective variables which have a tendency
to play an important role in the assignment of grades.
These variables relate to the sex and personality ratings
of students, conduct and punctuality, conformity and
diplomacy, and whether the student is known personally by
the teacher.29 In addition, it is found in the research
that teachers' evaluations of subject matter vary greatly
when subjective judgments are required.

Writers state that it is time educators do some-
thing about the problems that grading creates. It is felt
that by replacing grades with a more descriptive method of
written evaluation, both parents and students would be
better informed; relations between parents, students, and
teachers would improve; and the school would be seen more
as a place of learning. The aim is to change the grading
system to a system of better communication, more meaning-

ful evaluation, and more learning.

28Norman S. Endler and Danny Steinbert, "Prediction
of Academic Achievement at the University Level," Personnel
and Guidance Journal 41 (April 1962—63): 695.

29J. L. Holland, "Prediction of College Grades From
Personality and Aptitude Variables," Journal of Educational
Psychology 51 (1960): 245—254.

 

27

There have been several studies which have explored
possible relationships that may exist between selected
teacher characteristics and grading practices. Rokeach
has investigated open and closed mindedness as it related
to teachers' rationale for grading.30 Vreeval has found
age to be related to conservative attitudes and opinions.31
Russell found that factors which determine individual per—
ceptions of environment and people (i.e., marital status,
having or not having children) to have some differences in
teachers' judgments.32

Starch and Elliot investigated the subjective vari-
able of teacher's judgments in the subjects of English,
mathematics, and science and found wide variations and
differences among teachers in evaluating the same exami-
nation papers. Their investigation showed even more vari—
ation among science papers than those in language, which
was contrary to what was generally supposed.33 Carter
investigated teachers' marks in beginning algebra and

30Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960), p. 71.

31Lawrence E. Vreeval, "How May We Make the Record—
ing and Reporting of Pupil Achievement More Meaningful?"
National Association of Secondary Principals Bulletin
(1953), 179—82, 191—98.

2Ivan L. Russell and Wellington A. Thalman,

"Personality: Does It Influence Teachers' Marks?" Journal
of Educational Research 48 (1955), 561-64.

 

33Daniel Starch and Edward C. Elliott, "Reliability
of Grading Work in Mathematics," School Review 21 (1913):
254—59.

28

observed these same significant differences in teachers'
judgments. He also noted that girls made significantly
higher marks than did the boys.34

There have been a number of studies conducted
which have shown that girls as a group have a tendency to
receive from both women and men teachers higher grades
than boys. Lentz investigated sex differences in school
grades by comparing them with achievement test scores. He
found that while boys excelled the girls by 8 percent in
achievement test scores, the boys' marks were 8 percent
lower than the girls' marks.35 Hadley noted this same
difference and found because of it that average students
tended to be marked on a chance basis.36 Newton, in addi—
tion to finding that girls are graded higher than boys,
also found in examining some 4,255 grades that women

teachers as a group record higher grades than men teach—

ers.37 Douglas and Olson in their research concluded that

34Robert S. Carter, "How Invalid Are Marks Assigned
by Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psychology 43 (April
1952): 218—28.

35T. J. Lentz, Jr., "Sex Differences in School
Marks With Achievement Test Scores Constant," School and
Society 29 (January 1929): 65-68.

36Trevor Hadley, "School Mark-—Fact or Fancy,"
Educational Administration and Supervision 40 (May 1954):
305-312.

37Robert F. Newton, "Do Men Teachers Record Higher
Grades Than Women Teachers?" School and Society 50 (June
1942): 72.

 

29

this slight overrating of girls and general underrating
of boys by women teachers were probably influenced by the
more acceptable behaviors demonstrated by girls.38

Hadley investigated the relationship between marks
and the ranking of students by teachers according to the
most liked and least liked. The results clearly demon—
strated the tendency for most liked pupils to be marked
higher than their accomplishments would justify.39 Russell
and Thalman investigated this same relationship and noted a
similar result.40 Wood investigated the effect of personal
acquaintance on the grading of essay examinations and
found that the student known to the reader obtains the
better results.41

In reviewing the literature, it becomes quite
evident why grades have become a topic of concern. There
appears to be no unanimity on what should be graded (i.e.,
whether it should be skills, behaviors, etc.). There
appears to be no strong endorsement for any one type of
grading system. There appears to be no agreement on what

38Harl R. Douglas and Newman E. Olson, "The Relation

of High School Marks to Sex in Four Minnesota Senior High
Schools," School Review 45 (April 1937): 288.

39Hadley, op. cit., p. 311.

40Russell and Thalman, op. cit., pp. 561-64.

41Ben D. Wood, "Measurement of College Work,"
Educational Administration and Supervision 7 (September
1921): 322.

30

grades measure. Furthermore, there seems to be no stan—
dard agreement regarding what a grade means, even though
actual achievement seems to be one factor common to all
grading situations.

Consequently, the only justifiable conclusion for
the use of grading systems without advocating their abolish—
ment as suggested by Goodman42 seems to be one of saying
that grading systems can only serve the role of communica-
tion between the student and the teacher. What is graded
will depend purely upon the individual objectives of the
teacher for teaching the course. A grade can only be
interpreted in relationship to these individual class
objectives.

If grades are to have any utility for others
besides the teacher and the pupil (e.g., employers, admis—
sion people, etc.), it would seem from the literature that
teacher objectives should be centered in actual achieve—
ment. Other factors (e.g., effort, attitude, aptitude,
teacher—pupil relationships, and attendance) are either
subjective appraisals or too difficult to translate
directly into grades.

Strang viewed this position as an appropriate solu—
tion to the dilemma of marking so long as achievement was

kept separate from social and emotional factors.43 Burton

42Goodman, op. cit. 43Strang, op. cit., p. 44.

 

31

saw this position in relationship to one of two theories
of education, the one being the mastery of subject matter
and the other being concerned with the development of
personal-social-moral traits, abilities, attitudes, and
. . 4 . . .

apprec1ation of the learner. 4 Smith and Dobbin rev1ewed
extensively the research literature, and reported that the
development of such a system for the latter theory awaits
wider agreement of the goals of instruction.45

A summary of the research on grading practices is
well stated in the following "Definition of a Grade
(A, B, C)."

A grade can only be regarded as an inadequate

report of an inaccurate judgement by a con—

fused and variable judge of the extent to which

a student has attained an undefined level of

mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefi—

nite amount of material.

Anonymous

44Burton, op. cit.

45Smith and Dobbin, op. cit., p. 783.

CHAPTER III

THE DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

Exploration of the literature on the subject of
grading practices has produced two interesting observa-
tions. First, there is mentioned a variety of purposes to
warrant the use of grades, criteria for determining
grades, methods for actual assignment of grades, and
information thought to be extracted from grades. There
appeared to be no strong endorsement for any particular
set of practices. The primary reason for this lack of
agreement seems to extend from the fact that different
teachers perceive grades as serving a multitude of purposes.

Secondly, in the examination of the literature,
there were a number of studies discovered which indicated
that various teacher characteristics (i.e., sex, subject
taught) may have a relationship with teachers' opinions and
rationale in grading practices and procedures. These
studies are a cue that there could be other teacher char—
acteristics which affect grading practices. Knowing the
existence of any relationship would be helpful in graining
an understanding of and in clarifying the grading prac—
tices of teachers.

32

33

Purpose of the Study

1. The purpose of this study is to identify
secondary teachers' rationale regarding the four aspects
of grading as identified in the literature.

A. Purposes for grading

B. Criteria used in assessing student progress

C. Methods used in determining grades

D. Inferences extracted from grades

2. To determine if there are relationships between
teachers' grading practices and certain selected teacher
characteristics, such as psychological, sociological, and

philosophical.

Specific QuestionsanuiHypotheses

This dissertation is designed to be an analytic,
descriptive research study. It is designed to answer the
general research problems stated above. To answer these
two problem questions, specific questions listed below will
be examined on the basis of teacher responses and the
hypotheses listed following the questions will be tested.

The research is designed to obtain responses to
the following four questions:

Ql: To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on each of the following purposes for grading:

A. Communication of student progress regarding
individual teacher objectives

B. Motivation toward greater student progress

4:

F.

To
on

34

Measurement of specific aspects of student
progress (i.e., aptitude, interest, and
achievement)

Prediction of future student progress (i.e.,
grouping students for course instruction and
college success)

Reporting personal—social—moral traits

A simple system of administrative shorthand
for determining promotion and graduation

what extent do secondary school teachers agree
the use of the following criteria in the pro-

cess of deciding grades:

A. Aptitude

B. Teacher—pupil relationships

C. Punctuality and attendance

D. Conformity and personal appearance

E. Effort

F. Interest

G. Achievement

To what extent do secondary school teachers agree

on the methods used in determining grades:

A. Standard normal curve

B. Variation of expectations

C. Danger of inflexible approach

To what extent do secondary teachers agree that

the following inferences can be extracted from

grades:

A. Mastery of subject matter as measured by
actual achievement on recall tests

B. Individual differences as measured by teacher
observations of motivation, intellectual abili-
ties, and personal-social—moral traits

C. College success as measured by individual

course grades and cumulative grade point
averages.

35

D. School standards as measured by the percent—
age of high and low grade point averages in
a student body.

In addition to the above questions, these hypoth-

eses will be tested:

HO

HO

HO

1

There will be no significant relationship between
the scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale which
measures open and closed mind and

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q.2 Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.3 The methods used in determining grades
R.Q.4 Inferences extracted fronIgrades

There will be no significant relationship between
certain sociological characteristics of teachers
(i.e., age, sex, marital status, children,
father's occupation, number of teaching years,
teaching field, type of school system currently
teaching in, and place of teacher training) and

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q.2 Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.3 Methods used in determining grades

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades

There will be no significant relationship between
the progressive and traditiOnal philosophical
points of view of education and

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q.2 Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.3 Methods used in determining grades

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades

 

36

Design of the Study

 

The literature indicates the lack of agreement for
the purpose of reporting pupil progress extends from the
fact that grades are abstract symbols which can serve
numerous purposes, without ever becoming an actual agent
for causing the establishment of standard agreements.

Given these actual conditions and without advocating abolish-
ment as has been suggested by some critics, the predominant
point of view as expressed in the literature is that the

most appropriate purpose for grading is the communication

of information regarding student progress in relation to
specified. objectives.1 The basic rationale here is that
communication as a purpose would require an accompanying
interpretation of any abstract symbol assigned as a grade.

The purposes which will be used to identify teach—
ers' rationale in this study are:

A. Communication of student progress regarding
individual teacher objectives

B. Motivation toward greater student progress

C. Measurement of specific aspects of student
progress (i.e., aptitude, interest, and actual
achievement

D. Prediction of future student progress (i.e.,
grouping of students for course instruction
and college success)

1William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and Report—
ing Practices in Secondary Schools (New York: Rinehart
and Company, 1947).

 

37

E. Reporting personal—social—moral traits

F. A simple system of administrative shorthand
for determining promotion and graduation

These purposes were extracted from a study of the litera-
ture as related to grading practices.

Teachers' rationale is examined in terms of these
different purposes. In order to examine the extent to
which secondary school teachers agree on each of these
listed purposes, teacher subjects were asked to respond to
questions describing each one. Questions 1 through 6 in
the Grading Questionnaire (see Appendix) present statements
describing purposes for grading. Specifically, the ques-

tions examine these purposes:

Question 1. Communication
Question 2. Motivation
Question 3. Measurement
Question 4. Prediction
Question 5. Personal traits
Question 6. Promotion

Teacher rationale of several grading criteria
typically used in assessing student progress is also ascer—
tained. Although each of these several criteria appearing
below was mentioned in the literature, the consensus of
the literature is that criteria should be restricted to
actual achievement.2 Other criteria are either based on
teacher subjective appraisals, or seem to have little

relevance to any of the purposes given for the use of

 

2Robert L. Ebel, Measuring Educational Achievement
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 405.

38

grades. The amount of agreement with the other criteria
should give some indication of the magnitude of the prob-
lems involved in trying to understand grading practices.

The criteria which are typically used in determin-
ing classroom grades are as follows:

A. Aptitude

B. Teacher-pupil relationships

C. Punctuality and attendance

D. Conformity and personal appearance
E. Effort

F. Interest

G

. Actual achievement
These criteria were extracted from a study of the litera-
ture as related to grading practices.

Teacher rationale is examined on the basis of these
criteria. Teacher subjects were asked to respond to ques—
tions describing each criterion. Questions 7 through 13
in the Grading Questionnaire (see Appendix) present state-
ments describing criteria used in grading. Specifically,

the questions examine these criteria:

Question 7. Aptitude
Question 8. Teacher-pupil relationships
Question 9. Punctualityanuiattendance

Question 10. Conformity and personal appearance
Question 11. Effort

Question 12. Interest

Question 13. Actual achievement

It was found in examining the literature that
teachers apply both rigid and flexible approaches to the
assignment of grades. A rigid approach implies the use of
one approach for all students. One rigid approach that is

typically used is the "standard normal curve." A more

 

 

39

flexible approach implies a variation of expectations for
students depending on their capabilities. The literature
supports the latter approach as long as it is restricted

to reporting actual achievement in mastery of subject
matter.3 A completely flexible approach implies one that
recognizes some of the significant dangers present in using
an inflexible standard of grading. Another significant
part of this study, then, is to determine to what extent
teachers as a group agree on the use of rigid and flexible
approaches in the assignment of classroom grades.

In order to examine teacher rationale for methods
used in determining grades, the study seeks to determine
teacher agreement regarding the following methods:

A. The principle of the standard normal curve

B. That classroom performance expectations for

determining grades should be dependent on
individual student intellectual capabilities

C. The dangers present when an inflexible stan-
dard of grading is applied to grading practices

These methods were extracted from a study of the literature
as related to grading practices.

Questions 14 through 16 in the Grading Questionnaire
(see Appendix) present statements describinglnethodSTased
in grading. Specifically, the questions examine these

methods:

3Harriet Frenkel, "Individualized Report Cards,"
Instructor 75 (September 1965): 38.

40

Question 14. Standard Normal Curve

Question 15. Variation of expectations

Question 16. Dangers of inflexible approach

In relation to information extracted from grades,
the literature indicates that grades are thought to be
measures of certain characteristics of students and school

standards. Those measures are:

A. Mastery of subject matter as measured by actual
achievement tests

B. Individual differences as measured by teacher
observations of motivation, intellectual
abilities, and personal-moral-social traits

C. College success as measured by individual
course grades and cumulative grade point
averages in a study body

D. School standards
These inferences were extracted from a study of the lit—
erature as related to grading practices.

All of the measurements attributed to grades are
seriously questioned because of the number of variables
involved which prevent the establishment of reliabilities.
Mastery of subject matter, when restricted to actual
achievement tests, comes the closest to being accepted as
a measurement of grades.4 This study will be significant,
then, from the standpoint of determining to what extent
teachers perceive mastery of subject matter with its

restriction as the only apprOpriate information extracted

from grades. Each measurement listed will be represented

 

4Ruth M. Strang, "Reporting Pupil Progress,"
School Executive 72 (August 1963): 38.

 

41

by a question to which the subjects participating in the
study were asked to respond. Questions 17 through 20 in
the Grading Questionnaire (see Appendix) present state-
ments describing inferences extracted from grades. Spe—
cifically, the questions examine these measures:

Question 17. Mastery of subject matter

Question 18. Individual differences

Question 19. College success

Question 20. School standards

Specifically, the questionnaire included state-

ments to examine purposes, criteria, methods of grading,

and inferences extracted from grades. They are as follows:

 

 

Purposes Criteria
1. Communication 7. Aptitude
2. Motivation 8. Teacher-pupil relationships
3. Measurement 9. Punctuality and attendance
4. Prediction 10 . Conformity and personal appearance
5. Personal Traits ll. Effort
6. Promotion 12. Interest
13. Actual achievement
Methods of Grading Inferences
14. Standard normal curve 17. Mastery of subject matter
15. Variation of 18. Individual differences
expectations 19. College success
16. Dangers of inflex— 20. School standards

ible approach

The second part of the problem being studied is
teacher characteristics. The selected teacher character—
istics have been chosen to eXplore possible relationships
that may exist between these and the identified grading

practices. The identified grading practices representing

 

42

the dependent variables for exploring these relationships
are those areas of grading described above. The selected
independent variables are categorized into the three most
common ways of viewing human behavior: a psychological
measurement, certain sociological variables, and a philo-
sophical variable.

The independent variable to be used in determining
different psychological characteristics of teachers is the
Rokeach Dogmatism Scale,5 which measures the extent to
which a person's belief system is open or closed. It has
been selected for four specific reasons:

1. It focuses on the belief system as a whole
rather than the measurement of single beliefs
and attitudes.

2. It measures general authoritarianism and gen-
eral intolerance and has been found to be
closely associated with opinionation.

3. It measures the extent to which a person can
receive, evaluate, and act on relevant infor—
mation without involving his own unrelated
needs. /

4. It measures the extent to which a person

experiences the world as threatening.

5Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960), p. 71.

43

It would seem that the teachers obtaining the high
scores and the teachers receiving the low scores on the
scale might perceive grading practices differently.

There is a rationale for each of the sociological
variables. Age has been included because it has been
found to be related to conservative attitudes and opin-
ions.6 Sex has been included because it has already been
found in the research to be a factor in determining grad—
ing practices.7 Marital status, children, and father's
occupation have been included because they are believed to
be factors which determine individual perceptions of envi-
ronment and peOple.8 The number of teaching years, the
type of school in which the teacher is teaching, and the
type of institution in which the teacher was prepared
.(private and public college) have been included because
each has the potential of influencing a teacher's attitude
toward grading practices. Teaching field has been included

because it offers a way of examining whether different

 

6Lawrence E. Vreeval, "How May We Make the Record-
ing and Reporting of Pupil Achievement More Meaningful?"
National Association of Secondarerrincipals Bulletin
(1953): 179—82, 191-98.

7Robert F. Newton, "Do Men Teachers Record Higher
Grades Than Women Teachers?" School and Society 50 (l942):72.

8Ivan L. Russell and Wellington A. Thalman, "Per—
sonality: Does It Influence Teachers' Marks?" Journal of
Educational Research 48 (1955): 561-64.

 

 

44

curricula or training in different curricula might have a
relationship to grading practices.9

The philosophical variable describes two well—
known philOSOphies of education: the progressive and
traditional philosophies of education. The variable has
been included because it represents two pOpular philo—
SOphic positions in education and has been found by
Kerlinger to be a measure on which teachers can be expected
to differ.10 Each position represents basically a differ—

ent view of the learner (the child).

Instrumentation

 

The instrumentation for the investigation involved
the use of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Appendix), a
Personal Information Form (Appendix), and a Grading Ques—

tionnaire (Appendix).

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
The scale measures the differences in openness and
closedness of belief systems, and has gone through five

editions. The final form, as tested and reported by

 

9Samuel P. Kelly and Ralph Thompson, "Grading
and the Nature of the Discipline," Journal of Higher Edu-
cation 39 (December 1968): 511-18.

loFred Kerlinger, "Attitude Structure of the Indi-
vidual: A Q-Study of the Educational Attitudes of Profes—
sors and Laymen," Genetic Psychology Monographs 53 (May
1965): 283-329.

45

Roekach, has reliabilities ranging from .68 to .93.ll

The reliabilities were obtained by a test—retest, with
five to six months between tests.

The scale is based on the theoretical concept that
every ideological system forms from a belief—disbelief
structure operative in the mind of a person. The belief—
disbelief structure has various dimensions that make it
possible to determine the extent to which a belief system
is open or closed. These various dimensions are related
to the way in which one experiences the world in which he
lives, the authorities represented by people who hold
systems of authority, and the beliefs and disbeliefs
espoused by people in authority. These dimensions are
seen in all the beliefs, sets, expectancies, and hypoth-
eses accepted or rejected by a person.

The scale is designed to yield a total score with
high scores representing closed—mindedness and low scores
representing Open—mindedness. Once the total score for
each participant is determined, the participating group
was equally divided into three relatively equal categories
(i.e., high, middle, and low dogmatism scores). Partici—
pants scoring 87-125 were designated as the low group
(open—mindedness), 126—150 as the middle group, and 151—197

llRokeach, op. cit., p. 72.

46

as the high group (closed-mindedness). These three cate—

gories represented one independent variable in the study.

The PersonallnformationForm

The form was designed by the investigator. It was
used to collect, by use of fill-in-type questions, socio—
logical variables and the categories for each variable are:

A. Sex (male and female)

B. Age (under twenty—five, twenty—five to thirty—
five, and over thirty—five)

C. Marital status (yes and no)

D. Children (yes and no)

E. Father's occupation (unskilled, skilled, and
professional)

F. Experience as a teacher (zero to two, three to
six, seven to twelve, and over twelve)

G. Subjects taught (English and language, social
studies, mathematics and science, special sub—
jects and other)

H. Type of school system employed (rural, suburban,
and city)

I. Undergraduate training in a public college
(yes or no)

The Personal Information Form also was used to
collect information for the philosophical variable. On
the second page of this form, two well-known philosophies
of education were described. The two philosophies des—
cribed are the traditional and progressive approaches to
educational theory. Participants were asked to check the

one closest to their own personal philosophy.

The Grading Questionnaire
The first step in constructing the Grading Ques-
tionnaire was to consult the pertinent literature on grading

practices in order to develop items representing the most

47

frequently identified patterns of grading which teachers
used. The questionnaire devised was based on this infor—
mation and consisted of fixed alternative questions. Each
question was designed to identify grading practices regard—
ing purposes for grading, criteria used in determining
grades, approaches to grading, and measurements attributed
to grades. The Likert Scale12 has been used in designing
the response categories so participants were able to
register the degree to which they agree or disagree with
the questions.

The pilot tests were first done with ten graduate
students on an individual basis. When completing the ques-
tionnaire each student was asked to comment on the clarity
of the separate questions and to ascertain whether they
understood the content. These comments were noted by the
investigator as they were made and changes in item format
and content were made. A pilot test was also conducted
with a class of graduate students enrolled in an educa-
tional administration course offered by the College of
Education, Michigan State University, during the spring
term, 1974. The Class was very helpful and offered much
constructive criticism. These comments were noted and the
Grading Questionnaire was revised as a result of the pilot
test.

12Anna Anastasi, Psychological Testing (New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 551.

 

48

Sample

The sample population for the study was those
teachers selected from a random selection of secondary
teachers currently teaching in a suburban school system,
a city school district, and in a rural district in the
state of Michigan. The three participating schools were:

1. Rural: Concord Community High School, Concord
Michigan (Jackson County)

2. Suburban: Wyoming Park High School, Wyoming
Michigan (Kent County)

3. City: Lansing Everett High School, Lansing,
Michigan (Ingham County)

The principals of these schools were contacted
and the purpose of the study described to them. After
gaining the support and understanding of the building prin-
cipals, a random selection for the sample population was
identified from the alphabetical faculty rosters. In
order to reach an equal proportion of male and female
teachers, the rosters were divided into two groups, male
and female. By this method, an equal proportion of male
and female school teachers were secured to represent the
three types of schools (rural, suburban, and city). There
was no attempt to diversify other sociological variables
appearing in the study.

In each of the three schools a meeting of the faculty
was subsequently held, at which time the researcher iden-

tified himself, gave a brief statement about the purpose

49

of the study, and solicited the COOperation and partici-
pation of those named in the random sample. Thirty—two
teachers were involved from each of the three schools,
with the number of teachers participating in the study at

ninety—six.

Collection of Data

 

The administration of the instruments took place
within three types of schools (rural, suburban, and city).
Each school was visited by the investigator and a meeting
held with the participating teachers to explain the pur—
pose of the study and clear up any questions before respond-
ing to the questionnaire. Each teacher was then provided
with the instruments in a classroom testing situation and
asked to follow the instructions as printed. It was
explained that it was not necessary to give one's name
unless the participant wished to receive a summary of the
results of the study. Participants were asked to give an
honest opinion when responding and to fill in every item.
The instruments were collected directly following the

administration by the investigator.

Treatment of Data

 

Frequencies for each category (strongly agree,
agree, disagree, strongly disagree) were recorded for every
question on the Grading Questionnaire, and placed in tables

according to the classification of the content of the

50

questions. There are four tables used to show the fre—
quency of the categorical response for the twenty ques—
tions:
A. Degree of responses for purposes of grading
B. Degree of responses to criteria for grading
C. Degree of responses to approaches to grading

D. Degree of responses to measurements attributed
to grades

This procedural approach permitted an examination
of the extent to which there was agreement among the
ninety-six teachers for each question.

Since there were ninety-six responses to each
question, the actual frequency for each question was
accepted as representing a percentage statistic. There-
fore, the categorical responses were referred to in later
chapters as being a percentage statistic. The use of this
statistic permitted the investigator to consider the per-
centage differences between the responses to each question
and draw inferences for discussion.

The statistic used in determining whether rela—
tionships exist between the philOSOphical, the psychological,
and the sociological variables and the separate questions
in the grading questionnaire is the chi—square test. Dif-
ferences found to be at or beyond the 5 percent level of

confidence are accepted in this study as significant.

51

The procedures for determining relationships were
to compute chi-square on the basis of the independent
variables for each question appearing in the questionnaire.
Since there were eleven independent variables, each with
its separate categories, this called for eleven chi—
squares for every questionnaire item. (See Appendix for a
listing of the dependent and independent variables.)

In reporting the data for the chi—square, two kinds
of tables were used. In the Appendix there is included a
master table that shows only the chi—square for each depen—
dent and independent variable in the study. The table was
so constructed that dependent variables are listed at the
top and independent variables are listed in the right—hand
column on the side. Those chi-squares found to be sig—
nificant at the .05 level of confidence or less were so

designated by use of asterisks.

Summary

The purpose of Chapter III was to present the
research design of the study. Included in this chapter
was the sample population, techniques used to gather data,
and the instruments used.

Chapter IV will be devoted to an analysis of the
data gathered and will relate the results to the hypoth—

eses and research questions.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Chapter IV is divided into two parts. Data
obtained from the Grading Questionnaire are presented in
the first part. The second part contains data obtained on
relationships between teacher characteristics and grading
rationale found to be significant at or beyond the .05
level. The final section also presents a discussion of
the findings and additional analysis of variables found
to have a statistically significant relationship.

Frequency Responses to
Grading Questionnaire

 

 

One very important focus of this research was to
ascertain the extent to which there is agreement or dis—
agreement among secondary teachers regarding the four
aspects of grading. The four aspects viewed as pertinent
to the process of determining grades were:

A. Purposes for grading

B. Criteria used in assessing student progress

B. Methods used in determining grades

D. Inferences extracted from grades

In order to show the extent of agreement or dis-

agreement, a separate table is used to present the frequency

52

53

of responses to each of these different aspects of the
grading process.

Each table was designed to present the different
grading rationale being examined for that table and to
give the frequency of responses to the four response cate—
gories (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree)
for each grading rationale. As is indicated in each table
pertaining to these different aspects of grading, the fre-
quencies of responses are the actual number of responses to
which there is agreement or disagreement among teachers
in the study.

Findings for Pupposes
of Grading

 

 

In Table l, the responses according to category are
given for each of the separate purposes described in the
questionnaire. The research question to which these pur-
poses pertained is as follows:

Q : To what extent do secondary teachers agree on each
1 . .
of the follow1ng purposes for grading:

1. Communication of student progress regarding
individual objectives

2. Motivation toward greater student progress

3. Measurement of specific aspects of student
progress (i.e., aptitude, interest, and
actual achievement)

4. Prediction of future student progress (i.e.,
grouping of students for course instruction
and college success)

54
5. Reporting personal—social-moral traits

6. A simple system of administrative shorthand
for determining promotion and graduation

Table l.-—Frequencies of responses to purposes for grading.

 

Number of Responses

 

 

 

Question Purposes S
trongly Agree Disagree Strongly Total
Agree Dlsagree
1 Communication 10 66 18 2 96
2 Motivation 6 64 23 3 96
3 Measurement 7 6O 26 3 96
4 Prediction 1 27 47 31 96
5 Reporting personal- 0 9 50 37 96
soc1a1—moral traits
6 Promotion and 3 17 53 23 96
graduation
In Table l the "strongly agree" and "agree" state—
ments were combined for analysis, as was true of the
"strongly disagree" and "disagree." Seventy—six of 79 per—

cent of the respondents agreed that communication of student
progress regarding individual objectives was a purpose of
grading. Seventy or 73 percent of the respondents agreed
that motivation toward student progress was a purpose of
grading. Sixty—seven or 70 percent of the respondents
agreed that measurement of specific aspects of student

progress was a purpose of grading. Sixty-eight or 71 percent

55

of the respondents disagreed that prediction of future stu—
dent progress was a purpose of grading. Eighty-seven or

91 percent of the respondents disagreed that reporting
personal-social—moral traits was a purpose of grading while
seventy—six or 79 percent of the respondents disagreed

that a simple system of administrative shorthand for deter-
mining promotion and graduation was a purpose of grading.
On the basis of the findings the following were considered
to be purposes for grading: communication of student
progress regarding individual objectives, motivation toward
greater student progress, and measurement of specific
aspects of student progress.

Findings for Criteria in
Determining Grades

 

 

In Table 2, the responses according to category are
given for each of the separate criteria described in the
questionnaire. The research question to which these cri-
teria pertained is as follows:

Q2: To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on the use of the follOW1ng categories of criteria
in the process of deciding grades:

7. Aptitude

8. Teacher—pupil relationships

9. Punctuality and attendance
10. Conformity and personal appearance
ll. Effort
12. Interest

13. Actual achievement

56

Table 2.——Frequencies of responses to criteria for grading.

 

Number of Responses

 

Question Criteria

 

S .
trongly Agree Disagree Strongly Total
Agree Disagree
7 Aptitude O 15 36 45 96
8 TeaChér-pui’ll 2 14 48 32 96
relationships
P .
9 unctuality and 2 24 64 6 96
attendance
10 Conformity and O 4 75 17 96
personal appearance
ll Effort 8 38 49 2 96
12 Interest 1 15 73 7 96
13 Actual achievement 5 4O 44 7 96

 

In Table 2 the "strongly agree" and "agree" state-
ments were combined for analysis, as was true of the
"strongly disagree" and "disagree." Eighty-one or 84 per-
cent of the respondents stated that aptitude should not be
used as a criterion in the process of deciding grades.
Eighty or 83 percent of the respondents stated that teacher-
pupil relationships should not be used as a criterion in the
process of deciding grades. Seventy or 70 percent stated
that punctuality and attendance should not be used as a
criterion in the process of deciding grades. Ninety—two or
96 percent of the respondents stated that conformity and

personal appearance should not be used as a criterion in the

 

57

process of deciding grades. Fifty or 52 percent of the
respondents stated that effort should not be used as a cri—
terion in the process of deciding grades. Eighty or 83 per-
cent of the respondents stated that interest should not be
used as a criterion in the process of deciding grades, while
51 or 53 percent of the respondents stated that achievement
should not be used as a criterion in the process of deciding
grades. In summary, the secondary teachers agreed that apti—
tude, teacher—pupil relationships, punctuality and attendance,
conformity and personal appearance, and interest should not
be used as a criterion in the process of deciding grades.
There was no clear decision on the criteria effort and
achievement. There were approximately 50 percent of the
respondents who agreed that effort and achievement should be
used as criteria in the process of deciding grades, while

50 percent of the respondents disagreed.

Findings for Methods Used
in Determining Grades

 

In Table 3, the responses according to category are
given for each of the separate methods described in the ques—
tionnaire. The research questions to which these methods
pertained are as follows:

Q3: To what extent do secondary school teachers agree
on the following methods in determining grades:
14. The standard normal curve
15. Variation of expectations
l6. Dangers of inflexible standard of grading

 

58

Table 3.—-Frequencies of responses to methods of grading.

 

Number of Responses

 

 

Question Approaches St
rongly Agree Disagree Strongly Total
Agree Disagree
14 d d
The Stan ar 1 19 57 19 96
normal curve
5 . .
1 Variations of 10 54 29 3 96
expectations
l6 Dangers of
inflexible standard 23 60 ll 2 96
of grading

 

In Table 3 the "strongly agree" and "agree" were
combined for analysis, as was true of the "strongly disagree"
and "disagree." Seventy—six or 79 percent of the respondents
stated that the standard normal curve should not be used as
a method in determining grades, while 64 or 67 percent and
83 or 86 percent agreed that variation of expectations and
danger of inflexible approach, respectively, should be used
as methods in determining grades.

Findings for Inferences
Extracted From Grades

In Table 4, the responses according to category are
given for each of the inferences described in the question—
naire. The research question to which these inferences

pertained is as follows:

59

To what extent do secondary teachers agree that

certa

17.

18.

19.

20.

in inferences are extracted from grades:

Mastery of subject matter as measured by actual
achievement on memory tests

Individual differences as measured by teacher
observations of motivation, intellectual
abilities, and personal—social—moral traits

College success as measured by individual course
grades and cumulative grade point averages

School standards as measured by the percentage
of high and low grade point averages in a
student body

Table 4.--Frequencies of responses to inferences extracted

from grades.

 

Question

Inferences

Number of Responses

 

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

, Total
Agree Disagree

 

17

18

19

20

Master
matter

Indivi
differ

Colleg

School

y of subject

dual
ences

10 57 26 3 96

e success 2 49 37 8 96

standards 4 59 3O 3 96

 

In Table 4 the "strongly agree" and "agree" state-

ments were combined for analysis as was true of the

"strongly disagree" and "disagree." Sixty—three or 66 per—

cent of the respondents stated that mastery of subject

matter as measured by actual achievement on recall tests

 

60

and school standards as measured by the percentage of high
and low grade point averages in the student body are
inferences that can be extracted from grades. Sixty—seven
or 70 percent of the respondents stated that individual
differences as measured by teacher observations of moti-
vation, intellectual abilities, and personal-social-moral
traits are an inference that can be extracted from grades.
While fifty-one or 53 percent stated that college success
as measured by individual course grades and cumulative
grade point averages is an inference which can be extracted
from grades. In summary, there was common agreement that
the following inferences can be extracted from grades:
mastery of subject matter as measured by actual achievement
on recall tests; individual differences as measured by
teacher observations of motivation, intellectual abilities,
and personal—social-moral traits; and school standards as
measured by the percentage of high and low grade point
averages in a student body. On the other hand, there was
no common agreement that inferences can be extracted from
grades, when a teacher looks at college success as measured
by individual course grades and cumulative grade point

averages.

60

and school standards as measured by the percentage of high
and low grade point averages in the student body are
inferences that can be extracted from grades. Sixty—seven
or 70 percent of the respondents stated that individual
differences as measured by teacher observations of moti—
vation, intellectual abilities, and personal—social—moral
traits are an inference that can be extracted from grades.
While fifty—one or 53 percent stated that college success
as measured by individual course grades and cumulative
grade point averages is an inference which can be extracted
from grades. In summary, there was common agreement that
the following inferences can be extracted from grades:
mastery of subject matter as measured by actual achievement
on recall tests; individual differences as measured by
teacher observations of motivation, intellectual abilities,
and personal—social—moral traits; and school standards as
measured by the percentage of high and low grade point
averages in a student body. On the other hand, there was
no common agreement that inferences can be extracted from
grades, when a teacher looks at college success as measured
by individual course grades and cumulative grade point

averages.

Summary

Purposes of Grading

 

l.
2

3
4.
5

6.

Communication
Motivation
Measurement
Prediction

Reporting personal—
social—moral traits

Promotion & graduation

Criteria for Grading

 

7.
8

10.

ll.
12.
13.

Aptitude

Teacher/pupil
relationship

Punctuality &
attendance

Conformity &
personal appearance

Effort
Interest

Actual achievement

Methods of Grading

 

14.
15.
16.

Standard normal curve
Variationtofexpectation

Dangers of inflexible
standard of grading

61

No Common

 

Agree Disagree Agreement
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x

62
No Common
Agree Disagree Agreement

Inferences Extracted
From Grades

 

17. Mastery of subject
matter

18. Individual<differences
19. College success x
20. School standards x

Significant Relationships Between Selected
Teacher Characteristics and Rationale
for Grading

 

A chi—square test was used to test for relation-
ships between selected teacher characteristics and rationale
for grading. There were eleven independent variables (one
psychological, nine sociological, and one philoSOphical
characteristic) and twenty dependent variables (grading
practices); they are presented in the Appendix. Of the
total possible relationships, only seventeen chi-squares
were found to be significant at or beyond the .05 level.

It was necessary in the case of all dependent variables
to reduce the number of cells or response categories. This
meant combining the "strongly agree" category with the
"agree" category and the "strongly disagree" with "dis—
agree." The responses were lower than five for some cate-
gories, making this adjustment in computing chi—squares

essential.

63

In order to present those seventeen relationships
found to be significant, the following format is used.
Each general null hypothesis is presented and a table
which shows the results of the chi-square analysis. After
the statement of the null hypothesis, there is reported
the chi-square analysis data for the twenty dependent

variables.

There will be no significant relationship between
the scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale which
measures open and closed mindedness and:

HO

R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q.2 Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.3 Methods used in grading

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades

Table 5 reports the results of the chi—square
analysis for relationships between the independent variable
of dogmatism scores and the twenty dependent variables.

In research question 1, Purposes of Grading,
there were no significant differences between the Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale and the six dependent variables. This
was also true of the seven dependent variables in research
question 2, Criteria for Grading.

In research question 3, Methods Used in Grading,
there was a significant difference between the scores on

the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the dependent variable,

64

Dangers of Inflexible Approach. The chi—square data were

significant at the .02 level.

Table 5.-—Chi-square analysis for Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
and twenty dependent variables.

 

Dependent Variable Chi—Square Value

 

R.Q.l Purposes for Grading

 

 

 

 

 

Communication 2.465
Motivation 4.485
Measurement 4.899
Prediction 1.003
Personal-social-moral .605
Promotion/graduation 3.610
R.Q.2 Criteria for Grading
Aptitude 1.140
Teacher/pupil relationship 1.297
Punctuality/attendance 2.818
Conformity/personal appearance .599
Effort 3.517
Interest .248
Actual achievement 1.318
.Q.3 Methods Used in Grading
Standard normal curve 2.634
Variation of expectations 3.857
Dangers of inflexible approach 8.272**
.Q.4 Inferences Extracted from Grades
Mastery of subject matter .832
Individual differences 8.4467**
College success 1.694
School standards 4.762
*Chi—square is significant at the .05 level.

**Chi-square is significant at the .02 level.

***Chi—square is significant at the

.01 level.

65

Dangers of Inflexible Approach. The chi-square data were
significant at the .02 level.

In research question 4, Inferences Extracted from
Grades, there was a significant difference between the
scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the dependent
variable, Individual Differences. The chi-square data
were significant at the .02 level.

Discussion of Significant Findings
on the Dogmatism Scale

 

There is a significant relationship between scores
on the Dogmatism Scale and Dangers of Inflexible Approach
in R.Q.3, Methods Used in Grading.

Chi-square computations by cells for the signifi—
cant relationship between scores on the Dogmatism Scale
and the Methods of Recognizing the Danger of an Inflexible

Approach are as follows:

Danger of Inflexible Approach

Agree Disagree
Low Dogmatism 310 10

28.33e 3.67e
Middle Dogmatism 250 80

28.22e 3.78e
High Dogmatism 290 20

27.45e 3.55e

x2 = 8.727

DF = 2

P .02

66

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig-
nificant relationship between the scores on the Dogmatism
Scale which measures open and closed mindedness and Danger

of Inflexible Approach (R.Q. Methods Used in Grading).

3!

There is a significant relationship between scores
on the Dogmatism Scale and Individual Difference in R.Q.4,

Inferences Extracted from Grades.

Individual Differences

Agree Disagree
Low Dogmatism 200 120

22.67e 9.33e
Middle Dogmatism 200 130

23.37e 9.63e
High Dogmatism 280 30

21.96e 9.04e

X2 = 8.446

DF = 2

P .02

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. TherevflJJ.berx>Significant
relationship between scores on the Dogmatism Scale which
measures Open and closed mindedness and Individual Differ—

ences (R.Q.4, Inferences Extracted from Grades).

67

Ho ° There will be no significant relationship between
certain sociological characteristics of teachers
(i.e., age, sex, marital status, children,
father's occupation, number of teaching years,
teaching field, type of school system currently
teaching in, and place of teacher training) and:
R.Q.l The purposes for grading

R.Q.2 Selected teacher criteria for determining
grades

R.Q.3 Methods used in grading

R.Q.4 Inferences extracted from grades

Tables 6 through 9 report the results of the chi-
square analysis for relationships between the independent
sociological variables listed above and the twenty depen-
dent variables.

Findings for Purposes for Grading
and Sociological Characteristics

Table 6 presents the seven dependent variables of
the research question related to purposes of grading and
the nine independent variables of the sociological char-
'acteristics.

In the independent variables—-sex, age, children,
father's occupation, and experience as a teacher--there
was no significant relationship with the six dependent
variables for the research question related to Purposes
for Grading. In the independent variable, marital status,
there is a significant relationship with the dependent
variable motivation. The chi-square data are significant

at the .05 level. In the independent variable, subject

.Hw>ma H0. map um ucmoflmacmflm we mumsvaH30888
.Hm>ma mo. 639 up ucmofluflcmem ma mumsamIABUAA

.Hw>ma mo. map um ucmoHMHcmHm mH mumswmlwno«

68

 

 

 

mmv. omm. pma. moo. pom. 444mm8.m mangamuu “Cramps
00m. 0HN.N wmh.m 000.m wHH.H mom. Hoozom mo OQ>B
¢m©.v Nwm.0 mwh.h «va.HH va. Hmm.m unmsmu powflnsm
mhm. hHH.h 000.m vwm. mHH. mvm. Honommg mm mocmflnmmxm
0mm.0 NVN. 0mm. HON.h 0NV.© vm©.m COHummDOOO m.Hm£wmm
000. omm. mHO. ovm. mow. QNH. cmHUHHSU
hhH.N v®®.H H00. hmv. «N0>.v va.H mdwmuw Hmuflumz
>00. Hmv. mHh.H awn. mvm.a omm.H mad
vmm.a m©0.m 000.0 mvo. 000.0 000. xmm
cowumspmuw mufimua ammo: COHu AmmHQMHHm> unoccmmmoch
\GOHuoeoum \Mwmwmmwm cofluoflcoum ucoEmHSmmoE coflum>fluoz IMUHCSEEOO wwwwmwwwwmwwmno

 

.AoHQMHHm> “concommpv mcflcmuw Mom mwmomusmlla.o.mll.o mange

69

taught, there was a significant relationship at the .05
level. In the independent variable, teacher training,
there was a significant relationship with the dependent
variable, communication, which was significant at the
.01 level.

Findings for Criteria for Grading

and Sociological Characteristics

Table 7 presents the seven dependent variables for
the research question related to Criteria for Grading and
the nine independent variables for sociological character—
istics.

An analysis of the data shows that there was no
significant relationship between the dependent variables
of Criteria for Grading and the sociological characteristics
of sex, age, children, father's occupation, experience
as a teacher, type of school, and teacher training. There
is a significant relationship between the dependent vari-
able, teacher—pupil relationship, and the independent
variable, marital status. The chi-square was significant
at the .01 level. In the dependent variables, aptitude
and teacher-pupil relationship, there was a significant
relationship with the independent variable, subject taught.

The chi-square was significant at the .01 level.

7O

.Hm>ma Ho. map um UCMUHMHcmflm we mumsvaHQURRR
.Hm>oa No. on» um ucmoflwflcmflm we mnmnwmIHSORR

.Hw>ma m0. msu um DGMURMHcmHm we mumsvaH£UR

 

 

Ohm. VH.N 0H0. 0mm. moo. va. OHM. OQHCkufl HOSUMQB
mw>.m hm0.N NOO.H va. HMH. mhv.N OMN. HOOSUm MO OQ>B
mom.¢ th.N hmm.a 00m.m OOV.¢ *¥«th.ma. ¥«{va.®H pnmflwu Homflfldm
0mm. mHm. NOH.m Hw©.N Nmm.H m©¢.N NmH. Hmflommumflwwvfiwflhmflxm
NOH.N mmO.® HOH.N mOm.m hmv.v HVH. VON.H COHfiMQDOOO m.Hw£#mm
vmv. vmm.H ©OO.H woo. mow. mv>.m mom. COHUHHSU
MHH.H OmH. OmO.N 5mm.m Hmm. *«Rmmm.w NV®.H m5¥fl¥m HMUHHMZ
vmm. mmm. mNH.¢ vmm. me.H Hwh.m mam. mmfi
NVO. wmm.H mhm. va.H HAN. OON.H m0m.m Xmm
Hume mocmummmmm AmoHQMHHm>
I0>oanom “moumucH uHOMMm anaemumm mosmpcmuum mflcmCOHumamm opsuaumm ucopcomoUch
Hmswom \wuflsuomcou \wuflamspocsm HamsquonommB . mowwwmmwwwmwwmu

 

.mcflpmuo you mflumufluouum.a.muu.s Canoe

71
Findings for Methods Used in Grading
and Sociological Characteristics
Table 8 presents the findings for the three depen-
dent variables in research question 3 related to Methods
Used in Grading, and the nine independent variables related

to sociological characteristics.

Table 8.--R.Q.3—-Methods Used in Grading.

 

Sociological

 

Characteristics Sggggzid Variation of IifIziibI:
(Independent Curve Expectations Approach
Variables)

Sex .061 .188 .103
Age .366 5.385 4.928
Marital status .216 .143 .633
Children .146 3.048 1.371
Father's occupation 2.213 4.803 1.728
Experienceensteacher 2.596 3.017 .032
Subject taught 6.149 3.092 .747
Type of school 1.669 1.177 3.762
Teacher training .352 .308 .003

 

*Chi-square is significant at the .05 level.

**Chi—square is significant at the .02 level.

***Chi—square is significant at the

.01 level.

72

None of the three dependent variables in the
research question related to Methods Used in Grading showed
any significant relationship with the nine independent
variables related to sociological characteristics.

Findings Related to Inferences Extracted

From Grades and Sociological
Characteristics

 

 

 

Table 9 presents the four dependent variables
related to the research question, Inferences Extracted
from Grades, and the nine independent variables related

to sociological characteristics.

Table 9.--R.Q.4—-Inferences Extracted from Grades.

 

 

Sociological Master of
Characteristics . y Individual College School
Subject .
(Independent Differences Success Standards
. Matter

Variables)
Sex 0.000 2.02 1.046 .750
Age .816 6.515* 6.300* .405
Marital status .577 .001 .305 .894
Children .282 2.164 .293 4.762*
Father's occupation .876 4.374 2.413 4.803
Experience as teacher .442 4.413 3.408 1.758
subject taught .338 4.122 1.013 1.261
Type of school .705 .218 2.379 1.177
Teacher training 4.103* .515 .053 1.231

 

*Chi-square is significant at the .05 level.
**Chi—square is significant at the .02 level.

***Chi-square is significant at the .01 level.

 

73

In the independent variables, sex, marital status,
father's occupation, experience as a teacher, subject
taught, and type of school, there was no significant
relationship with the four dependent variables in the
research question related to Inferences Extracted from
Grades. There was a significant relationship with the
independent variable, age, and the dependent variables,
individual differences and college success. The chi-
squares in both cases were significant at the .05 level.

There was a significant relationship with the
independent variable, children, and the dependent vari-
able, school standards. The chi-square was significant
at the .05 level. The only other significant relation-
ship was found between the independent variable, teacher
training, and the dependent variable, mastery of subject
matter. The chi—square was significant at the .05 level.

Discussion of Significant Findings
on Sociological Scale

 

There is a significant relationship between the
sociological characteristic (teacher training) and R.Q.l
Purposes for Grading (Communication).

The chi-square computation by cells for the sig-
nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic of teacher training and Purpose of Grading——

Communication is shown on the following page.

Teacher Training in Public
Institution & Communication

(Yes)
Public College

(N0)
Public College

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected.

74

 

Communication

Agree Disagree

670 110
62.56e 15.44e

100 80
14.44e 3.56e
x2 = 8.482
DF = 1

P .01

There will be no sig—

nificant relationship between the sociological character-

istics of teachers receiving their training in a public

or private institution and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading,

Communication.

There is a significant relationship between the

sociological characteristic (marital status) and R.Q.l

Purposes for Grading (Motivation).

Marital Status
and Motivation

 

 

(Yes)
Marital Status

(N0)
Marital Status

 

Motivation
Agree Disagree
540 250
57.6e 21.4d
l6o lo
12.4e 4.6e

x2 = 4.702
DF = l
P .05

75

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig-

 

nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic (marital status) and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading

(Motivation).

There is a significant relationship between socio-

 

logical characteristic (subjects taught) and R.Q.l Purposes

 

for Gradingy(Measurement).

 

Subjects Taught

 

 

 

and Measurement Measurement
Agree Disagree
English/Language 160 50
14.66e 6.34e
Social Studies 190 20
14.66e 6.34e
Mathematics/Science 9o 50
9.77e 4.23e
Special Subjects 130 140
18.84e 8.16e
Other 100 30
9.07e 3.93e
X2 = 11.184
DF=4
P .05

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig-

 

nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic (subjects taught) and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading

(Measurement).

76

There is a significant relationship between socio—
logical characteristic (subject taught) and R.Q.2 Criteria

for Gradingg(Aptitude).

Subject Taught

and Aptitude Aptitude
Agree Disagree
English/Language 20 190
3.72e 17.28e
Social Studies lo 200
3.72e 17.28e
Math/Science lo 130
2.48e 11.52e
Special Subjects 60 210
4.78e 22.223
Other 70 6o
2.3oe 10.70e
X2 = 16.481
DF=4
P .01

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig—

 

nificant relationship between the sociological character—
istic (subjects taught) and R.Q.2 Criteria for Grading

(Aptitude).

There is a significant relationship between socio—
logical characteristic (marital status) and R.Q.2 Criteria

for Grading (Teacher/Pupil Relationship).

77

Marital Status and

 

 

Teacher/Pupil Relationship Teacher/Pupil Relationship
Agree Disagree
(Yes) 90 70
Marital Status 13.7e 65.83e
(No) 70 100
Marital Status 2.83e 14.17e
x2 = 8.935
DF = l
P .01

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig—
nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic (marital status) and R.Q.2 Criteria for Grading

(Teacher/Pupil Relationship).

There is a significant relationship between socio—
logical characteristic (subject taught) and R.Q.2 Criteria

for Grading (Teacher/Pupil Relationship).

Subject Taught and

 

 

 

Teacher/Pupil Relationship Teacher/Pupil Relationship
Agree Disagree
English Language 20 190
3.50e 17.50e
Social Studies lo 200
3.50e 17.50e
Math/Science 00 140

2.33e 11.67e

Special Subjects

Other

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected.

78

Agree

80
4.50e

50
2.17e

><
II II

Disagree

19o
22.50e

80
10.83e

13.427
4
.01

There will be no sig-

nificant relationship between the sociological character—

istic (subject taught) and R.Q.2 Criteria for Grading

(Teacher/Pupil Relationship).

The data in Table 8 show no significant relation-

ship between any of the sociological characteristics and

R.Q.3, Methods Used in Grading.

There is a significant relationship between the

sociological characteristic (teacher training in public

oryprivate institution) and R.Q.4 Inference Extracted

from Grades (Master of Subject Matter).

Teacher Training in Public
or Private Institution and
Mastery of Subject Matter

(Yes)
Public College

(N0)
Public College

Mastery of Subject Matter

Agree Disagree
450 330
48.75e 29.25e
150 30
11.25e 6.75e
x2 = 4.103

DF = l

P

.05

 

79

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig-
nificant relationship between the sociological character—
istic (teacher training in public or private institution)
and R.Q.4 Inference Extracted from Grades (Mastery of

Subject Matter).

There is a significant relationship between socio-
logical characteristic (age of teacher) and R.Q.4 Infer—

ence Extracted from Grades (Individual Difference).

 

 

Age & Individual Differences Individual Differences
Agree Disagree
Under 25 years of age 90 3o
8.60e 3.32e
25-35 years of age 410 90
36.17e 13.83e
Over 35 years of age 180 140
23.15e 8.85e
X2 = 6.515
DF = 2
P .05

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig—
nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic (age of teacher) and R.Q.4 Inference Extracted from

Grades (Individual Difference).

80

There is a significant relationshipibetween socio—
logical characteristic (age) and R.Q.4 Inference Extracted

from Grades (College Success).

 

Age and College Success College Success

 

 

Agree Disagree

Under 25 years of age 80 4o
6.26e 5.74e

25-35 years of age 200 300
26.06e 23.94e

Over 35 years of age 210 110
16.68e 15.32e

X2 6.300
DF 2
P .05

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig—

 

nificant relationship between the sociological character—
istic (age of teacher) and R.Q.4 Inferences Extracted from

Grades (College Success).

There is a significant relationship between socio—

logical characteristic (teacher having or not having chil-

 

dren) and R.Q.4 Inferences Extracted from Grades (School

 

Standards).

 

81

 

 

Children & School Standards School Standards
Agree Disagree
(Yes) 410 130
Children 36e 18e
(No) 230 190
Children 28e l4e
X2 = 4.762
DF = 1
P .05

Specific Null Sypothesis Rejected. There will be no sig-
nificant relationship between the sociological character-
istic (teacher having or not having children) and R.Q.4

Inferences Extracted from Grades (School Standards).

The data in Table 10 show that there are two sig-
nificant relationships between philosophical position and
R'Q'l' Purposes for Grading, namely measurement and
promotion/graduation. The purpose of measurement (chi-
square 7.959) was significant at the .01 level, while the
purpose of promotion/graduation (chi-square 6.194) was
significant at the .02 level. In the criterion R.Q.2,
Criteria for Grading, there were also two significant
relationships. Punctuality and attendance (chi-square
8.072) showed a relationship at the .01 level and the
criterion of effort at .05 level of significance. The
data show no relationship between philosophical position
and R.Q.3, Methods Used in Grading. In the criterion

inferences extracted from grades, the variable, mastery of

 

82

subject matter was found to be significant (chi-square

8.864) at the .01 level.

Table lO.--Data on relationship between philosophical posi-
tion and twenty dependent variables.

 

Dependent Variable Chi-Square Value

 

R.Q.l Purposes for Grading

 

Communication .127
Motivation 2.032
Measurement 8.072***
Prediction .311
Personal/social/moral 3.316
Promotion/graduation 6.194**

R.Q.2 Criteria for Grading

 

Aptitude .061
Teacher/pupil relationship 1.064
Punctuality/attendance 8.072***
Conformity/personal appearance 2.342
Effort .787
Interest 4.586*
Actual achievement 1.246

R.Q.3 Methods Used in Grading

Standard normal curve .002
Variation of expectations 1.007
Dangers of inflexible approach 1.343

R.Q.4 Inferences Extracted from Grades

Mastery of subject matter 8.864***
Individual differences .683
College success 3.332
School standards 2.199

 

*Chi-square is significant at the .05 level.
**Chi-square is significant at the .02 level.

***Chi-square is significant at the .01 level.

83

Discussion of Significant Findings
on Philospphical Positions

There is a significant relationship between philo—
sophical position and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading (measure-

ment of specific aspects).

 

Philos0phical Position and

 

 

 

Measurement of Specific Aspects Measurement
Agree Disagree
Traditional 320 50
25.82e 11.18e
Progressive 350 240
41.18e 17.82e
X2 = 7.959
DF = l
P .01

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There is no significant

 

relationship between the philosophical points of view of
education and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading (measuring cer—

tain aspects of student progress).

There is a significant relationship between

 

philosophical position and R.Q.l Purposes for Grading

 

(promotion/graduation).

 

84

Philosophical Position &
Promotion/Graduation Promotion/Graduation

 

Agree Disagree

Traditional 130 240
8.09e 28.9le
Progressive 80 510
12.9le 46.09e
x2 = 6.194
DF=1
P .02

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There is no significant
relationship between the philOSOphical points of view of
education and R.Q.l Purposes of Grading (promotion/

graduation).

There is a significant relationship between
philosophical position and R.Q.2 Criteria for Determining

Grades (punctuality/attendance).

Philosophical Position &
Punctuality/Attendance Punctuality/Attendance

 

Agree Disagree

Traditional 40 330
10.02e 26.98e
Progressive 220 370
15.98e 43.02e
X2 = 8.072
DF=1

P .01

85

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There is no signifi-
cant relationship between the philosophical points of

View of education and R.Q. Criteria for Determining

2

Grades (punctuality/attendance).

There is a significant relationship between philo—
sophical point of View and R.Q.2 Criteria for Determining

Grades (interest).

 

Philos0phical Position
and Interest Interest

Agree Disagree

Traditional 90 280
5.40e 31.60e

 

Progressive 50 540
8.60e 50.40e

4.586
1
P .05

U
’11 N
II II

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There is no significant
relationship between the philosophical points of view of

education and R.Q.2 Criteria for Determining Grades

(interest).

There is a significant relationship between philo-
SOphical position and R.Q.4 Inferences Extracted from

Grades (mastery of subject matter).

86

Philosophical Position and

 

 

 

Mastery of Subject Matter Mastery of Subject Matter
Agree Disagree
Traditional 300 70
23.12e 13.87e
Progressive 300 290
36.87e 22.12e
X2 = 8.869
DF = l
P .01

Specific Null Hypothesis Rejected. There is no signifi-
cant relationship between the philosophical points of
view of education and R.Q.4 Inference Extracted from

Grades (mastery of subject matter).

Summary

It has been the intent in Chapter IV to present
an analysis of the data gathered and relate the results
to the hypotheses and research questions. The chapter
was divided into two parts. Data obtained from the Grading
Questionnaire were presented in the first.part. .The
second part presented data obtained on relationships
between teacher characteristics and grading rationale
found to be significant at or beyond the .05 level. The
final section also presented a discussion of the findings
and additional analysis of variables found to have a

statistically significant relationship.

87

The final chapter will be devoted to a concise
summary of the research, conclusions, implications, and

recommendations for further study.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The final chapter will be devoted to a summary of
the study, followed by a discussion of the findings and
condlusions generated from the analysis of the data. The
general implications of the study will be presented, fol—

lowed by recommendations for further research.

Summary

Purposes of the Study

 

The purposes of the study were:

1. To identify secondary teachers' rationale
regarding the four aspects of grading as identified in
the literature:

A. Purposes for grading

B. Criteria used in assessing student progress

C. Methods used in determining grades

D. Inferences extracted from grades

2. To determine if there are relationships between
teachers' grading practices and certain selected teacher

characteristics, such as psychological, sociological, and

philosophical.

88

89

Assumptions and Limitations
of the Study

 

 

There are two assumptions important to the design
and conduct of the study:

1. That the teacher's self-report of his beha-
vior on the questionnaire will reflect his actual grading
rationale and grading practices, and

2. That a teacher will report his actual beliefs
and give appropriate information when responding to the
Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the information form. The
methods selected for scoring the data were not designed
as a check to see if there is a difference.

One assumption to be analyzed in the study implies
a relationship between grading practices and certain
selected teacher characteristics. Because of the nature
of the research, however, it is possible only to show
whether or not a relationship exists. It is not possible
to test the nature of the relationships as to cause and

effect.

Review of the Literature

 

Exploration of the literature on the subject of
grading practices produced two interesting observations.
First, there is mentioned a variety of purposes to warrant
the use of grades, criteria for determining grades, methods
for actual assignment of grades, and information thought

to be extracted from grades. There appeared to be no

90

strong endorsement for any particular set of practices.
The primary reason for this lack of agreement seems to
extend from the fact that different teachers perceive
grades as serving a multitude of purposes.

Secondly, in the examination of the literature,
there were a number of studies discovered which indicated
that various teacher characteristics (i.e., sex, subject
taught) may have a relationship with teachers' Opinions
and rationale in grading practices and procedures. These
studies were a cue that there could be other teacher char—
acteristics which could affect grading practices. Knowing
the existence of any relationship would be helpful in
gaining an understanding of and in clarifying the grading

practices of teachers.

Design of the Study

This study was designed to explore secondary
school teachers' rationale for grading practices and the
existing relationships between these practices and selected
teacher characteristics. Twenty different grading prac-
tices were used to explore teacher perceptions and eleven
teacher characteristics were related to these.

The ninety-six teachers used in the study were
secondary teachers (grades 7 to 12), representing all
subjects taught in a typical secondary school. The random

sample of teachers for the study were equally divided by

91

sex and by type of school location (rural, suburban, and
city).

A Grading Questionnaire was developed and used
to Obtain information which would indicate the grading
rationale held by secondary school teachers. Each ques—
tion was designed to identify grading practices regarding
purposes for grading, criteria used in determining grades,
methods used in grading, and inferences extracted from
grades. The twenty practices employed in the investi-
gation were developed from a thorough review of the avail—
able literature and reflected many actual patterns of
grading. In order to seek clarity in each question, a
number Of pilot tests were conducted.

The obtained data on the twenty practices were
placed in frequency tables according to the four aspects
of grading (i.e., purposes, criteria, methods, and infer-
ences). It was then possible to distinguish agreed
responses for each Of these four aspects of grading and
determine the amount of consensus among teachers. The
results showed that teachers gave statements of agreement
to each of the twenty practices, thus demonstrating the
number of practices used by teachers. The amount of con-
sensus among teachers varied from practice to practice,
demonstrating the number of practices used by teachers.

The study was also designed to explore possible

relationships that may exist between identified teacher

92

rationale for purposes, criteria, and selected philo-
SOphical, psychological, and sociological teacher char—
acteristics. These possible relationships were included
to seek an understanding of the variables that may be
instrumental in determining teacher points of View about
grading practices.

Each subject completed a Personal Information Form
which was used to collect the philOSOphical and sociologi-
cal information. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was used to
collect information pertaining to the psychological char-
acteristic examined. The specific psychological char—
acteristic included age, sex, marital status, children,
father's occupation, number of teaching years, teaching
field, type of school system, and place of teacher train—
ing. Teacher perceptions of their own philOSOphical
VieWpoint were assessed with regard to progressive-
traditional tendencies.

In this investigation of relationships between
teacher practices and selected characteristics, seventeen
teacher characteristics and grading practices were found
to have a significant relationship at the .05 level of
confidence. Even though the significant relationships
found were few in number, it was interesting to note that
there were relationships among all three kinds of char-
acteristics studied--psychological, sociological, and

philosophical. This not only demonstrated possible

93

explanations for why teachers may have agreed to a vari-
ety of practices, but also Offered insight into the com-
plications in ascertaining all of the different factors
affecting the assignment of grades.

The study was designed to determine the extent to
which there is a range in statement of agreements to grad-
ing rationale among secondary teachers and to explore
possible relationships that may exist between identified
teacher grading practices and certain selected teacher
characteristics. The assumption that there is a range
was examined, and the hypotheses that there are existing

relationships were tested.

Conclusions

 

The general findings of this study indicate that:

1. Teachers hold a wide range of rationales
about four aspects of grading: (a) purposes for grading,
(b) criteria used in assessing student progress, (0) meth-
ods used in determining grades, and (d) inferences extracted
from grades.

2. Certain selected teacher characteristics
(psychological, sociological, and philOSOphical) have a
statistically significant relationship with the grading

practices Of teachers.

94

Discussion

 

Statements among secondary school teachers regard—
ing rationale for the four aspects Of grading defined for

this study.--In examining the frequency of responses to

 

all the items in each of the four aspects of grading, it
was found that there was a range Of statements of agree-
ment for each item. The range extended from a low of

4 percent for criterion Of conformity and personal appear-
ance to a high of 76 percent for the purpose Of communica—
tion.

1. Agreements Among Purposes

 

In summarizing statements of agreement for grading
purposes, it can be noted that all six purposes had degrees
of agreement, with the highest being given to communica-
tion of student progress (76). The purposes Of motivation
and measurement were agreed with by approximately two—
thirds of the participants (70 and 67, respectively). The
lowest number of agreements was given to reporting
personal-social-moral traits (9), prediction (28), and
promotion/graduation (20).

The fact that each purpose did receive statements
of agreement would indicate a wide usage of these purposes
in grading. Because each purpose did not receive the
same proportion Of agreements, it can also be inferred
that there is a difference of Opinion among teachers about

the appropriateness oerach purpose for grading.

95

Grades have been typically thought of as a report
on a student's learning of certain skills and information
in the classroom. Numerical and alphabetical grading
systems have been used to report this information. The
low percentage of statements of agreement on the apprOp-
riateness of numerical and alphabetical grading systems
for reporting personal—social-moral traits Of students
would indicate that some teachers perceived the limita-
tions Of these systems for this particular purpose. But
their support for seeing grades as measures Of specific
aspects Of student develOpment (iue., aptitude, interest,
and actual achievement), and motivating students toward
greater effort are an indication that they see these same
systems accomplishing more than being a report on learned
skills and information.

The most interesting observation was that 76
percent of the teachers agreed that one purpose for having
grades was for the purpose Of communication. Since this
purpose was defined as representing grades as a vehicle
for helping each pupil to determine whether he is progress-
ing according to whatever the teacher established as cri-
teria, this fact would indicate that teachers View criteria
for grading as a variable. Because Of the high percentage
of agreements, the finding has two very important impli—

cations.

96

First, teachers see themselves determining their
own classroom criteria for grading. This could explain
why teachers agreed with the many different purposes
appearing in the study. Secondly, teachers do not per-
ceive the use of a numerical or alphabetical grading sys—
tem as restricting them to reporting only learned skills
and information. The latter implication points up a

serious dilemma. Does the teacher or the system of grading

 

determine what is going to be reported? The preliminary
indication is that the teachers see themselves making the
determination. Of course, to arrive at a clear under-
standing of what a grade reports would require knowing

an individual teacher's classroom expectations for his
students. The results highlight the involvement of both
the teacher and the system Of grading and the accommoda-
tion Of these two constitutes apparently more of a prob—
lem than is Often recognized in practice.

2. Agreements Among Criteria

 

In examining the degree of responses to criteria
used in grading, it can be Observed that all seven cri—
teria received statements of agreement but none received
a distinct majority. The criteria of effort and actual
achievement came the closest with forty-six agreements and
forty—five agreements, respectively.

Although each criterion did receive limited

agreements, it can be stated that a varying percentage Of

97

rteachers saw each criterion as appropriate for determin-
ing grades. However, due to the percentage Of agreements
given to criteria [i.e., aptitude (15), conformity and
personal appearance (4), teacher/pupil relationship (16),
punctuality/attendance (26), and interest (16)], it would
appear that teachers as a group had a tendency to reject
the use of these criteria.

Teachers' rejection could be a result of their
general disapproval of these criteria or their disapproval
of the student grading conditions and behaviors character-
ized in the instruments used. Because there was a varia—
tion in the percentage of agreements given to the above
criteria, it could indicate that their disapproval was
partially due to certain student grading conditions and
behaviors proposed in this study. This becomes more evi-
dent when comparing the number Of agreements given to
four of these criteria (i.e., conformity and personal
appearance, puncutality and attendance, teacher-pupil
relationships, and interest).

Two Of these criteria (conformity and personal
appearance and punctuality and attendance) described very
positive classroom behaviors where grades were changed
upward in value because of such behaviors. Teachers were
told that a student received high grades because she
examplified model classroom behavior even though her

actual classroom performance and scores on aptitude tests

98

showed her to be an average student. Only 4 percent
thought that model classroom behavior warranted the
assignment of grades which had the highest value possible.
In contrast to this grading condition, another student
.was described as being a below-average student with low
classroom performance who received passing and average
grades because she was always punctual and in attendance.
Fifty-three percent thought that this grading condition
warranted the assignment of a grade with a higher value
than her actual performance would deserve. This differ-
ence in percentage of response would appear to be attrib-
utable to the student conditions and behaviors described.
The other two criteria (teacher-pupil relation-
ships and interest) depicted disturbing and lazy class-
room behaviors where grades were reduced. The criterion
of teacher-pupil relationships described a student having
excellent performance and high measured aptitude, but
demonstrating disturbing and resistant attitudes in the
classroom. Forty-two percent agreed that this student
should be given low grades even though classroom perform-
ance in subject matter was high. Another student des-
cribed as very lazy had satisfactorily met all the require—
ments of a course. The teacher reduced his grade because
he reasoned this boy needed a good jolt. Sixteen percent

agreed that this demonstrated lack of interest deserved a

99

reduced grade. This difference in response noted also
seems attributable to the grading conditions described.

The criterion of effort which received a high
number of agreements (46 percent) adds further support
that teachers' tendency toward rejection of the other
criteria might have been due to the proposed grading condi-
tions. This criterion was represented by a description of
a student as being the recipient of high grades and having
an honors grade point average, even though classroom
achievement and measured aptitude were average, because
of his tremendous effort. Thus, student grading condi-
tions and behaviors appear to affect the value of a class—
room grade and the use of these criteria.

The fact that effort received a high number of
agreements is interesting for other reasons. In examin-
ing the responses to the purpose of motivation used in
(A) Purposes for Grading, it was found that 70 percent
agreed with it as an appropriate grading purpose. From
the size of agreed responses both to the purpose of moti-
vation and the criterion of effort, it can be observed
that many teachers still agree with motivation as a pur-
pose and do use effort as a criterion in assigning grades.

Item thirteen in the Grading Questionnaire used to
gather responses regarding the criterion of actual achieve-
ment was designed to require participants, if they were to

agree with the item, to reject the use of other criteria,

100

including effort. It would appear from the size of the

 

number of agreements given to the criterion of effort
(46 percent), and the agreed responses given to each of
the other criteria, that participants had a tendency to
reject actual achievement as the only criterion because
it was limited to evaluating learned skills and informa-
tion.

If a system of grading is to have meaning without
knowing each teacher's grading objectives, it would, by
its existence, require wide agreement on its criteria
for classroom evaluation. Because teachers have strongly
agreed with the purpose that permits teachers to estab—
lish their own criteria and have indicated that criteria
used will vary according to many different student grad—
ing conditions and behaviors, it is difficult to imagine
present numerical and alphabetical grading systems having
an assigned set of criteria that is widely agreed upon.
It is obvious that what was thought to be reported by
these systems (i.e., actual achievement in learned skills
and information) was disagreed with by the majority of
the teachers.

3. Agreements Among Methods

There were three grading methods used in the study
to which each participant responded. The first method
described a grade as having meaning only when it was

defined in terms of the frequency with which it can be

101

secured on a normal probability curve. The second method
described two groups of students, one a slow group and
the other a bright group, being graded according to their
performance capabilities. The third and final method was
one that gave recognition to the many dangers that can
occur by establishing an inflexible standard of grading.

The results of the study show that each of the
three methods received some agreement with the method,
dangers of an inflexible standard of grading having almost
unanimous endorsement. The method of recognizing dangers
of an inflexible standard of grading received eighty-four
responses in agreement; the method of using a variation
of expectations depending on student performance capabili—
ties received sixty-four agreements; and the method of
using "the principle of the normal curve" was the lowest
with 20 percent.

Because the results do indicate a rejection by
most teachers of the "standard normal curve" method and
an almost total acceptance of the dangers of any inflexible
method, this finding may well indicate why teachers have
strongly endorsed a purpose for grading where teachers
determine the criteria to be used rather than the system.
Secondly, it may account for their endorsement of student
grading conditions and behaviors as important factors in
their grading practices. Further support for this finding

would be the number of statements of agreement given to

102

the method of recognizing the difference in students'
performance capabilities. This takes into account what

is considered to be one of the more serious dangers of an
inflexible approach. The results, in combination, strongly
indicate methods which are more flexible and consider many
factors of student performance.

Item sixteen in the Grading Questionnaire des-
cribed an inflexible standard of grading as (l) forcing
students to sacrifice creativity and imagination, (2) creat—
ing pressures that contribute to the classroom cheating
and feelings of inferiority, and (3) lacking a recogni-
tion of the difference in mental abilities among student
populations. It would seem that teachers have demon-
strated through their very strong support of this item,
and their very weak support of the "standard normal curve"
method, an overwhelming personal concern for the student's
welfare in the classroom. This concern would have serious
implications for any system of grading that strives to
delimit what is to be graded.

4. Agreements Among Inferences Extracted From Grades

In reviewing the frequencies for the degree of
responses for inferences extracted from grades, it can be
observed that each of the four measurements received state—
ments of agreements [i.e., individual differences (67),
mastery of subject matter (63), school standards (63),

and college success (51)], indicating the majority of

103

teachers do perceive each inference attributable to grades.
It can also be observed that the inference of individual
differences, mastery of subject matter did receive a
majority in agreed responses. The latter observation has
implications for two theories of education and brings this
whole discussion section to a focal point.

Mastery of subject matter as an inference des—
cribed grades as being limited to reporting success in
learning skills and information. The inference of indi-
vidual differences described grades as providing infor—
mation about students' intellectual abilities, motiva—
tion, and personal-social-moral traits. Because teachers
agreed significantly with each of these measurements, it
can be concluded that there does exist among the percep-
tions of some teachers basic misunderstandings about the
application of two theories Of education to present
numerical and alphabetical systems of grading, the one
being the mastery of subject matter and the other being
the develOpment of certain kinds of traits, abilities,
and attitudes in students.

By limiting mastery of subject matter to measure-
ments of skills and information which can be obtained by
use of tests, it is possible and logical to attribute
to the present numerical and alphabetical systems of
grading learnings in information and skills. But, to

attribute personal-social—moral traits, intellectual

104

abilities, and motivations would require wider agreement
on the goals Of instruction and a more defined grading
system.

The indication from this study, however, is that
teachers do perceive themselves reporting to pupils,
parents, and the school administration development in
areas of traits, intellectual abilities, and motivations.
One possible reason teachers may perceive themselves
reporting student development in other areas than learn-
ing skills and information is because they are giving
consideration to student traits, abilities, and atti-
tudes in their grading patterns. This was partially seen
in the discussion of agreed responses to criteria other
than actual achievement. It would seem to follow then
that teachers may have seen the inference of individual
differences being reflected in their own grading patterns
even though present numerical and alphabetical systems
are inappropriate for this kind of measurement.

As is shown in the size of the responses to the
inference of college success (51 percent) and school
standards (63 percent), there are still those who maintain
that these measurements can be attributed to grades.
Because grades do represent a composite of many different
kinds of teacher rationale as is seen in the number of
agreements given to the purposes, criteria, and methods

selected for the study, and because of the discussion

105

above, it would have to be concluded that grades are an
inappropriate measurement for each of these when viewed

strictly by themselves.

Significant chi—square relationships between
responses of secondary school teachers and selected

teacher characteristics.--Statistically significant rela-

 

tionships between grading perceptions and certain selected
teacher characteristics were found for 17 of the 220 chi—
squares computed. Even though there were only seventeen
found to be significant, each relationship did indicate
one distinct grading variable that may affect the grading
rationale of teachers. Since the purpose for examining
possible relationships between teacher characteristics
and grading practices was to determine some of the dif-
ferent kinds of characteristics that might be instrumen-
tal in affecting grading rationale, these relationships
also gave insight into how varied these characteristics
can be.

The significant relationships found were dis-
tributed among all three characteristics selected for the
study--psychological, sociological, and philoSOphical--and
all four aspects of grading (purposes, criteria, methods,
and inferences). (See Appendix for the chi-square compu-
tations for each significant chi-square.)

Relationships between the psychological vari-

able dogmatism score, which measures open and closed

106

mindedness, and grading practices evidences two signifi-
cant relationships:

1. Open-closed mindedness and the method of
recognizing the danger present when an inflex-
ible approach is used

2. Scores on dogmatism scale and the inference

of individual differences

Relationships between scores on the Dogmatism Scale

and danger of inflexible approach.—-The chi-square between

 

closed-Open mindedness, as measured by the Rokeach Dogma-
tism Scale and teachers' responses to the questionnaire
item relating to the method of recognizing the danger of
an inflexible approach (item sixteen), was significant at
the .02 level. There are many dangers in setting up an
inflexible standard of marking. A pupil who conforms
solely to a teacher's standards for a high grade may
sacrifice his creativity and imagination in the process.
In another instance, a pupil may feel pressured to cheat
or may develOp feelings of inferiority which would affect
his self—concept. Of course, a pupil may lack the mental
ability to achieve the standards imposed by a teacher's
procedure of marking. These dangers really exist when an
inflexible standard of marking is applied. Teachers
categorized as open minded and those categorized as closed

minded both agree with and recognize the dangers of an

107

inflexible method of grading, while the teachers cate—
gorized as middle scores on the dogmatism or neither

closed or open minded tended to disagree.

Relationships between scores on the Dogmatism

Scale and individual differences.—-The chi-square between

 

closed-open mindedness as measured by the Rokeach Dogma-
tism Scale and teachers' response to the questionnaire
(item eighteen) relating to individual differences as an
inference extracted from grades was significant at the
.02 level. It was stated that when teachers assign a
grade, they are providing information to pupils, parents,
and the school administration concerning their judgment
of the degree to which the pupil is developing certain
individual characteristics in the classroom (i.e., intel—
lectual abilities, motivation, and personal-social—moral
traits). Teachers categorized as "high" in closed mind-
edness tend to strongly agree with individual differ—
ences as an inference that can be extracted from grades.
The Open-minded person tended to disagree.

Relationships between certain sociological char-
acteristics of teachers evidenced ten significant rela-
tionships: (1) the use of grades to communicate student
progress and teacher's training in public college; (2) the
use of grades to motivate students and teacher's marital

status; (3) the use Of grades to measure specific aspects

108

of student's progress and subject.taught4 (4) the criteria
of teacher/pupil relationship and marital status; (5) the
criteria of aptitude and subject taught; (6) the criteria
of teacher/pupil relationship and subject taught; (7) the
mastery of subject matter and teacher training in public
college; (8) the inference of individual differences and
age; (9) the inference of college success and age; and
(10) the inference of school standards and teachers having
or not having their own children.

1. Teacher Training in Public Institution and
Communication

 

 

The type of institution in which the teachers were
prepared (private and public college) was included because
the institution has the potential of influencing a
teacher's attitude toward grading practices. Teacher
responses to the questionnaire (item one) relating to the
purpose of communication was significant at the .01 level
because teachers trained in public institutions tend to
agree that the primary purpose for having marks in the
classroom is to provide a vehicle of communication between
teacher and pupil. Final marks exist for the purpose of
helping each pupil to determine whether he is progressing
according to whatever criteria have been established. The
findings would indicate that teachers trained in private
colleges tend to proportionately disagree with communica—

tion as a purpose of grading.

109

2. Marital Status and Motivation

 

The purpose of motivation (item two) described
one of the primary purposes for reporting pupil progress
was to motivate pupils to greater effort in school. Fear
of failure, it was argued, produced greater achievement.
It was found in examining the significant relationship
Obtained between the purpose of motivation and marital
status of teachers that unmarried teachers made the chi-
square significant at the .05 level because they registered
proportionately more agreements. The findings would
indicate that unmarried teachers have a greater tendency
to use grades to motivate students toward greater effort
in the classroom.

3. Subject Taught and Measurement

 

In classifying subjects taught, five categories
were used: (1) English—Language, (2) Social Studies,
(3) Mathematics-Science, (4) Special Subjects (i.e.,
music, art, physical education), and (5) Other (i.e.,
counselor, special programs). The relationship between
subject taught and the purpose of measurement of student
progress was significant at the .05 level because teachers
in the subject areas of English and Social Studies gave a
significant number of agreements to the purpose of measur-
ing student progress (aptitude, interest, and actual
achievement) and because special subject teachers gave

more disagreements. The teacher characteristic of subject

110

taught was included in the study as a way of examining
whether teachers in different curricula perceive grading
practices differently. The findings indicate that for
the purpose of measuring specific aspects of students'
progress (aptitude, interest, and actual achievement)
there is a difference.

4. Teachers' Marital Status and Teacher/Pupil
Relationship

 

 

The criterion of teacher/pupil relationships (item
eight) described a student having excellent performance
and high measured aptitude, but demonstrating disturbing
and resistant attitudes in the classroom. The teacher
was reported to have given the student a low grade on the
basis of his negative classroom attitudes. It was found
in examining the significant relationship obtained between
this criterion of teacher-pupil relationships and the
marital status of teachers that unmarried teachers made
the chi-square significant at the .01 level because they
registered prOportionately more agreement. The finding
would indicate that unmarried teachers have a greater
tendency to use the criterion of teacher—pupil relation-
ships in their grading practices.

5. Subject Taught and Aptitude

The criterion of aptitude (item seven) described
a teacher who holds a personal conviction that grades she

assigns her students should be in line with their aptitude

 

111

scores. The chi-square was significant at the .01 level
_because English-Social Studies, Math, and Science teachers
disagreed significantly with aptitude as a grading cri-
terion. Special subject teachers agreed significantly.
The findings would indicate that music, art, and other
special subject teachers have a stronger tendency to con-
sider their pupils' aptitude when assigning grades.
6. Subject Taught and Teacher/Pupil Relationship
The criterion of teacher/pupil relationship (item
eight) described a student having excellent performance
and high measured aptitude, but demonstrating disturbing
and resistant attitudes in the classroom. The teacher
was reported to have given the student a low grade on the
basis of his negative classroom attitudes. It was found
in examining the significant relationships obtained between
this criterion of teacher/pupil relationship and subject
taught was significant at the .01 level because teachers
in the category of English/Social Studies, Math and Science
registered a significant number of disagreements with this
criterion while teachers in special subjects agreed sig-
nificantly. The findings would indicate that teachers in
special subjects are more inclined to consider the teacher/
pupil relationship as a criterion in assigning grades.

7. Teacher Training in Public Institution and
Mastery of Subject Matter

The type Of college in which a teacher was pre—

pared (private or public) was included because the college

112

has the potential of influencing a teacher's attitudes
about grading practices. Teacher responses to the ques-
tionnaire (item seventeen) relating to the inference of
mastery of subject matter was significant at the .05
level, because teachers trained in a private college tend
to agree that grades are based on success in learning
skills and mastery of subject matter. The findings would
indicate that teachers trained in public colleges tend to
prOportionately disagree with the idea that grades indi-
cate success in subject matter.

8. Age and Individual Differences

 

In classifying age, three categories were used:
(1) under twenty-five, (2) twenty-five to thirty—five,
and (3) over thirty-five. Age has been included because
it has been found to be related to conservative attitudes
and opinions. The relationship between age and the infer—
ence of individual differences extracted from grades was
significant at the .05 level. Teachers categorized as
under twenty—five years of age, and twenty-five to thirty—
five years both agreed with the inference of individual
differences while teachers over thirty-five years of
age registered proportionately significant disagreement.

9. Age and College Success

 

The relationship between the teacher's age and
the inference of college success was significant at the

.05 level. When a student achieves a high cumulative

113

grade point average, it is reasonable to assume the stu-
dent will be successful in college if he chooses to go on.
It was interesting to note that disagreement was prOpor-
tionately greater at the middle age group. Teachers under
twenty-five agreed slightly. Teachers twenty-five to
thirty-five disagreed to a substantial extent and teachers
over thirty-five agreed. The findings would indicate that
younger teachers just out of college feel grades can be
used to make inferences about college success while that
is not true with all age groups.

10. Children and School Standards

 

The chi—square between teachers having children
of their own and the inference of school standards was
significant at the .05 level. The inference of school
standards (item twenty) stated that when a student
achieves a high cumulative grade point average the school
is certifying to the local community that the student is
representative of the highest academic standards of the
school. Conversely, when a student fails or receives a
low cumulative grade point average, the school is report-
ing that the student is not representative of its standards.
Teachers having children of their own registered a sig-
nificant number of agreements with this inference and
teachers without children gave a significant number of

disagreements.

114

The characteristic of teachers either having or
not having children of their own was included in the
study because it has the tendency to influence an indi—
vidual's perceptions of other people. This would indi—
cate the possible influence of human experience outside
the classroom on their grading practices.

Relationships between teachers' philosophical
point of view of education evidenced five significant
relationships: (1) the use of grades to measure specific
aspects of a student's progress and teacher's philosophi-
cal viewpoint of education; (2) the use of grades for
determining promotion/graduation and teacher's philo—
sophical point of view of education; (3) the criterion
of punctuality/attendance and philosophical View; (4) the
criterion of interest and philosophical view; (5) the
inference of mastery of subject matter and philosophical
point of view of education.

1. Philosqphical Point of View of Education and
Measurement

Two well—known philosophies of education——the
progressive and traditional——were included because they
represent two popular philosophic positions in education.
Each position represents basically a different view of the
learner (the child). The chi-square between philosophi—
cal points of view and the purpose of having grades to
measure specific aspects of student development (i.e.,

aptitude, interest, and actual achievement) was significant

¢.-4..===~_—". -u'15"'=- .~ r.- . _ "we." " -

115

at the .01 level. The relationship was significant
because teachers labeling themselves as having tradi-
tional phiIOSOphy of education registered proportionately
more agreement with measurement as a purpose for grading
than did those describing themselves as progressive in
outlook. This relationship is in a direction that would
normally be expected. Teachers who place emphasis on
subject matter, arranging curriculum into carefully
broken down, logical units with each unit aimed at develop-
ing a particular part of the child's makeeup of study,
viewing the teacher as an expert in supplying direction
and recognizing that true discipline is governed by well—
established standards, tend to favor measurement as a
purpose for grades.

2. Philosophical Point of View and Promotion/
Graduation

 

A very interesting and significant relationship
was found between progressive and traditional philosophi-
cal points of view and the purpose of grades as a system
of administrative shorthand for determining promotion and
graduation. The chi—square was significant at the .02
level. The relationship was significant because teachers
labeling themselves as having a progressive phiIOSOphy of
education registered prOportionately more disagreement.
It would be expected that teachers favoring autonomy and

independence for the child, fitting the curriculum to

 

777777 11 **w—— _ *mmrm-fifi i ,llf

116

the child, teaching the problem-solving approach, and
recognizing that true discipline springs from interest,
motivation, and involvement in live problems, would have
a tendency to reject using grades for promotion and gradu—I
ation.

3. Philosophical Point of View of Education and
Punctuality and Attendance

 

A very interesting and significant relationship
was the one found between progressive and traditional
philosophical points of view and the grading criterion
of punctuality and attendance. The grading criterion of
punctuality and attendance (item nine) described a teacher
awarding passing grades to a slow student on the basis of
punctuality and attendance. The relationship was signifi—
cant at the .01 level because teachers labeling themselves
as having a traditional philOSOphy Of education registered
proportionately more disagreement with punctuality and
attendance as a grading criterion than did those describ-
ing themselves as progressive in outlook, which strongly
agreed. The finding would indicate that progressive
teachers use punctuality and attendance as criteria when
assigning grades to a far greater extent than do tradi—
tional teachers.

4. Philosophical PointcifViewcifEducation and
Interest

The criterion of interest (item twelve) described

a teacher giving a student a reduced grade because of his

 

 

 

 

117

attitude of doing as little as possible, which was inter-
preted as a lack of classroom interest. A relationship
with philosophical points of view of education was found
at the .05 level because teachers who classified them-
selves as traditional registered a significant number of
agreements with this criterion, while progressive teachers
disagreed with interest as a criterion for grades. The
findings would indicate that traditional teachers consider
their pupils' demonstrated interest when assigning grades.

5. Philosophical Point of View of Education and
Mastery of Subject Matter

The final relationship found among inferences and
characteristics was the one found between progressive and
traditional philOSOphical points of view and the infer-
ence of mastery of subject matter. The chi-square was
significant at the .01 level. The relationship was sig-
nificant because teachers labeling themselves as having
a traditional philOSOphy of education registered propor-
tionately more agreement than did those describing them—
selves as progressive in outlook. The findings would
indicate that traditional teachers tend to support the
notion that inferences can be extracted from grades
regarding a student's success in learning skills and
mastery of subject matter, while progressive teachers
feel mastery of subject matter can not necessarily be

translated directly for grades.

 

 

 

 

118

Implications

The general implication of the present study,
which is strongly supported by the findings of previous
research studies, suggests an examination of the worth
of our secondary grading practices. Unless it can be
demonstrated that grades contribute to a better under—
standing of a student's classroom performance and experi—
ence, there is little value in having them. It would also
follow that school districts, school personnel, and insti—
tutions of teacher education must accept a position of
responsibility for the failure of grades to report mean—
ingful information about a student's classroom activi—
ties and for seeking improvements which would result in a

better understanding of performance and experience.

School Districts

Most school districts allow teachers much lati-
tude in determining their grading practices. The reasons
for this freedom, since it is not inherent in traditional
grading systems, are not historically clear. Whatever
the reasons, teachers adhere to a broad variety of grading
practices which were found to vary according to student
grading conditions and behavior. This study, then, would
suggest that school districts should seek to establish
committees for developing a district philosophy of grading,

and procedureswherebygrades assigned to students in the

119

district contribute to a better understanding of a
student's performance and experience in the classroom.
Until districts begin to take these committee and proce-

dural actions, grades will continue to have little value.

School Personnel

 

Another specific implication of this study is that
the results are significant for a number of school per-
sonnel. Teachers in the classroom should be made aware of
the varying rationales held by fellow teachers and the
teacher characteristics found related to some of these
practices. By providing this information, it could lead
teachers to a more conscious evaluation of their own
practices and a serious questioning of the effectiveness
of their practices in communicating their objectives for
grading.

School counselors should be made aware of the
implications of the results for helping students with
their vocational and educational plans. It would seem
appropriate to the counselor's role to clarify for stu-
dents the many different criteria used by teachers in
deciding grades, to encourage students to seek clarifi-
cation of individual teacher rationale when they are not
sure about the criteria being used to judge their classroom
progress, and to advise parents that the existence of a
wide range of teacher rationale makes the assessment of

students' general progress a difficult task.

 

 

120

School administrators and curriculum coordinators
should also be made aware of the results. The adminis-
trators should recognize the implications for school
policies governing promotion and graduation. Curriculum
coordinators should become responsible for inservice
seminars to help teachers evaluate their grading patterns

in relation to any existing school grading policies.

Teacher Education Programs

This study leads to two implications for institu-
tions engaged in the training of teachers. First, colleges
should take the lead in preparing students to accept
realistic grading viewpoints and to recognize that sub-
jective biases can enter into the grading process.
Secondly, colleges should take the lead in researching
ways in which grading systems can be improved to reach
realistic goals and the ways in which inservice teacher
behaviors might be changed, so that any realistic goals

agreed upon can be identified when they are reached.

Recommendations for Further Research
This research was an exploratory study to identify
grading practices of secondary school teachers and rela—
tionships that exist between these practices and selected
teacher characteristics. It was demonstrated that grading
practices vary among teachers, which contributes to the

ambiguousness of grades. It was also demonstrated that

 

 

121

significant relationships do exist between certain iden—
tified practices and certain selected teacher character—
istics. Additional research is needed to support and
extend these findings, especially in the area of rela-
tionships between practices and characteristics.

Research similar in nature and intent to this
study should be conducted to test the validity of the
conclusions for other teacher populations. The popula-
tions from which these studies draw should vary in geo-
graphic area. Research similar in nature and intent to
this study should also be conducted to test the validity
of the conclusions as perceived by other kinds of popula—
tions concerned with grades (i.e., students, parents,
administrators, industrial personnel agencies, and colllege
admission officers).

There are a number of other studies that should be
conducted which would be indirectly related to the results
of this study. A different form of research is needed to
identify and test aspects of grades other than grading
practices and their possible relationships with teacher
characteristics. The present study examined rationale of
grading practices only. It did not attempt to examine how
these practices and the assigned grades affect behaviors
of persons intimately involved with grades (i.e., parents,
students, teachers). These studies might investigate the

relationship between parents' acceptance or rejection of

 

 

122

a child and his assigned grades. Some studies might
investigate the relationship between student insecurity
or classroom rebellion and his assigned grades. Other
studies might investigate the relationship between a
teacher's self-image and his assigned grades. The essen—
tial thing to be investigated in each of these studies is
what grades do to the self-image and the image held for
others.

Survey studies might be conducted to identify the
kinds of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that educators
and academic scholars feel should be reported through
grades. Additional studies might be conducted to examine
what kinds of grading practices are most appropriate for
different types of subject matter. These studies might
sample a population of teachers who are teaching music,
mathematics, etc. This would allow the identification of
factors whose influence was seen in this present research.

Finally, longitudinal studies of the influence of
grades on learning knowledge, skills, and attitudes should
also be done. There may be years in a student's life when
grades have real significant meaning as reward systems and
are very helpful as motivational factors, and there may
also be years when grades are a constant source of frus-
tration, and do considerable harm to the ability of some

students to learn.

APPENDIX

123

 

much you agree or disagree with it.

HH

HH

HH

HH

H

H

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

The following is a study Of what the general public thinks
and feels about a number of important social and personal questions.
The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion.

We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view;
you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements,
disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain
about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you
can be sure that many people feel the same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin according to how

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

124

Please mark every one.

The United States and
Russia have just about
nothing in common.

The highest form of
government is a democ—
racy and the highest
form of democracy is

a government run by
those who are most
intelligent.

Even though freedom of
speech for all groups
is a worthwhile goal,
it is unfortunately
necessary to restrict
the freedom of certain
political groups.

It is only natural that
a person would have a
much better acquaint-
ance with ideas he
believes in than with
ideas he opposes-

Man on his own is a
helpless and miserable
creature.

 

HH

H

H

H

H

H

H

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

125

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

6.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Fundamentally, the
world we live in is
a pretty lonesome
place.

Most people just
don't give a "damn"
for others.

I'd like it if I could
find someone who would
tell me how to solve
my personal problems.

It is only natural for
a person to be rather
fearful of the future.

There is so much to
be done and so little
time to do it in.

Once I get wound up in
a heated discussion I
just can't stop.

In a discussion I often
find it necessary to
repeat myself several
times to make sure I

am being understood.

In a heated discussion
I generally become so
absorbed in what I am
going to say that I
forget to listen to
what others are saying.

It is better to be a
dead hero than to be
a live coward.

While I don't like to
admit this even to my—
self, my secret ambition
is to become a great
man, like Einstein, or
Beethoven, or Shake-
speare.

 

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

H H .

126

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

17.

18.

19.

20.

If given the chance I
would do something of
great benefit to the

world.

In the history of man—
kind there have prob—
ably been just a
handful of really
great thinkers.

There are a number of
people I have come to
hate because of the

things they stand for.

A man who does not
believe in some great
cause has not really
lived.

It is only when a per-
son devotes himself to
an ideal or cause that
life becomes meaningful.

. Of all the different

philosophies which
exist in this world
there is probably only
one which is correct.

A person who gets

enthusiastic about too
many causes is likely
to be a pretty "wishy-
washy" sort of person.

. To compromise with our

political opponents is
dangerous because it
usually leads to the
betrayal of our own side.

. When it comes to differ-

ences of opinion in
religion we must be
careful not to compro—
mise with those who
believe differently
from the way we do.

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

127

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

32.

33.

In times like these, a
person must be pretty
selfish if he considers
primarily his own hap—
piness.

The worst crime a per-
son could commit is to
attack publicly the
people who believe in
the same thing he does.

In times like these it
is often necessary to

be more on guard against
ideas put out by people
or groups in one's own
camp than by those in
the opposing camp.

A group which tolerates
too much differences of
Opinion among its own
members cannot exist
mrlmg.

There are two kinds of
people in this world;
those who are for the
truth and those who are
against the truth.

. My blood boils whenever

a person stubbornly
refuses to admit he's
wrong.

A person who thinks
primarily of his own
happiness is beneath
contempt.

Most of the ideas which
get printed nowadays
aren't worth the paper
they are printed on.

 

 

 

HH

HH

HH

H

H

HH

HH

H

H

128

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)
disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

agree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

disagree (little)(on the whole)(very much)

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

In this complicated
world of ours the only
way we can know what's
going on is to rely on
leaders or experts who
can be trusted.

It is often desirable
to reserve judgment
about what's going on
until one has had a
chance to hear the
opinions of those one
respects.

In the long run the

best way to live is pick
friends and associates
whose tastes and beliefs
are the same as one's
own.

The present is all too
often full of unhappi-
ness. It is only the

future that counts.

If a man is to accomp-
lish his mission in life
it is sometimes neces—
sary to gamble I'all or
nothing at all."

Unfortunately, a good
many people with whom I
have discussed impor-
tant social and moral
problems don't really
understand what's

going on.

Most people just don't
know what's good for
them.

I
L 129

PERSONAL INFORMATION

 

 

Date Name

1. Age Sex
Marital Status Children

Father's Occupation

 

2. Experience as Teacher
Number of years

Subjects taught (if two, select the one you currently
teach most classes in)

English-Language Social Studies
Mathematics—Science Special Subjects

Other

Name and location of the school you now teach in

 

 

Did you receive your teacher training as an undergraduate

in a public institution? Yes No

 

 

130

Philosophy of Education
Stated below are two well-known philOSOphieS of education.
Please check the one which is closest to your own per—

sonal philosophy.

1. Favor autonomy and independence for the child, fit—
ting the curriculum to the child and not the child
to the curriculum, teaching the problem—solving
approach, and recognizing that true discipline
springs from interest, motivation, and involvement

in live problems.

L_/

2. Place emphasis on subject matter, arranging the cur-

riculum into carefully broken down, logical units
with each unit aimed at developing a particular

part of the child's makeup of study, viewing the
teacher as an expert in supplying direction, guidance,
and control and recognizing that true discipline is

governed by well—established standards.

A /

 

 

131

GRADING QUESTIONNAIRE

The following is a study of what teachers think and feel about the
purposes of the criteria for, and the approaches to, classroom grading
practices. Please respond to each statement in terms of your own per—
sonal feelings.

Since many different and opposing points of view are represented, it
is requested that you mark each statement according to how much you
agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one.

1. The primary purpose for having marks in the classroom is to provide
a vehicle of communication between teacher and pupil. Final marks
given for classroom performance exist for the purpose of helping
each pupil to determine whether he is progressing according to
whatever criteria have been established.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

2. Originally one of the primary purposes for reporting grades was
to exhort pupils to greater effort in school. Fear of failure,
it was argued, produced greater achievement. One of the primary
purposes of grading should be to motivate students toward greater
effort.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

3. One of the major purposes for having grades is to measure specific
aspects of student development (i.e., aptitude, interest, and
actual achievement).

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

4. Another purpose for having numerical or alphabetical grades is to
be able to predict future student progress. Grades should be
used to group students for course instruction and for predicting
those students who will be successful in college.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

5. Since numerical or alphabetical systems are abstract symbols, they
can be used to report any number of student characteristics.
Teachers should use them to report personal-social-moral traits
of students.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

 

132

Some school officials see the purpose of grades as a simple sys—
tem of administrative shorthand for determining promotion and gradu-
ation. This is a reasonable purpose for supporting the use of grades.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Teacher Y visits the guidance office each fall to check on the
aptitude test scores of her students. She holds the personal con—
viction that the final grades she assigns her students should be
in line with their aptitude scores. A student's aptitude should
be considered when assigning grades.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

John is a real problem in class. Unlike most students he doesn't
enjoy working with others. He is really a lone wolf. Instead of
cooperating, he seems to find satisfaction in disturbing others.
He exhibits a quarrelsome and domineering attitude and a tendency
to be very aggressive with his peers. He also evidences a nega—
tive and often openly resistant attitude toward adults. On the
other hand, his performance in subject matter has been excellent
and his aptitude scores show him to be highly intelligent. His
grades do not reflect his performance or his aptitude, however,
because his teachers feel his behavior in class does not warrant
high grades. A pupil who fails to adjust well to his peers, to
adults, and to the classroom situation, but whose tested performance
in subject matter is high, should be given low grades.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Jean is characteristically described as a slow student; mental abil-
ity test scores show her to be a below—average student. Her teach—
ers and guidance counselors feel that she probably cannot complete
high school and her classroom performance continues to support their
conclusion. But, in spite of her level of mental ability, she has
continued to receive passing grades and many teachers have even
awarded her average grades. Her teachers have been generous in
grading her because she is always punctual and in attendance. Jean
should be given passing grades and in many cases even average grades
on the basis of punctuality and attendance.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

133

Mary is an exceptionally likeable girl. She is very neat in per-
sonal appearance and she exemplifies model classroom behavior.
These characteristics have probably contributed to her high grades
in her classes. She carries an honors grade point average in her
school, even though her actual classroom performance and scores on
aptitude tests show her to be an average student. Pupils who
adjust well to classroom situations and are neat in appearance
should be given high grades on the basis of these characteristics
even though classroom performance is average.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Kenneth is the type of student who always appears interested in
class activities and applies himself enthusiastically. He volun-
teers for special class projects and readily assumes extra work.
These characteristics have made him the recipient of high grades
and he carries an honors grade point average in his school, even
though his actual classroom achievement and scores on aptitude
tests show him to be an average student. Kenneth should be given
high grades primarily on the basis of effort.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

A high school teacher felt that Johnny lacked interest. The teacher
was concerned about his attitude of doing as little as possible and
reasoned this boy needed a good jolt. The teacher assigned Johnny

a particularly low mark even though his performance was very satis—
factory. The intelligent pupil who tries only to get by should be
given a low mark even though he has satisfactorily met all the
requirements of a course.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

The typical marking systems, i.e., alphabetical, used in schools
should be based primarily on demonstrated achievement and report
success in learning skills and information. These typical systems
should never be used to evaluate effort, aptitude, interest, and
other personality traits.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Teacher X holds the belief that if a grade is to have meaning it
can only be defined in terms of the frequency with which it can
be secured on a normal probability curve. Teacher X is justified
in using a normal curve in his grading practices.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

134

Teacher X had a group of slow learners, many of whom were working up
to what he considered their potential. These he assigned high
grades at the end of the semester. Teacher Y had a group of bright
students who were all performing above what would be expected of an
average student so he assigned the entire class high grades. These
two teachers were correct in what they did.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

There are many dangers in setting up an inflexible standard of mark-
ing. A pupil who conforms solely to a teacher's standards for a
high grade may sacrifice his creativity and imagination in the pro-
cess. In another instance a pupil may feel pressured to cheat or may
develop feelings of inferiority which would affect his self-concept.
Of course, a pupil may lack the mental ability to achieve the stan—
dards imposed by a teacher's procedure for marking. These dangers
really exist when an inflexible standard of marking is applied.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

If final marks given for classroom performance are to have any
utility for persons outside the classroom setting, e.g., parents,
college admission counselors, etc., then they should be based on
success in learning skills and information. Other factors (e.g.,
effort, attitude, teacher-pupil relationships) are either subjective
appraisals or too difficult to translate directly into marks.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

When a teacher assigns a grade he is providing information to pupils,
parents, and the school administration concerning his judgment of
the degree to which the pupil is developing certain individual
characteristics in the classroom, i.e., intellectual abilities,
motivation, and personal—social—moral traits.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

When a student achieves a high cumulative grade point average,
it is reasonable to assume the student will be successful in col-
lege if he chooses to go on.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

When a student achieves a high cumulative grade point average the
school is certifying to the local community that the student is
representative of the highest academic standards of the school.
Conversely, when a student fails or receives a low cumulative grade
point average the school is reporting that the student is not rep—
resentative of its standards.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

 

135

 

 

 

 

 

MW we quEDZ

oz wow womaaoo w.uonomoe as mcHCHmHB oumscwnmumOCD

mm mm mm HOQEDZ

Npfio cmnudndm Hmnsm Hoosom mo omNB

ma em Va am am Honesz

nocuo unflosum outweom most:#m mommsmcmq unmade wuowflndm
Amsoomm \numz Hmfloom \smHHmcm

mm ON ON Hm MoQEDZ

mummy NH uo>o mummy NHIS mummy mIm mummy NIo Honomoa mm oocwfluomxm

vm OH Hm mm Honsdz

HacOAmmmwoum uwmmcmz poaaflxm toaaflxmca coaummsooo m.uocucm

\HOUOHHmoum

MN vm Honssz

oz mow GOHUHH£O

ea me Monsdz

oamcflm owfluumz msumum Hopflumz

em om NH Honsdz

mm uo>o mMImm mm mots: mom

we mv Hwnadz

wHoEmm mam: xmm

 

mmmmU€MB m0 mUHEmHmmBU¢m¢EU AflUHOOQOHUOm

   

 

136

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO TEACHING

Number selecting traditional approach 37
Number selecting progressive approach 59

Total number responding 96

 

LOW GIOUE
87 106
88 108
91 108
92 109
94 111
95 112
96 113
97 114
98 115
98 116
99 118

100 120

101 121

102 124

103 125

105 125

N = 96

Lowest Possible Score
Highest Possible Score

SCORES ON ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE

Middle Group

126

127

127

128

129

130

130

131

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

137

40
280

137

138
139
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
146
147
148
148
149
149

150

High Group
151 163
152 163
153 164
153 167
153 167
154 169
156 172
156 173
157 175
159 176
160 176
160 180
161 183
162 184
162 194
162 197

 

138

Ho>ma Ho. 6:6 up pamoflufleoflm...
Ho>wa mo. 6:6 up hemoeueeoflm..
Ho>ma mo. 6:6 up ucmoflufleoem.

.48ms.o oam.m Ham. ..Aomo.e moo.m ems. eofluemom HmOHBQOmoaflsm

wmeHoo OAHQSQ

mmo. oom. ems. moo. pom. ...moo.o ea oefleumuu Amputee
oom. on.m ooe.m ooo.m oHH.H moo. Hooeom No Case
ooo.o mom.o mos.» .eoH.HH Nae. Hom.m prose» muomnnom
ohm. sea.e ooo.m see. was. mam. genome» mm ooeoeuomxm
omo.o New. 6mm. Hom.s ome.o emo.m coautmoooo m.uorpmm
moo. omm. mHo. pom. moo. ems. emposfleo
sea.m ooo.a Hoo. ems. .moe.o eoN.H moumum smashes
ewe. Hoe. mHe.H Hoe. oem.s ooo.H toe
emm.s moo.m ooo.o moo. ooo.o poo. xom
oHo.m moo. moo.H ooo.o mme.e moe.m mmuoom smflumsooo

 

muflmue Hmuoz
goflumspmuw coaumo
IHMHoom cofluowcoum ucofioudmmoz coaum>flpoz .
\GOHuoEoum Iamcomuom IACSEEOU moandflnm> UGOOGOQOUGH

 

mcfltmuw you mmmomusmIImeQMHHm> unwocwmwo .<

mmqdeM§> BzmflzmmMQZH mom mmMfiDOmIHmU ho OZHBwHQ

 

139

H6>6H Ho. or» um utmueufleoflm...
Ho>ma No. one up unmofluscoflmt.
H6>6H mo. one up unmouufleoflm.

oeN.H «ooo.o eon. Nem.m ...Nso.o ooo.H Hoo. eofluflmomamoflrmomoaflnm
one. saw. oHo. omo. moo. Noe. osm. oeueumuu Apropos
mea.m emo.m soo.H «me. ems. oe8.N omm. Hoorom mo meme
moo.e sHe.m som.H oom.m ooo.o ...eme.ma 4.4Hoo.oa preamp uuonnsm
omo. mam. NoH.m Hoo.m mom.H moo.m mos. Hoeomoummlwoeoflummxm
Noa.m omo.o HoH.m oom.m eoe.o Hes. eoN.H eoflummsooo m.uonumm
«we. 8mm.H ooo.H poo. mos. mee.~ ooe. couosueo
MHH.H ems. omo.m emo.m Hmm. 4.1mmo.o meo.s wsumum Hopeumz
8mm. moo. mms.e emo. ooo.H Hoe.m mam. woo
woo. omm.H mam. meo.a Ham. ooN.H mom.m xom
osm.a mom. sam.m mom. oao.m som.s oeH.H mouoom smfiumeooo

 

oocmumwmmd mocmpcoupm
umOMODQH uuowmm anaemuom can
\xuflfiuowcoo wuflamsuocsm

psoEm>mߣom
Hmsuom

mermeoflumfiom o s A m
HAQDhIHOtOMOB 0 0.0 d moandflum> usopcwmwocH

 

mcwomuo How camoufluollmoanmflum> uswcsomoo .m

 

140

C. Dependent Variables——Methods
Used in Grading

 

 

 

Independent Variables SEandard Variation Of Dangers Of

ormal . Inflex1ble

Curve Expectations Approach
Dogmatism Scale 2.634 3.857 8.272
Sex .061 .188 .103
Age .366 5.385 4.928
Marital status .216 .143 .633
Children .146 3.048 1.371
Father's occupation 2.213 4.803 1.728
Experience asteacher 2.596 3.017 .032
Subjects taught 6.149 3.092 .747
Type of school 1.669 1.177 3.762
Teacher training .352 .308 .003
Philosophical position .002 1.007 1.343

*Chi-square is significant at .05 level.
**Chi-square is significant at .02 level.

***Chi-square is significant at .01 level.

 

 

Independent Variables

141

D. Dependent Variables—-Inferences Extracted
From Grades

 

Mastery of

 

Subject Individual College School

Matter Differences Success standards
Dogmatism scores .832 8.4467** 1.694 4.762
Sex 0.000 .202 1.046 .750
Age .816 6.515* 6.300* .405
Marital status .577 .001 .305 .894
Children .282 2.164 .293 4.762*
Father's occupation .876 4.374 2.413 4.803
Experience as teacher .442 4.413 3.408 1.758
Subjects taught .338 4.122 1.013 1.261
Type of school .705 .218 2.379 1.177
Teacher training 4.103* .515 .053 1.231
Philosophical position 8.864*** .683 3.332 2.199

*Chi—square is significant at the .05 level.

**Chi—square is significant at the .02 level.

***Chi—square is significant at the .01 level.

LISTING OF CHI-SQUARE COMPUTATIONS FOR

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS

A. PURPOSES FOR GRADING

1. Marital Status and Motivation
Motivation
Agree Disagree
(Yes) 540 250
Marital Status 57.6e 21.4e
(No) 160 10
Marital Status 12.4e 4.6e
X2 = 4.702
DF = 1
P .05
i 2. Subject Taught and Measurement
Measurement
Agree Disagree
English—Language 160 So
14.66e 6.34e
Social Studies 190 20
14.66e 6.34e
Mathematics—Science 9o 50
9.77e 4.23e
Special Subjects 130 140
18.84e 8.16e
Other 100 30
9.07e 3.93e
X2 = 11.184
DF = 4

P .05

 

 

143

A. PURPOSES FOR GRADING (continued)

3. Teacher Training in Public
Institution and Communication

 

 

Communication
Agree Disagree
(Yes) 670 110
Public College 62.56e 15.44e
(No) 100 80
Public College 14.44e 3.56e
x2 = 8.482
DF=1
P .01
4. Philosophical Points of View
of Education and Measurement
Measurement
Agree Disagree
Traditional 320 50
25.82e 11.18e
Progressive 350 240
41.18e 17.82e
X2 = 7.959
DF=1

P .01

 

   

144

A. PURPOSES FOR GRADING (continued)

5. Philosophical Point of View of
Education and Promotion/Graduation

 

 

Promotion/Graduation

 

Agree Disagree
Traditional 130 240
8.09e 28.9le
Progressive 80 510
12.9le 46.09e
X2 = 6.194
DF = l
P .02

B. CRITERIA FOR GRADING

1. Marital Status and
Teacher/Pupil Relationship

 

Teacher/Pupil Relationship

Agree Disagree
(Yes) 90 70
Marital Status 13.7e 65.83e
(No) 70 100
Marital Status 2.83e 14.17e
x2 = 8.935
DF = 1
P .01

 

 

 

145

B. CRITERIA FOR GRADING (continued)

 

 

2. Subject Taught and Aptitude Aptitude
Agree Disagree
. 20 190
English—Language 3.72e 17.28e
. . lo 200
Soc1al Studies 3.72e 17.28e
. lo 130
Math—SOience 2.48e 11.52e
. . 60 210
SpeCial Subjects 4.78e 22.22e
7o 60
Other 2.30e 10.70e
x2 = 16.481
DF = 4
P .01
3. Subject Taught and
Teacher/Pupil Relationship Teacher/Pupil Relationship
Agree Disagree
. 20 190
English-Language 3.50e 17.50e
Social Studies 10 200
3.50e 17.50e
Math—Science 00 140
2.33e 11.67e
. . 80 190
SpeCial Subjects 4.50e 22.50e
So 80
Other 2.17e 10.83e
X2 = 13.427
DF = 4

P .01

 

146
B. CRITERIA FOR GRADING (continued)

4. Philosophical Point of View
of Education and Punctuality/

 

Attendance Punctuality/Attendance
Agree Disagree
. . 40 330
Traditional 10.02e 26.98e
Progressive 220 370
15.98e 43.02e
X2 = 8.072
DF = l
P .01

5. Philosophical Point of View
of Education and Interest

Interest
Agree Disagree
. _ 90 280
Traditional 5.40e 31.60e
P _ 50 540
rogreSSive 8.60e 50.40e
X2 = 4.586
DF = 1
P .05

 

147

C. METHODS USED IN GRADING

Scores on the Dogmatism Scale
and Recognizing the Danger of
Inflexible Approach

 

Low Dogmatism
Middle Dogmatism

High Dogmatism

Danger of
Inflexible Approach

Agree Disagree

3lo lo
28.33e 3.67e
250 80
29.22e 3.78e
290 20
27.45e 3.55e
X2 = 8.727

DF = 2
P .02

 

D. INFERENCES EXTRACTED FROM GRADES

Scores on Dogmatism Scale
and Individual Differences
Low Dogmatism
Middle Dogmatism

High Dogmatism

Individual Differences

Agree Disagree
200 120
22.67e 9.33e
200 130
23.37e 9.63e
280 30
21.96e 9.04e

X2 = 8.446

DF = 2

P .02

 

148

D. INFERENCES EXTRACTED FROM GRADES (continued)

2. Age and Individual Differences

Individual Differences

Agree Disagree
Under 25 Years of Age 90 3o
8.60e 3.32e
25-35 Years of Age 410 90
36.17e 13.83e
Over 35 Years of Age 180 140
23.15e 8.85e
X2 = 6.515
DF = 2
P .05

3. Age and College Success

College Success

Agree Disagree

Under 25 Years of Age 80 4o
6.26e 5.74e

25—35 Years of Age 200 300

26.06e 23.94e
Over 35 Years of Age 210 110

16.68e 15.32e

X2 = 6.300

DF = 2

P .05

 

149
D. INFERENCES EXTRACTED FROM GRADES (continued)

4. Children and School Standards

School Standards

Agree Disagree

(Yes) 410 130
Children 36e 183
(NO) 230 190
Children 28e l4e
X2 = 4.762
DF = 1
P .05

 

5. Teacher Training in Public
Institution and Mastery of
Subject Matter

MasteryofSubjectMatter

Agree Disagree

Traditional 300 70
23.12e 13.87e
Progressive 300 290
36.87e 22.12e
X2 = 8.869
DF = 1
P .01

 

150

D. INFERENCES EXTRACTED FROM GRADES (continued)

6. Philosophical Point of View
of Education and Mastery of

Subject Matter
MasteryyofSubjectMatter

Agree Disagree

Traditional 300 70
23.12e 13.87e
Progressive 300 290
36.87e 22.12e
x2 = 8.869
DF = 1

P .01

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

151

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ahmann, J. Stanley. Evaluating Pupil Growth. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1963.

 

Anastasi, Anna. Psychological Testing. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1961.

 

Burton, William H. The Guidance of Learning Activities.
New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1962.

D'Evelyn, Katherine E. Reporting to Parents. Elementary
Instructional Service. Washington, D.C.: Depart-
ment of Elementary—Kindergarten—Nursery Education,
National Education Association, November, 1965.

 

Ebel, Robert L. "Evaluation as Feedback and Guide."
National Education Association Yearbook. Edited
by Fred T. Wilhelms. Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1967.

. Measuring Educational Achievement. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

 

Kirshenbaum, Simon, and Napier. "Marking and Reporting
Pupil Progress." National Education Association
Research Summary. 1970.

 

 

. Wad-Ja—Get? The Grading Game in American
Education. New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc.,
1971.

 

 

Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

 

Rothney, John W. M. Evaluating and Reporting Pupil Progress,
What Research Seys to the Teacher. No. 7. Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association, 1955.

 

Schwartz, Alfred, and Tiedeman, Stuart. Evaluating Student
Progress in the Secondary Schools. New York:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1957.

 

152

 

 

153

Smith, Ann 2., and Dobbin, John. "Marks and Marking System."
Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by
Chester W. Harris. Third Edition. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1960.

 

Smith, Eugene R., and Tyler, Ralph. Appraising and Record-
ing Student Progress. Progressive Education Asso-
ciation, Adventure in American Education. Vol. 3.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942.

 

 

Smith, Lucius. The Status of Marking in Negro Colleges.
Bluefield, West Virginia: Bluefield State Teachers
College, 1935.

 

Stout, Irving W., and Langdon, Grace. "Parent-Teacher
Relationships." What Research Says Series. Asso-
ciation of Classroom Teachers. Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1958.

 

Strang, Ruth. Reporting to Parents. New York: Bureau
of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer—
sity, 1954.

 

Wrinkle, William L. Improving Marking and Reporting Prac-
tices in the Elementary and Secondary Schools.
New York: Rhinehart and Co., 1947.

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Carter, Robert S. "How Invalid Are Marks Assigned by
Teachers?" Journal of Educational Sociepy 43
(April 1952): 218—28.

 

Chansky, Norman M. "Resolving the Grading Problem."
Educational Forum, Vol. 37, pp. 189-94.

 

Clark, Paul E. "Can College Students Grade Themselves?"
School and Society 47 (May 1938): 614.

 

De Spain, B. C. "Telling Parents About Their Children."
Catalyst for Change, Vol. 2, pp. 20-21, 23.

 

Douglas, Harl R., and Olson, Newman E. "The Relation of
High School Marks to Sex in Four Minnesota Senior
High Schools." School Review 45 (April 1937): 288.

 

V.

Endler, Norman 8., and Stienbert, Dan. "Prediction of
Academic Achievement at the University Level."
Personnel and Guidance Journal 41 (April 1962): 695.

 

 

 

154

Feder, David D. "Intriguing Problems of Design in Pre-
dicting College Success." Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement 25 (Spring 1965): 29-37.

 

Frenkel, Harriet. "Individualized Report Cards."
Instructor 75 (September 1965): 38.

 

Goodman, Paul. "In What Ways Does the Present’Marking
and Credit System Inhibit or Promote Learning?"
Current Issues in Higher Education, 1964, pp. 123—24.

 

Hadley, Trevor. "School Mark-—Fact or Fancy." Educational
Administration and Sgpervision 40 (May 1954):
305-12.

 

 

Henderson, John M. "Remaking the Grade." Todayis Educa—
tion 62 (March 1955).

 

Hiner, N. Ray. "Grading as a Cultural Function." The
Education Digest, May 1973.

 

Holland, J. L. "Prediction of College Grades From Per—
sonality and Aptitude Variables." Journal of Edu—
cational Psychology 51 (1960): 245-54.

 

Kahl, David H. "Talking About the Child's Progress."
Today's Education, February 1962, p. 35.

 

Kelly, Samuel P., and Thompson, Ralph. "Grading and the
Nature of the Discipline." Journal of Higher Edu-
cation 39 (December 1968): 511-18.

Kerlinger, Fred. "Attitude Structure of the Individual,
A Q—Study of the Educational Attitudes of Professors
and Laymen." Genetic Psychology Monographs 53 (May
1965): 283-329. ‘

Lentz, T. J. "Sex Differences in School Marks With Achieve-
ment Test Scores Constant." School and Society 29
(January 1929): 65-68.

Lobaugh. "Girls, Grades and I.Q.'s." Nation's Schools 30
(November 1942): 42.

Ludeman, W. W. "Overhauling School Evaluation." American
School Board Journal 140 (February 1960): 37.

 

Millman, Jason. "Reporting Student Progress: A Case for
A Criterion Referenced Marking System." Phi Delta
Kappan, December 1970.

 

 

 

155

Newcomb, L. H. "Here We Go Again——Grades, Grades, Grades."
Agricultural Education Magazine 45 (March 1973):
200-207.

 

. "On Evaluation." Insights. Center for Teach—
ing and Learning, University of North Dakota,
October and November 1973.

Newton, Robert F. "Do Men Teachers Record Higher Grades
Than Women Teachers?" School and Society 50
(1942): 72.

Pressey, S. I. "Fundamental Misconceptions Involved on
Current Marking Systems?" School and Society 21
(June 1965).

Romano, Louis G., and Georgiady, Nicholas P. "Parent-
Teacher Conferences Are Indispensable." Michigan
Elementary Principal Journal, Fall 1972.

 

 

Rothney, John W. M. "Improving Reports to Parents."
National Elementary Principal 6 (May 1966).

 

Russell, Ivan L., and Thalman, Wellington A. "Personality:
Does It Influence Teachers' Marks?" Journal of
Educational Research 48 (1955): 561-64.

 

. "Schoolmen Don't Like 'Em But ABC Grades
Linger On." Nation's Schools 91 (March 1973).

 

Segel, David. "Prediction of Success in College." U.S.
Bureau of Education Bulletin 20 (1934): 1-98.

Starch, Daniel, and Elliott, Edward C. "Reliability of
Grading Work in Mathematics." School Review 21
(1913): 254-59.

Stout, Irving W., and Langdon, Grace. "Parent-Teacher
Relationships." What Research Says Series. Asso-
ciation of Classroom Teachers, National Education
Association, September 16, 1958.

Strang, Ruth M. "Reporting Pupil Progress." School
Executive 72 (August 1953): 38.

 

. "Toward Creative Evaluation." Elementary
Instructional Service, National Education Associa-
tion, January 1958.

 

Trow, William Clark. "On Marks, Norms and Proficiency
Scores." Phi Delta Kappan, December 1966.

 

 

156

Vreeval, Lawrence E. "How May We Make the Recording of
and Reporting of Pupil Achievement More Meaningful?"
National Association of SeCondary Principals Bulle—
Eig, 1953, pp. 179-82, 191-98.

 

Williams, Reed G., and Miller, Harry G. "Grading Stu-
dents: A Failure to Communicate." Clearing House
47 (February 1973): 332-37.

 

 

 

 

 

Wood, Ben D. "Measurement of College Work." Educational
Administration and Supervision 7 (September 1921):
322.
. "Working With Parents." National School Public
Relations Association, National Education Associa-
tion, 1968.
Yamaguchi, Harry. "Downgrading No—Grade." Time Magazine,

 

February 4, 1974, p. 66.

 

Unpublished Materials

 

Buddemeyer, Guy William. "A Survey of the Evaluation of
Pupil Progress in Selected Secondary Schools in
Ohio." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University,
1953.

Gipe, Melvin Willard. "A Descriptive Analysis of Thirty-
Nine Conferences Reporting Pupil Progress in Lieu of
Report Cards." Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford Uni-
versity, 1955.

Haake, Bernard F. "The Effectiveness of the Individual
Parent-Teacher Conference Method for Reporting Pupil
Progress in Elementary Schools." Ed.D. disserta-

tion, New York University, 1958.

Jones, Hayel James. "Teacher Understanding of Evaluation
of Pupil Progress." Ed. D. dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1963.

Kingsley, Howard. "Communication Between the School and
Home." Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1959.

 

157

Kruase, Dorothy Loretta. "A Study of Present Practices
and Attitudes Concerning the Letter Grading System
of Secondary School LangUage Arts Teachers and
Administrators of Oahu, Hawaii." Ed.D. disserta-
tion, University of South Dakota, 1969.

Mutchler, Clarence Rollin. "An Evaluation According to
Generally Accepted Modern Educational Theory of the
Methods Used in Selected Elementary Schools of
Reporting Pupil Progress to Parents and Guardians."

Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University,
1949.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
\IHIWUHH\IIWIWIIWWHWWHIIWWIHHI
31293101806317