Grading Systems and the Grading System of the Department

of Education

“ The ideal student would be one who was not working for grades but was working because he
was interested in the work and not trying to compete with fellow students.”
- Carl David Anderson

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

a. distinguish between norm-referenced and criterion—referenced grading; cumulative
and averaging grading system; and
b. compute grades of students in various grade levels observing DepEd guidelines

PRETEST

Direction: Read the statement and options carefully and encircle the letter of your answer.
1. Which of the following statement reflects a norm-referred interpretation?
a. Ligaya did better in solving the linear equation than 80% of her classmates.
b. Ligaya’s score indicates that she is able to solve about two thirds of the problems involving linear
equation.
c. Students who have reached Ligaya’s level on linear equations usually succeed in the subsequent unit
on simultaneous equations with special help or extra time.
d. All of the above.
2. Which of the following statement represent criterion-referenced interpretation?
a. Ligaya did better in solving the linear equation than 80% of her classmates.
b. Ligaya’s score indicates that she is able to solve about two thirds of the problems involving linear
equation.
c. Students who have reached Ligaya’s level on linear equations usually succeed in the subsequent unit
on simultaneous equations with special help or extra time.
d. All of the above.
3. It is the process of validating and analyzing the items of a teacher-made test through item analysis and
conduct of validity and reliability tests.
a. test scoring
b. test – retest
c. test standardization
d. cumulative and averaging systems of grading
4. This kind of grading system is usually used when the student’s work or performance needs to be assessed
subjectively or the critical requirement is to meet a single satisfactory standard.
a. Criterion- referenced grading system
b. Norm – referenced grading system
c. Cumulative and averaging grading system
d. Pass – fail system
5. In this grading system, the grade of a student in a grading period equals his current grading period grade.
a. Pass – fail system
b. Cumulative system
c. Averaging system
d. Non-graded evaluation

1
 CONTENT

Assessment of student performance is essentially knowing how the student is progressing in a

course (and, incidentally, how a teacher is also performing with respect to the teaching process). The first
step in assessment is, of course, testing (either by some pencil-paper objective test or by some
performance based testing procedure) followed by a decision to grade the performance of the student.
Grading, therefore, is the next step after testing. Over the course of several years, grading systems had
been evolved in different schools systems all over the world. In the American system, for instance, grades
are expressed in terms of letters, A, B, B+, B-, C, C-, D or what is referred to as a seven-point system. In
Philippine colleges and universities, the letters are replaced with numerical values: 1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.0,
2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 or an eight-point system. In basic education, grades are expressed as percentages (of
accomplishment) such as 80% or 75%. With the implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education
curriculum, however, student’s performance is expressed in terms of level of proficiency. Regardless of
grading system adopted, it is clear that there appears to be a need to convert raw score values into the
corresponding standard grading system. This module is concerned with the underlying philosophy and
mechanics of converting raw score values into standard grading formats.

NORM-REFERENCED GRADING
The most commonly used grading system falls under the category of norm-referenced grading.
Norm – referenced grading refers to a grading system where a student’s grade is placed in relation to the
performance of a group. Thus, in this system, a grade of 80 means that the student performed better than
or same as 80% of the class (or group). At first glance, there appears to be no problem with this type of
grading system as it simply describes the performance of a student with reference to a particular group of
learners. The example in the succeeding page shows some of the difficulties associated with
norm-referenced grading.
Example: Consider the following two sets of scores in an English 1 class for two sections of ten students
each:
A=
B=
In the first class, the student who got a raw score of 75 would get a grade of 80% while in the
second class, the same grade of 80% would correspond to a raw score of 90. Indeed, if the test used for
the two classes are the same, it would be a rather “unfair” system of grading. A wise student would opt to
enroll in class A since it is easier to get higher grades in that class than in the other class (class B).
The previous example illustrates one difficulty with using a norm-referenced grading system. This
problem is called the problem of equivalency. Does a grade of 80 in one class represent the same
achievement level as a grade of 80 in another class of the same subject? This problem is similar to the
problem of trying to compare a Valedictorian from some remote rural high school with a Valedictorian from
some very popular University in the urban area. Does one expect the same level of competence for these
two valedictorians?
As we have seen, norm-referenced grading systems are based on a pre-established formula
regarding the percentage or ratio of students within a whole class who will be assigned each grade or
mark. It is therefore known in advance what percent of the students would pass or fail a given course. For
this reason, many opponents to norm-referenced grading aver that such a grading system does not
advance the cause of education and contradicts the principle of individual differences.
In norm-referenced grading, the students, while they may work individually, are actually in
competition to achieve a standard of performance that will classify them into the desired grade range. It
essentially promotes competition among students or pupils in the same class. A student or pupil who
happens to enroll in a class of gifted students in Mathematics will find that the norm-referenced grading
system is rather worrisome. For example, a teacher may establish a grading policy whereby the top 15
percent of students will receive a mark of excellent or outstanding, which in a class of 100 enrolled
students will be 15 persons. Such a grading policy is illustrated below:
1.0 (Excellent) = Top 15% of class
1.50 ( Good) = Next 15% of class
2.0 ( Average, Fair) = Next 45% of class
3.0 ( Poor, Pass) = Next 15% of class
5.0 (Failure) = Bottom 10% of class
2
 The underlying assumption in norm-referenced grading is that the students have abilities (as reflected
in their raw scores) that obey the normal distribution. The objective is to find out the best performers in this
group. Norm-referenced systems are most often used for screening selected student populations in
conditions where it is known that not all students can advance due to limitations such as available places,
jobs, or other controlling factors. For example, in the Philippine setting, since not all high school students can
actually advance to college or university level because of financial constraints, the norm-referenced grading
system can be applied.

Example: In a class of 100 students, the mean score in a test is 70 with a standard deviation of 5. Construct
a norm-referenced grading table that would have seven-grade scales and such that students scoring
between plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean receives an average grade.
Solution: The following intervals of raw scores to grade equivalents are computed:

Raw Score Grade Equivalent Percentage

Below 55 Fail 1%
55 – 60 Marginal Pass 4%
61 – 65 Pass 11%
66 – 75 Average 68%
76 – 80 Above Average 11%
81 – 85 Very Good 4%
Above 85 Excellent 1%

Only a few of the teachers who use norm-referenced grading apply it with complete consistency.
When a teacher is faced with a particularly bright class, most of the time, he does not penalize good students
for having the bad luck to enroll in a class with a cohort of other very capable students even if the grading
system says he should fail a certain percentage of the class. On the other hand, it is also unlikely that a
teacher would reduce the mean grade for a class when he observes a large proportion of poor performing
students just to save them from failure. A serious problem with norm-referenced grading is that, no matter
what the class level of knowledge and ability, and no matter how much they learn, a predictable proportion of
students will receive each grade. Since its essential purpose is to sort students into categories based on
relative performance, norm-referenced grading and evaluation is often used to weed out students for limited
places in selective educational programs.
Norm-referenced grading indeed promotes competitions to the extent that students would rather not
help fellow students because by doing so, the mean of the class would be raised and consequently it would
be more difficult to get higher grades. Similarly, students would do everything (legal) to pull down the scores
of everyone in order to lower the mean and thus assure him/her of higher grades on the curve.
A more subtle problem with norm-referenced grading is that a strict correspondence between the
evaluation methods used and the course instructional goals is not necessary to yield the required grade
distribution. The specific learning objectives of norm – referenced classes are often kept hidden, in part out of
concern that instruction not “give away” the test or the teacher’s priorities, since this might tend to skew the
curve. Since norm-referenced grading is replete with problems, what alternatives have been devised for
grading the students?

CRITERION-REFERENCED GRADING
Criterion-referenced grading systems are based on a fixed criterion measure. There is a fixed target
and the students must achieve that target in order to obtain a passing grade in a course regardless of how
the other students in the class perform. The scale does not change regardless of the quality, or lack thereof,
of the students. For example, in a class of 100 students using the table below, no one might get a grade of
excellent if no one scores 98 above or 85 above depending on the criterion used. There is no fixed
percentage of students who are expected to get the various grades in the criterion-referenced grading
system.

3
 1.0 (Excellent) = 98 – 100 or 85 – 100
1.5 (Good) = 88 – 97 or 80 – 84
2.0 (Fair) = 75 – 87 or 70 – 79
3.0 (Poor/Pass) = 65 – 74 or 60 – 69
5.0 (Failure) = below 65 or below 60
Criterion-referenced systems are often used in situations where the teachers are agreed on the
meaning of a “standard of performance” in a subject but the quality of the students is unknown or uneven;
where the work involves student collaboration or teamwork, and where there is no external driving factor
such as needing to systematically reduce a pool of eligible students.
Note that in criterion-referenced grading system, students can help a fellow student in a group work
without necessarily worrying about lowering his grade in that course. This is because the
criterion-referenced grading system does not require the mean (of the class) as basis for distributing
grades among the students. It is therefore an ideal system to use in collaborative group work. When
students are evaluated based on predefined criteria, they are freed to collaborate with one another and
with the instructor. With criterion-referenced grading, a rich learning environment is to everyone’s
advantage, so students are rewarded for finding ways to help each other, and for contributing to class and
small group discussions.
Since the criterion measure used in the criterion-referenced grading is a measure that ultimately
rests with the teacher, it is logical to ask: What prevents teachers who use criterion-referenced grading
from setting the performance criteria so low that everyone can pass with ease? There is a variety of
measures used to prevent this situation from ever happening in the grading system. First, the criterion
should not be based on only one teacher’s opinion or standard. It should be collaboratively arrived at. A
group of teachers teaching the same subject must set the criterion together. Second, once the criterion is
established, it must be made public and open to public scrutiny so that it does not become arbitrary and
subject to the whim and caprices of the teacher.

Four Questions in Grading

Marinila D. Svinicki (2007) of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness of the University of Texas in
Austin poses four intriguing questions relative to grading. We share these questions here in this section
and the corresponding opinion of Ms. Svinicki for your own reflection:
1. Should grades reflect absolute achievement level or achievement relative to others in the same
class?
2. Should grades reflect achievement only or nonacademic components such as attitude, speed and
diligence?
3. Should grades report status achieved or amount of growth?
4. How can several grades on diverse skills combine to give a single mark?
What Should Go into a Student’s Grade
The grading system an instructor selects reflects his or her educational philosophy. There are no
right or wrong systems, only systems which accomplish different objectives. The following are questions
which an instructor may want to answer when choosing what will go into a student’s grade.
1. Should grades reflect absolute achievement level or achievement relative to others in the same
class?
This is often referred to as the controversy between norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced
grading. In norm-referenced grading systems, the letter grade a student receives is based on his or her
standing in a class. A certain percentage of those at the top receives A’s, a specified percent of the next
highest grades receives B’s and so on. Thus an outside person, looking at the grades, can decide which
student in that group performed best under those circumstances. Such a system also takes into account
circumstances beyond the students’ control which might adversely affect grades, such as poor teaching,
bad tests or unexpected problems arising for the entire class. Presumably, these would affect all the
students equally, so all performance would drop but the relative standing would stay the same.
On the other hand, under such a system, an outside evaluator has little additional information
about what a student actually knows since that will vary with the class. A student who has learned an
average amount in a class of geniuses will probably know more than a student who is average in a class
of low ability. Unless the instructor provides more information than just the grade, the external user of
the grade is poorly informed.

4
 The system also assumes sufficient variability among student performances that the difference in
learning between them justifies giving different grades. This may be true in large beginning classes, but is a
shaky assumption where the students population is homogenous such as in upper division classes.
The other most common grading system is the criterion-referenced system. In this case, the
instructor sets a standard of performance against which the students’ actual performance is measured. All
students achieving a given level receive the grade assigned to that level regardless of how many in the class
receive the same grade. An outside evaluator, looking at the grade, knows only that the student has reached
a certain level or set of objectives. The usefulness of that information to the outsider will depend on how
much information he or she is given on what behavior is represented by that grade. The grade, however, will
always mean the same thing and will not vary from class to class. A possible problem with this is that outside
factors such as those discussed under norm-referenced grading might influence the entire class and
performance may drop. In such a case, all the students would receive lower grades unless the instructor
made special allowances for the circumstances.
A second problem is that criterion-referenced grading does not provide “selection” information.
There is no way to tell from the grading who the “best” students are, only that certain students have achieved
certain levels. Whether one views this as positive or negative will depend on one’s individual philosophy.
An advantage of this system is that the criteria for various grades are known from the beginning.
This allows the student to take some responsibility for the level at which he or she is going to perform.
Although this might result in some students working below their potential, it usually inspires students to work
for a high grade. The instructor is then faced with the dilemma of a lot of students receiving high grades.
Some people view this as a problem.
A positive aspect of this foreknowledge is that much of the uncertainty which often accompanies
grading for students is eliminated. Since they can plot their own progress toward the desired grade, the
students have little uncertainty about where they stand. With competency-based teaching-learning or
outcome–based teaching-learning observed in Philippine school the criterion-referenced system is what is
used in the country.
2. Should grades reflect achievement only or non-academic components such as attitude, speed and
diligence?
It is a very common practice to incorporate such things as turning in assignments on time into the
overall grade in a course, primarily because the need to motivate students to get their work done is a real
problem for instructors. Also, it may be appropriate to the selection function of grading that such values as
timeliness and diligence be reflected in the grades. External users of the grades may be interpreting the mark
to include such factors as attitude and compliance in addition to competence in the material.
The primary problem with such inclusion is that it makes grades even more ambiguous than they
already are. It is very difficult to assess these nebulous traits accurately or consistently. Instructors must use
real caution when incorporating such value judgments into final grade assignment. Two steps instructors
should take are (1) to make students aware of this possibility well in advance of graded assignment and (2)
to make clear what behavior is included in such qualities as prompt completion of work and neatness or
completeness,. In short, non-academic component such as attitude, speed and diligence may be reflected in
the student’s grades provided they are informed in advance and that these qualities should be well
understood.
3. Should grades report status achieved or amount of growth?
This is a particularly difficult question to answer. In many beginning classes, the background of the
students is so varied that some students can achieve the end objectives with little or no trouble while others
with weak backgrounds will work twice as hard and still achieve only half as much. This dilemma results from
the same problem as the previous question, that is, the feeling that we should be rewarding or punishing
effort or attitude as well as knowledge gained.
A positive aspect of this foreknowledge is that much of the uncertainty which often accompanies
grading for students is eliminated. Since they can plot their own progress toward the desired grade, the
students have little uncertainty about where they stand.
There are many problems with the “growth” measures as a basis for change, most of them being
related to statistical artifacts. In some cases, the ability to accurately measure entering and exiting levels is
shaky enough to argue against change as a basis for grading. Also, many courses are prerequisites to later
courses and, therefore, are intended to provide the foundation for those courses. “Growth” scores in this case
would be disastrous.

5
 Nevertheless, there is much to be said in favor of “growth” as a component in grading. We would
like to encourage hard work and effort and to acknowledge the existence of different abilities. Unfortunately,
there is no easy answer to this question. Each instructor must review his or her own philosophy and content
to determine if such factors are valid components of the grade.
4. How can several grades on diverse skills combine to give a single mark?
The basic answer is that they can’t really. The results of instruction are so varied that the single
mark is really a “Rube Goldberg” (doing something by an unnecessarily complicated means what could be
done simply) as far as indicating what a student has achieved. It would be most desirable to be able to give
multiple marks, one for each of the variety of skills which are learned. There are, of course, many problems
with such a proposal. It would complicate an already complicated task. There might not be enough
evidence to reliably grade any one skill. The “halo” effect of good performance in one area could spill over
into others. And finally, most outsiders are looking for only one overall classification of each person so that
they can choose the “best”. Our system requires that we produce one mark. Therefore, it is worth our while
to see how that can be done even though currently the system does not lend itself to any satisfactory
answers.

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORING

Test standardization is a process by which teacher or researcher-made tests are validated and item
analyzed. After a thorough process of validation, the test characteristics are established. These
characteristics include: test validity, test reliability, test difficulty level and other characteristics as previously
discussed. Each standardized test uses its own mathematical scoring system derived by the publisher and
administrators, and these do not bear any relationship to academic grading systems. Standardized tests
are psychometric instruments whose scoring systems are developed by norming the test using national
samples of test-takers, centering the scoring formula to assure that the likely score distribution describes a
normal curve when graphed, and then using the resulting scoring system uniformly in a manner resembling
a criterion-referenced approach. If you are interested in understanding and interpreting the scoring system
of a specific standardized test, refer to the policies of the test’s producers.

Cumulative and Averaging Systems of Grading

In the Philippines, there are two types of grading systems used: the averaging and the cumulative
grading systems. In the averaging system, the grade of a student on a particular grading period equals the
average of the grades obtained in the prior grading periods and the current grading period.
Example: Student’s grades are:
80 – Prelim
90 – Midterm
85 – Final
(80 + 90 + 85)/3 = 85
85 is the final grade for the semester
The Department of Education makes use of the averaging grading system.
In the cumulative grading system, the grade of a student in a grading period equals his current
grading period grade which is assumed to have the cumulative effects of the previous grading periods.
Example: 80 – Prelim
90 – Midterm Grade
80 – Tentative Final Grade
Final
Grade = 1/3 of Midterm
Grade + 2/3 of Tentative Final Grade
1/3 of 90 + 2/3 of 80 = 30 + 53.33 = 83
In which grading system would there be more fluctuations observed in the students’ grades? How
do these systems relate with either norm or criterion-referenced grading?

6
 Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education, DepEd Order No. 8,
s. 2015
Below are some of the highlights of the new K to 12 Grading System which was implemented
starting SY 2015 – 2016. These are all lifted from DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015.

Weights of the Components for the Different Grade Levels and Subjects
The student’s grade is a function of three components: 1) written work, 2) performance tasks and 3)
quarterly assessment. The percentages vary across clusters of subjects. Languages, Araling Panlipunan
(AP) and Edukasyon sa Pagpapahalaga (EsP) belong to one cluster and have the same grade percentages
for written work, performance tasks and quarterly assessment. Science and Math are another cluster with the
same component percentages. Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) make up the third
cluster with the same component percentages. Among the three components, performance tasks are given
the largest percentages. This means that the emphasis on assessment is on application of concepts
learned.
Table 1. Weight of the Components for Grades 1-10
Components Languages AP EsP Science Math MAPEH EPP/TLE
Written Work 30% 40% 20%
1 to 10 Performance Tasks 50% 40% 60%
Quarterly Assessment 20% 20% 20%

Table 1 presents the weights of the components for the Senior High School subjects which are
grouped into 1) core subjects, 2) all other subjects (applied and specialization) and work immersion of the
academic track, and 3) all other subjects (applied and specialization) and work immersion/research/exhibit/
performance. An analysis of the figures reveals that among the components, performance tasks have the
highest percentage contribution to the grade. This means that DepEd’s grading system consistently puts
most emphasis on application of learned concepts and skills.

Table 2. Weight of the Components for SHS

Technical-Vocational and
Livelihood (TVL)/ Sports/Arts and
Academic Track
Design Track
All Work Immersion/Research/ All other Work
Core other Business Enterprise Simulation/ subjects Immersion
Subjects subjects Exhibit/Performance
Written work 25% 25% 35% 20%

11 Performance 50% 45% 40% 60%

to Tasks
12 Quarterly 25% 30% 25% 20%
Assessment

7
 Steps in Grade Computation
Based on the same DepEd Order (8, 2. 2015), here are the steps to follow in computing grades.

Table 3. Steps for Computing Grades

STEPS EXAMPLE
Learner’s Raw Score Highest Possible Score
Written Work 1 18 20
Written Work 2 22 25
Written Work 3 20 20
Written Work 4 17 20
Written Work 5 23 25
Written Work 6 26 30
Written Work 7 19 20
TOTAL 145 160
1. Get the total score for
each component. Learner’s Raw Score Highest Possible Score
Performance Task 1 12 15
Performance Task 2 13 15
Performance Task 3 19 25
Performance Task 4 15 20
Performance Task 5 16 20
Performance Task 6 25 25
TOTAL 100 120

Learner’s Raw Score Highest Possible Score

Quarterly Assessment 40 50

Percentage Score (PS) =

PS of Written Work is 90.3

2. Divide the total raw
score by the highest Percentage Score (PS) =
possible score then
multiply the quotient by PS of Performance Task is 83.33
100%.
Percentage Score (PS) =

PS of Quarterly Assessment is 80.00

3. Convert Percentage Written Work for English Grade 4 is 30%
Scores to Weighted Weighted Score (WS) = 90.63 * 0.30
Scores. Multiply the The Weighted Score of Written Work in 27.19
Percentage Score by the
Performance Tasks for English Grade 4 is 50%
weight of the component
Weighted Score (WS) = 83.33 * 0.50
indicated in Table 1 and
The Weighted Score of Performance Task is 41.67
Table 2.
Quarterly Assessment for English Grade 4 is 20%
Weighted Score (WS) = 80.00 * 0.20
The Weighted Score of Quarterly Assessment is 16

The scores can be found in the sample class record on Table 4

8
 4. Add the Weighted Component Weighted Score
Scores of each Written Work = 27.19
component. The result Performance Tasks = 41. 67
will be the Initial Quarterly Assessment = 16.00
Grade.
Total 84.86
The Initial Grade is 84.86
5. Transmute the The Initial Grade is 84.86
Initial Grade using the
Transmutation Table The Transmuted Grade is 90
in Appendix A The Quarterly Grade in English for the 1st Quarter is 90.

This is reflected in the report card.

For MAPEH, individual grades are given to each area, namely, Music, Arts, Physical Education and
Health. The quarterly grade for MAPEH is the average of the quarterly grades in the four areas.

Quarterly Grade (QG for MAPEH) =

GRADE COMPUTATION

What follows is a description of how grades are computed based on DepEd Order 8, s. 2015.

For Kindergarten
There are no numerical grades in Kindergarten. Descriptions of the learners’ progress in the various
learning areas are represented using checklists and student portfolios. These are presented to the parents
at the end of each quarter for discussion. Additional guidelines on the Kindergarten program will be issued.

For Grades 1–10

The average of the Quarterly Grades (QG) produces the Final Grade.

Final Grade by Learning Area =

The General Average is computed by dividing the sum of all final grades by the total number of
learning areas. Each learning area has equal weight.

General Average =

The Final Grade in each learning area and the General Average are reports as whole numbers.
Table 4 shows an example of the Final Grades of the different learning areas and General Average of a
Grade 4 student.

9
 Table 4. Final Grades and General Average

Learning Area Quarter Final Grade

1 2 3 4
Filipino 80 89 86 84 85
English 89 90 92 87 90
Mathematics 82 85 83 83 83
Science 86 87 85 84 86
Araling Panlipunan 90 92 91 89 91
Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao 89 93 90 88 90
Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan 80 81 84 79 81
MAPEH 85 86 85 84 85
General Average 86

For Grades 11 and 12

The two quarters determine the Final Grade in a semester. Table 11 shows an example in Grade
11, second semester for the Accounting, Business and Management (ABM) strand.

Table 5. Grade 11, 2nd Semester of ABM strand

Subjects Quarter Second
3 4 Semester
Final
Core Subjects
Reading and Writing Skills 80 83 82
Pagbasa at Pagsusuri ng Iba’t Ibang Teksto 86 85 86
tungo sa Pananaliksik
Statistics and Probability 82 87 85
Physical Science 88 87 88
Physical Education and Health 90 88 89
Applied and Specialized Subjects
Empowerment Technologies: ICT for 80 83 82
Professional Tracks
Business Math 87 86 87
Organization and Management 85 81 83
Fundamentals of Accounting, Business and 84 81 83
Management 1
General Average for the Semester 85

How is the learners progress reported?

The summary of learner progress is shown quarterly to parents and guardians through a
parent-teacher conference, in which the report card is discussed. The grading scale, with its
corresponding descriptors, is in Table 6. Remarks are given at the end of the grade level.

10
Table 6. Descriptors, Grading Scale, and Remarks
DESCRIPTOR GRADING SCALE REMARKS
Outstanding 90 – 100 Passed
Very Satisfactory 85 – 89 Passed
Satisfactory 80 – 84 Passed
Fairly Satisfactory 75 – 79 Passed
Did Not Meer Expectations Below 75 Failed
Using the sample class record in Table 8 . LEARNER A received an Initial Grade of 84.86 in English for
the First Quarter which, when transmuted to a grade of 90, is equivalent to Outstanding. LEARNER B
received a transmuted grade of 88 which is equivalent to Very Satisfactory. LEARNER C received a grade
of 71 which mean that the learner Did Not Meet Expectations in the First Quarter of Grade 4 English.
When a learner’s raw scores are consistently below expectations in Written Work and Performance
Tasks, the learner’s parents or guardians must be informed not later than the fifth week of that quarter. This
will enable them to help and guide their child to improve and prepare for the Quarterly Assessment. A
learner who receives a grade below 75 in any subject in a quarter must be given intervention through
remediation and extra lessons from the teacher/s of that subject.

Promotion and Retention at the End of the School Year

These are what DepEd Order 8, s. 2015 say.

A Final Grade of 75 or higher in all learning areas allows the student to be promoted to the next grade
level. Table 7 specifies the guidelines to be followed for learner promotion and retention.

Table 7. Learner Promotion and Retention

Requirements Decision
1. Final Grade of at least 75 in all Promoted to the next grade level
learning areas
For Grades 1 to Must pass remedial classes for learning
3 learners 2. Did Not Meet Expectations in not areas with failing mark to be promoted to
more than two learning areas the next grade level. Otherwise the learner
is retained in the same grade level.
3. Did Not Meet Expectations in Retained in the same grade level
three or more learning areas
1. Final Grade of at least 75 in all Promoted to the next grade level
learning areas
2. Did Not Meet Expectations in not Must pass remedial classes for learning
For Grades 4 to more than two learning areas areas with failing mark to be promoted to
10 Learners the next grade level. Otherwise the learner
is retained in the same grade level.
3. Did Not Meet Expectations in Retained in the same grade level
three or more learning areas

11
12
Table 8. Sample Class Record for English Grade 4 (First Quarter)
 ALTERNATIVE GRADING SYSTEMS
Pass-Fail Systems. Other colleges and universities, faculties, schools and institutions use pass-fail
grading systems in the Philippines, especially when the student’s work to be evaluated is highly subjective
(as in the fine arts and music), there are no generally accepted standard gradations (as with independent
studies), or the critical requirement is meeting a single satisfactory standard (as in some professional
examinations and practicum).
Non-Graded Evaluations. While not yet practiced in Philippine schools, and institutions, non-graded
evaluations do not assign numeric or letter grades as a matter of policy. This practice is usually based on a
belief that grades introduce an inappropriate and distracting element of competition into the learning
process, or that they are not as meaningful as measures of intellectual growth and development as are
carefully crafted faculty evaluations. Many faculty, schools and institutions that follow a no-grade policy will, if
requested, produce grades or convert their student evaluations into formulae acceptable to authorities who
require traditional measures of performance.
The process of deciding on a grading system is a very complex one. The problems faced by teacher
who tries to design a system which will be accurate and fair are common to any manager attempting to
evaluate those for whom he or she is responsible. The problems of teachers and students with regard to
grading are almost identical to those of administrators and faculty with regard to evaluation for promotion
and tenure. The need for completeness and objectivity felt by teachers and administrators must be balanced
against the need for fairness and clarity felt by students and faculty in their respective situations. The fact
that the faculty member finds himself or herself in both the position of evaluator and evaluated should help to
make him or her more thoughtful about the needs of each position.

LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. Define a norm-referenced grading. What are some of the issues that confront a teacher using a
norm-referenced grading system? Discuss. (20 points)
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

13
 B. Define a criterion—referenced grading. What are some of the issues that confront a teacher using a
criterion-referenced grading system? Discuss. (20 points)
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

C. When would a norm-referenced grading system be most appropriate to use? Similarly, when would a
criterion-referenced grading system be most appropriate to use? Discuss. (10 points)
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

14
D. Solving (20 points)
I. For BEEd students, compute the grade of a student in Mother Tongue subject with the following raw
scores:
Written work—20 out of 30
Performance Task— 25 out of 40
Quarterly test—22 out of 30

II. For BSE students, compute the grade of a student (Grade 10) in your specialization subject with the
following raw scores:
Written work—80 out of 100
Performance Task— 60 out of 100
Quarterly test—50 out of 100

15
 ASSESSMENT

Direction: Read the statement and options carefully and encircle the letter of your answer.
1. Which of the following statement reflects a norm-referred interpretation?
a. Ligaya did better in solving the linear equation than 80% of her classmates.
b. Ligaya’s score indicates that she is able to solve about two thirds of the problems involving linear
equation.
c. Students who have reached Ligaya’s level on linear equations usually succeed in the subsequent unit
on simultaneous equations with special help or extra time.
d. All of the above.
2. Which of the following statement represent criterion-referenced interpretation?
a. Ligaya did better in solving the linear equation than 80% of her classmates.
b. Ligaya’s score indicates that she is able to solve about two thirds of the problems involving linear
equation.
c. Students who have reached Ligaya’s level on linear equations usually succeed in the subsequent unit
on simultaneous equations with special help or extra time.
d. All of the above.
3. It is the process of validating and analyzing the items of a teacher-made test through item analysis and
conduct of validity and reliability tests.
a. test scoring
b. test – retest
c. test standardization
d. cumulative and averaging systems of grading
4. This kind of grading system is usually used when the student’s work or performance needs to be assessed
subjectively or the critical requirement is to meet a single satisfactory standard.
a. Criterion- referenced grading system
b. Norm – referenced grading system
c. Cumulative and averaging grading system
d. Pass – fail system
5. In this grading system, the grade of a student in a grading period equals his current grading period grade.
a. Pass – fail system
b. Cumulative system
c. Averaging system
d. Non-graded evaluation

REFERENCES

Books
 Navarro, R. Santos, R. and Corpuz, B. (2019). Assessment of Learning 1 4th Ed. Lorimar Publishing,
Inc: Quezon City
 Navarro, R. Santos, R. and Corpuz, B. (2012). Assessment of Learning Outcomes 2nd Ed. Lorimar
Publishing, Inc: Quezon City
 Gabuyo, Y. (2012). Assessment of Learning 1 Textbook and Reviewer, Rex Book Store, Inc.: Manila
 Buendicho, F. (2010). Assessment of Student Learning 1. Rex Book Store, Inc.: Manila
 Calmorin, L. (2011). Assessment of Student Learning 1. Rex Book Store, Inc.: Manila

Website
 https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp_content/uploads/2015/04/DO_s2015_08.pdf

16
 RUBRIC

Open-ended questions
5 (EXCELLENT) 3 (FAIR) 2 (POOR)
Content Response shows deep Response shows narrow Response do not answer
understanding of the understanding of the topic the given question.
topic and answers the and answers the question.
question clearly.
Details and At least three An example/evidence to No example/evidence.
Evidence examples and support the writer’s idea or
evidence to support opinion is present.
the writer’s idea or
opinion is present.
Organization, Correct grammar, Some sentences are Correct grammar, usage
Grammar, Usage usage of punctuation grammatically incorrect, of punctuation and
and Punctuation and capitalization are correct punctuation and capitalization are not
observed. capitalization are observed.
observed.
Originality/ No more than 4 words One sentence contains Two or more sentences
Paraphrasing are taken directly from more than 4 words in a row are copied from different
the lecture/internet. taken directly from the sources.
reference.

17
 Transmutation Table

Following is the range of Initial Grades and their equivalent Transmuted Grades that will be reflected in the
report card.

Initial Grade Transmuted Grade Initial Grade Transmuted Grade

100 100
98.40 - 99.99 99 66.40 – 67.99 79
96.80 - 98.39 98 64.80 – 66.39 78
95.20 – 96.79 97 63.20 – 64.79 77
93.60 – 95.19 96 61.60 – 63.19 76
92.00 – 93.59 95 60.00 – 61.59 75
90.40 – 91.99 94 56.00 – 59.99 74
88.80 – 90.39 93 52.00 – 55.99 73
87.20 – 88. 79 92 48.00 – 51.99 72
85.60 – 87.19 91 44.00 – 47.99 71
84.00 – 85.59 90 40.00 – 43.99 70
82.40 – 83.99 89 36.00 – 39.99 69
80.80 – 82.39 88 32.00 – 35.99 68
79.20 – 80.79 87 28.00 – 31.99 67
77.60 – 79.19 86 24.00 – 27.99 66
76.00 – 77. 59 85 20.00 – 23.99 65
74.40 – 75.99 84 16.00 – 19.99 64
72.80 – 74.39 83 12.00 – 15.99 63
71.20 – 72.79 82 8.00 – 11.99 62
69.60 – 71.19 81 4.00 – 7.99 61
68.00 – 69.59 80 0 – 3.99 60

18