From Traditional to Standards Based Grading G.N.TSHEKO,

From Traditional to Standards Based Grading G.N.TSHEKO, K. KGOSIDIALWA, S.M.MOLOSIWA UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA FACULTY OF EDUCATION Paper presented at 12th SAAEA Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, 14-16 May 2018

Introduction Evaluation of learner performance is undoubtedly a valuable indicator of whether education systems are producing what they are mandated. This evaluation is often summarized into grades that are then used to prescribe the future of learners A growing concern in Botswana is whether the grades translate into the necessary skills needed for graduates to compete in the world of work.

Introduction How do we get our learners to get ‘outstanding’,; ‘excellent’ results? Most importantly, what do the grades mean? Do course instructors use/have consistent meaning of these across courses? How do we achive this consistency?

Standard based grading Standards-based grading is a system of assessing and reporting that describes student progress in relation to standards. Standards-based grading is an effective way to give feedback and evaluate students’ performances using clearly defined criteria for specific learning standards.

Traditional grading A system where simple letter grades are awarded Assessments based on teacher-defined criteria A single overall grade per student based on a combination of related and unrelated assessments of skills, knowledge, performance limited measure of student ability

University of Botswana Grading System(Traditional) Score(%) Letter grade Grade Point Quality description 80-100 A 5.0 Outstanding 75-79.9 B 4.5 Excellent 70-74.9 B 4.0 Very Good 65-69.9 B- 3.5 Good 60-64.9 C 3.0 Satisfactory 55-59.9 C 2.5 Pass 50-54.9 C- 2.0 Marginal Pass 45-49.9 D 1.5 Marginal 40-44.9 D 1.0 Marginal Fail 35-39.9 D- 0.5 Fail 0-34.9 E 0 Fail

Grading System in the Faculty of Education FOE put together a task force to develop descriptors of achievement in 2008: Consolidated UB grades into: A(80-100%); B(65-79.9%0, C(50-64.9%) and D(35-49.9%) Descriptors reflect nature of assessment(i.e. descriptors for tests and examinations, written assignments, projects, research, essays, practicals) Assessment standards set

Grading System in the Faculty of Education(cont.) Move from traditional grading to standard grading Are we there yet? Concern on quality of graduates continues FOE continues to record high proportions of ‘high’ graduation classes

Grading Classifications(examples) 2011 PROGRA MME\ CLASSIFI CATION BEd(Secon daryEducat ion) BEd(Primar y Education) 2012 2013 2014 2015 First class 17 20 24 64 57 Second Class First Division 13 18 13 175 126 Second Class Second Division 6 2 6 34 52 Pass 0 0 0 6 0 First class 8 7 8 28 6 Second Class First Division 29 41 34 325 50 Second Class 13 11 16 53 33

Grading Classifications(examples) 2011 PROGRA MME\ CLASSIFI CATION BEd(Counse ling) Bed(Special Education) 2012 2013 2014 2015 First class 7 13 13 10 27 Second Class First Division 23 28 43 38 53 Second Class Second Division 1 5 4 10 14 Pass 0 0 0 0 0 First class 6 9 2 0 13 Second Class First Division 19 14 8 53 97 Second Class Second 15 13 17 55 44

The Problem Under the ‘traditional’ grading, we continue to have high class graduates What do these mean? Can these produce the “self programmable” graduates of the 21st century?.borrowed from Tabulawa’s presentation

Research Questions What is the understanding of grading among teaching staff in the FOE? To what extend does teaching staff in FOE understand the University grading system? To what extend does teaching staff in FOE use grading system designed in the Faculty? What are grading practices of teaching staff in FOE ?

Literature Review RNPE(1994); ETSSP(2015)- 21st century skills, focus on assessment for learning(SBA) Inconsistencies in assigning grades: Reeves(2008) .the use of the “semester killer”—the single project, test, lab, paper, or other assignment that will make or break students. (pp. 85–86) Guskey’s (2004) belief that teachers have deep-rooted philosophies about grading which are tied to their own experiences as a student. Teachers have difficulty assigning grades(Tombari and Borich, 1999)

Methodology Research Design: Survey design (with a qualitative end question) Population and sample: Teaching staff in the Faculty of Education at UB 2017/2018 (population about 100) . No sampling given small population Data Collection Instrument : Questionnaire Validity and Reliability of instrument: Content validity established through expert judgment of 2 Research lecturers Trial tested Reliability: Pilot : 25 lecturers( min of 2 lecturers per dept. who were then not included during main data collection Reliability α .78

Methodology Data analysis: Data entered into SPSS Version 24. Descriptive statistics reported:

Results Response rate: about 71% Majority (55%) female Majority (80%) with over 10years teaching experience

Understanding grading Statement Responses(%) SA A NS D SD 1. Test scores are an approximation of actual performance or skill. 21 47 15 13 4 2. Scores and grades awarded to academic performance should reflect what a learner is able to do with respective content. 59 34 7 0 0 3. Students should always know how their work will be graded 79 19 0 2 0 4. Students should be given multiple opportunities to show what they have learned. 62 36 2 0 0 5. Instructors should provide corrective or informative feedback that will help them improve as the course progresses. 81 17 2 0 0 6. Instructors’ skill in assessment is an important factor in grading student work. 77 21 2 0 0 7. A Standard based grading system

Understanding grading 68% agree that test scores approximates actual performance 93% agree scores awarded should reflect what learner is able to do 98% agree learners should know how their work is graded 98% agree learners should get multiple opportunities to show what they learnt 98% agree that in grading meaningful feedback should be given 98% agree teacher skill in assessment important 55% agree while 32% are not sure that standard based assessment can serve graduates better.

Understanding grading Results by gender: T51 .157, p .876 No gender differences Results by Teaching experience: F3,49 3.45, p .023 length of teaching yields sig.

UB Grading system Statement Responses(%) SA A NS D SD 1. The University of Botswana has a grading system that is informative about skill acquisition. 4 23 45 19 9 2. The grading system in the Faculty of Education is aligned with the University grading system. 6 26 47 11 9 3. The University of Botswana has a grading system that does not have assessment standards. 8 19 32 28 13 4. The Faculty of education has developed assessment standards for all assessment in the Faculty. 7 21 38 21 13 5. The Faculty of Education assessment standards have descriptors to go with the grades awarded. 6. Teaching staff in the Faculty of Education are aware of the assessment standards in the Faculty. 11 32 21 21 15 2 13 51 19 15 7. Teaching staff in the Faculty of Education are use the assessment standards in the Faculty. 2 13 53 11 21

UB Grading system Statement SA A NS D SD 8. The use of assessment standards in the Faculty of Education is monitored in each department. 2 11 34 23 30 9. The grades that are awarded in the courses taught in the Faculty of Education are a reflection of what students are able to do given respective course content. 8 38 34 9 11 10. The Faculty graduates always deserve the grades they receive 0 26 47 17 9 11. Teaching staff is competent in using assessment standards. 0 32 53 8 8 12. Teaching staff in the Faculty award scores without aligning them with the meaning of the grades derived from the scores. 10 2 60 17 11

UB Grading system 28% disagree and 45% are not sure that the University has an informative grading system 20% disagree and 47% are not sure FOE grading aligned to that of the University 28% agree that the FOE has grading standards 15% agree that staff in the FOE are aware of any grading standards 15% agree that such standards are used 32% agree staff competent in using standards 27% agree that graduates in FOE deserve the grades they get 26% claim scores aligned with meaning while 47% are not sure

UB Grading system Results by gender: T50 -.317, p .752 No gender differences Results by Teaching experience: F3,48 1.795, p .161 length of teaching yields no difference

Grading practices Statement Alwa ys Mostl y Sometim es Hardl y Neve r 1. In the courses I teach, I align objectives, 59 learning activities, and assessments. 2. I use assessment standards in 32 awarding grades for courses I teach. 40 1 0 0 40 21 6 2 3. I award failing grades when I am sure I gave students an opportunity to learn the content 57 43 0 0 0 4. I use the Faculty of Education qualitative descriptors whenever I have to grade. 17 17 26 21 19 5. When I award grades I worry about what administrators will say if students fail. 13 6 9 30 42

Grading practices Statement Alwa ys Mostl y Sometim es Hardl y Neve r 6. I give students multiple opportunities to show what they have Learned in the courses I teach. 7. In the courses I teach, I share with my students how their work will be graded. 8. I clearly state grading procedures in my course outlines. 9. I reflect on graduate attributes when I craft assessment in my courses. 47 38 8 8 0 66 17 17 0 0 66 17 13 4 0 45 34 17 4 0 10. I refer to the Learning and Teaching Policy in my courses. 38 23 34 4 2

Grading practices 95% always give multiple opportunities to show what they learn 79% always reflect on graduate attributes when crafting assessment 61% always refer to LTP

Grading practices Results by gender: T46 .367, p .716 No gender differences Results by Teaching experience: F3,44 .647, p .589 length of teaching yields no difference

What they say I have never heard about learning and teaching policy nor have I heard about faculty of education assessment standards. I am not aware of both the UB and FOE grading systems UB has no proper system for monitoring who grades what, how and why The faculty hardly provides forum for members to share ideas concerning assessment, instead most of the meetings are only on grades already awarded to students

What they say I believe most lecturers awards grades without any due regard to faculty grading system. I am also sure that implementation is not monitored. I feel its haphazard- everybody do their own thing Lecturers get into trouble when students fail and that is why some never award failing grades

Summary There is a general understanding of importance of grading Grading differs from one lecturer to another UB and FOE grading systems not clearly related and understood by users No clear standards for grading A need to consider a clear grading system with clear standards and to have this communicated with users standard based assessment Standards based grading better alignment to needs of real world

Recommendations University to re-look at current grading Training in assessment for teaching staff needed More research on topic at institution

Conclusion Although the shift from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading may require educators, students, and parents to reframe their existing beliefs and expectations about grades, the benefits to all stakeholders are powerful enough to warrant the change.(Marzano, R., Heflebower T., Hoegh, J.K. & Warrick, P(2014).

Re a leboga/Thank you