Module 8

(Grading System)

1. Define a norm-grading. What are some of the issues that confront a teacher using a
norm- referenced grading system? Discuss.

The most commonly used grading system falls under the category of norms-referenced
grading. Norms-referenced grading refers to grading system wherein the 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 will this type of grading system as it simply describes the
performance of a student with reference to a particular group of learners. The following
example 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 = { 30, 40,50, 55, 60, 65,70,75,80, 85}

B = { 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 90, 95, 100}

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

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.

2.The following final grades are obtained in a class of Grade VI pupils:

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 82, 80, 81, 79, 77, 88, 83, 89, 90, 92, 90, 78, 79, 82, 91, 92, 90.

88, 85, 88,87, 85, 88, 83, 82, 80, 79, 77, 76, 77, 78, 83, 89, 91, 90, 83, 88, 86, 83, 80.

a. Using a norm-referenced grading with a seven-point scale, determine the scores that
would get a failing mark. What is your general impression on this?

Description Seven-point Remarks Grade VI-Pupils Grade VI-Pupils

Grading Scale
 A B

Outstanding 93 - 100 Passed 0 0

Very Satisfactory 85 - 92 Passed 8 11

Satisfactory 77 - 84 Passed 14 11

Fairly 69 - 76 Passed 0 1
Satisfactory

Did not meet 69 below Failed 0 0

expectations

As we have seen, norm reference grading systems are based on a pre-stablihes regarding to
formula regarding the percentage or ratio of students within a whole class who will assigned
each grade marked. Therefore we can known or determine advance what percent of the
students pass or failed a given course.

b. Using a norm-referenced grading with a 8-point grading scales, determine the score
would get a failing mark. Compare this with the previous grading above.

Description Eight -point Remarks Grade VI-Pupils Grade VI-Pupils

Grading Scale
A B

Outstanding 92 - 100 Passed 2 0

Very Satisfactory 83 - 91 Passed 9 16

Satisfactory 74 - 82 Passed 11 7

Fairly 65 - 73 Passed 0 0
Satisfactory

Did not meet 64 below Failed 0 0

expectations

Whatever be the system of grading adopted, it is clear that there appears to be a need to
convert raw score values into the corresponding standard grading system. It's has been same
grading system because they have both only use Norm reference grading.
 3. Define a criterion-referenced grading. What are some issues that confront a teacher
using a criterion-referenced grading system. Discuss.

Criterion-Reference Grading

Criterion-Reference Grading Sytem are based on a fixed criterion measure. There is a fixed
target and the students must achieve that target inorder to obtain a passing grade in a course
regardless of how the other students in the class perform. The scales does not change
regardless if the quality, or lack 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 depending on the criterion used. There is no fix
percentage of students who are expected to get a various grades in the Criterion-Referenced
Grading Sytem.

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-Reference system are often use in situations where the teachers are agreed on the
meaning of "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 good of eligible students.

Note that in a criterion-referenced grading system, students can help a fellow student in 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 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
are 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.

4. Using the data in a Problem B, set a passing criterion of 78 and set equal intervals for
all other grades above the passing criterion . How does your results compare with those
norm-referenced grading? In which grading system do you feel comfortable?

Raw Score Grade Equivalent Grade VI-Pupils Grade VI-Pupils

A B

100-94 Excellent 0 0

93-86 Very Good 8 9

85-79 Good 12 10

78 Poor/ Pass 1 1

77 below Failed 1 3

There are both appropriate and comfortable to use but every grading had their own goal to
achieve measuring the performance of the students. This two grading system is very useful in
different institution. If you are a generousity teacher wanted to passed all your students. You
can use Norm reference grading because you can adjust raws depends on the performance of
individuals

If you are a teachers having a standard wanted to achieve your expectations, you can use
criterion-referenced grading because it has a criteria of score that you want to achieve your
students. In fact, it's a way to challenge the learners to meet your standard in grading system.

Norm-referenced measurement helps social work educators determine which students achieve
the highest when compared to other students. Its can adjust the grading system depends upon
the teachers.
Criterion-referenced measurement helps social work educators determine whether students
achieve to the levels we expect from them. This grading system has their goal that needed to
achieve.

5. In a class of 100 pupils, the mean score in a test was determine to be 82 with a
standard deviation of 7. Construct an 8 point grading scale using the standard normal
curve in a norm-referenced grading.

Example: In a class of 100 students, the mean score in a test is 82 with a standard deviation of
7. Construct a norm-referenced grading table that would have eight-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 50 Fail 1%

52 - 58 Marginal Pass 4%

59 - 65 Pass 11%

66 - 72 Average 34%

73 - 79 Above Average 34%

80 - 86 Good 11%

87 - 93 Very Goodt 4%

Above 93 Excellent 1%

6. Discuss, in your own words, the four essential questions in grading provided by
Sconicki. Do you agree or disagree with her own points of view? Justify

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 receive A’s, a
specified percent of the next highest grades receive 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.

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 student population is homogeneous 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.

2. Should grades reflect achievement only or nonacademic 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 grade assignment and (2) to make clear what behavior is included in such
qualities as prompt completion of work and neatness or completeness.

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 “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.

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” 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.

7. Would you use a norm-referenced grading system in your class? Why or why not?

Yes! Norm-referenced systems are very easy to use. They work well in situations requiring rigid
differentiation among students where,for example, program size restrictions may limit the
number of students advancing to higher level courses.They are generally appropriate in large
courses that do not encourage cooperation among students but generally stress individual
achievement.

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.

This norm-referenced grading system usually is the relation of the performance of a group. The
norm-reference are usually use to the future because we use this grading system to identified
the score of the students and the percentage of its. In my own suggestion we need to use the
norm-referenced grading system but not mostly, because norm-referenced are promotes
competition among the students or learners. Students may work individually because of the
competition to achieve a good performance that classify into the desired grade range.

8. 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?

Norm-referenced grading is most appropriate to use indeed promotes competition 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 else in order
to lower the mean and thus assure him/her of higher grades on the curve.

Norms-referenced grading system is easy to use. It's work well for the course with retention
policies and it's limits only in a few students to advance to a second level. It is very useful if the
focus of individual achievement of the students.

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?

It should be noted that norm-referenced tests cannot measure the learning achievement or
progress of an entire group of students, but only the relative performance of individuals within
a group.

In criterion-referenced systems is most appropriate to use students through evaluated against

an absolute scale (e.g. 95-100 = A, 88-94 = B, etc.). Normally the criteria are a set number of
points or a percentage of the total. Since the standard is absolute, it is possible that all students
could get As or all students could get Ds.

Instructors sometimes choose to maintain some flexibility in their criteria by telling the class in
advance that the criteria may be lowered if it seems appropriate, e.g., the 95% cut off for an A
may be lowered to 93%. This way if a first exam was more difficult for students than the
instructor imagined, s/he can lower the grading criteria rather than trying to compensate for
the difficulty of the first exam with an easy second exam. Raising the criteria because too many
students achieved As, however, is never advisable.
Another way of doing criterion-referenced grading is by listing objectives and assigning grades
based on the extent the student achieved the class objectives(e.g., A = Student has achieved all
major and minor objectives of the course. B=Student has achieved all major objectives and
several minor objectives, etc.).

9. Compute the grade of the student in:

A. Grade 9 English with the following raws scores

Step 1 . Get the total Score for each components

Step 2. Divide the total raw Score by the highest possible score then multiply the quotient by
100

Written Work- 80 out of 100

80

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

100

PS of Written Work is 80%

Performance Task - 60 out of 100

60

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

100
PS of Performance Task is 60%

Score in Quarterly Test

50

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

100

PS of Quarterly Test is 50%

Step 3 Convert percentage scores to weighted Score by weight of the components indicated.

Written Work For English 9 is 80%

Weighted Score (WS)= 80 x 0.30

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 24

Performance task For English 9 is 60%

Weighted Score (WS)= 60 x 0.50

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 30

Quarterly Assessment For English 9 is 50%

Weighted Score (WS)= 50 x 0.20

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 10

Step 4: Add the Weighted Scores each components. The results will be the Initial Grade.

Written Work = 24

Performance task = 30
Quarterly Assessment = 10

24+30+10=64

Total = 64

The Initial Grade is 64

Step 5. Transmute the Initial Grade using transmutation.

The Initial Grade is 64

The transmuted Grade is 77

The Quarterly Grade in English is 77

B. Grade 11 students in Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person are core subject
in SHS with the following raw scores:

Written Work- 30 out of 50

30

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

50

PS of Written Work is 60%

Performance Task - 42 out of 60

42

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

60
PS of Performance Task is 70%

Score in Quarterly Test- 28 out of 40

28

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

40

PS of Quarterly Test is 70%

Step 3 Convert percentage scores to weighted Score by weight of the components indicated.

Written Work For Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person Grade 11 is 60%

Weighted Score (WS)= 60 x 0.30

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 18

Performance task For Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person Grade 11 is 70%

Weighted Score (WS)= 70 x 0.50

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 35

Quarterly Assessment For Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person Grade 11 is 70%

Weighted Score (WS)= 70 x 0.20

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 14

Step 4: Add the Weighted Scores each components. The results will be the Initial Grade.

Written Work = 18
Performance task = 35

Quarterly Assessment = 14

18+35+14=67

Total = 67

The Initial Grade is 67

Step 5. Transmute the Initial Grade using transmutation.

The Initial Grade is 67

The transmuted Grade is 79

The Quarterly Grade in Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person Grade 11 is 79

C. Grade 3 Student in the Mother Tongue subject with the following raw scores:

Written Work- 20 out of 30

20

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

30

PS of Written Work is 66.67%

Performance Task - 25 out of 40

25

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

 40

PS of Performance Task is 62.5%

Score in Quarterly Test- 22 out of 30

22

Percentage Score (PS) = --------- X 100%

30

PS of Quarterly Test is 73.33%

Step 3 Convert percentage scores to weighted Score by weight of the components indicated.

Written Work For Mother Tongue Grade 3 is 66.67%

Weighted Score (WS)= 66.67 x 0.30

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 20

Performance task For Mother Tongue Grade 3 is 62.5%

Weighted Score (WS)= 62.5 x 0.50

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 31.25

Quarterly Assessment For Mother Tongue Grade 3 is 73.33%

Weighted Score (WS)= 73 x 0.20

The Weighted Score of Written Work in 14.67

Step 4: Add the Weighted Scores each components. The results will be the Initial Grade.

Written Work = 20
Performance task = 31.25

Quarterly Assessment = 14.67

20+31.25+14.67 = 65.92

Total = 65.92

The Initial Grade is 65.92

Step 5. Transmute the Initial Grade using transmutation.

The Initial Grade is 65.92

The transmuted Grade is 78

The Quarterly Grade in Introduction to the philosophy of Human Person Grade 11 is 78