A Critical Examination of Current Minimum Grading Policy Recommendations

Abstract

In an effort to reduce failure and attrition rates and to increase on-time program completion and graduation rates, many schools are adopting a policy of assigning minimum grades. While justifications supporting the policy are often mathematical in nature, some proponents also claim the practice works to keep students motivated, hopeful, confident and optimistic. This paper explores these claims by comparing the stated reasons for grading practices and policies against several theories of learning and the secondary effects grades have on students. Key concepts from the models of achievement motivation, locus of control and self-efficacy, as well as consideration of the nature of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, lead to conclusions that there may be certain sub-populations of students who could benefit greatly from minimum grading practices and policies, particularly in certain (“high-risk”) courses and subject-matters. Ways to identify these students, courses and subject matters are presented and discussed, as are the general outlines of the formal exploratory and confirmatory studies that are needed to clarify and more precisely answer the several questions about minimum grading policies identified in this paper.

Developmental cascades of social competence, achievement in school, and achievement on standardized assessments during the transition to adolescence and secondary school

“…2. Given the greater effect teacher ratings of student achievement has on confidence and engagement relative to standardized assessments (Carifio & Carey, 2009), the magnitude and number of developmental pathways involving social competence and school achievement are greater than those involving social competence and cognitive achievement.…”

“…Teacher ratings of school achievement versus standardized assessments of cognitive achievement: differential influences on Children's social functioning Children's achievement in school as rated by teachers may influence their social functioning in a different manner than does their achievement on shorter term standardized assessments of cognitive achievement, and visa versa. Teacher ratings are believed to have a greater effect on student confidence, behavior, motivation, and future performance compared to standardized achievement test scores (Carifio & Carey, 2009). Students' perceptions of their academic abilities and the value they attribute to learning are positively influenced by academic success and negatively influenced by academic failure (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).…”

Taking on a New Grading System: The Interconnected Effects of Standards-Based Grading on Teaching, Learning, Assessment, and Student Behavior

“…Additionally, for almost a century, academic grades have been used as a mechanism for managing adolescent behavior (Guskey, 2009;Vatterott, 2015). Teachers raise or lower grades to control behaviors such as effort, work completion, work timeliness, attendance, class participation, and compliance with rules and expectations; some parents invoke or revoke certain privileges based on their children's report cards; and coaches may reduce playing time or assign student athletes to study groups as a result of low grades (Carifio & Carey, 2009;Cox, 2011;Erickson, 2011;O'Connor, 2011;Welsh & D'Agostino, 2009). The inclusion of nonacademic behaviors in academic grades for the purpose of rewards or punishments is frequently criticized for invalidating the grade and hindering student learning (Dueck, 2014;Erickson, 2011;Guskey, 2000;Muñoz & Guskey, 2015;O'Connor & Wormeli, 2011).…”

Essentially Point-Less: The Influence Of Alternative, Non Points-Based Grading On Teachers' Instructional Practices

“…One of the common complaints from detractors of minimum grading is the assertion that it unfairly awards students a percentage of points that they have not earned and is akin to a type of social promotion (Carey& Carifio, 2012). While their study did find that minimum grading has a positive effect on both the academic performance as well as the motivation of students in "high-risk" classes (p. 34), Carifio and Carey (2009) noted that minimum grading has little benefit to students who continually score below 50 percent. Rather, the students that stand to gain the most are the ones who have scant few scores that are disproportionately low which has impacted their overall grade negatively.…”

“…Minimum grading systems provide an elevated basement to prevent scenarios like this from happening. Carifio and Carey (2009) investigated minimum grading and its effects on students in classes deemed "high-risk" (p. 34), as well as peripheral factors such as student motivation and engagement. One of the common complaints from detractors of minimum grading is the assertion that it unfairly awards students a percentage of points that they have not earned and is akin to a type of social promotion (Carey& Carifio, 2012).…”