ASSESSMENT OF

LEARNING 1

CHAPTER 8:
GRADING SYSTEMS
AND THE GRADING
SYSTEM OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
LEARNING OUTCOMES
➢ Distinguish between norm-
referenced grading; cumulative
and averaging grading
system
➢ Compute grades of students
in various grade levels
observing DepEd guidelines
ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING 1
CHAPTER 8: GRADING SYSTEMS AND THE GRADING SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION

LEARNING OUTCOMES

➢ Distinguish between norm-referenced grading, cumulative and averaging grading system

➢ Compute grades of students in various grade levels observing DepEd guidelines.

INTRODUCTION
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 Chapter is concerned with the
underlying philosophy and mechanics of converting raw score values into standard grading formats.

8.1. Norm-Referenced Grading

The most commonly used grading system falls under the category of norm-referenced grading.
Normreferenced 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 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:

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.

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 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.

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?

8.2. 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.

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 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.

8.3. 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 non academic 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?

8.4. 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 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. With competency-based teaching-learning or
outcome -based teaching-learning observed in Philippines 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 "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" (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.

8.5. 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.

8.6. 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?

8.7 POLICY GUIDELEINES ON CLASSROOM ASSSESSMENT 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 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