Grading Practices in Different Major Fields

Goldman, Roy D.; Schmidt, Donald E.; Hewitt, Barbara Newlin; Fisher, Ronald Aylmer

doi:10.2307/1162789

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other researchers have theorized that faculty adapt their grading standards to the ability level of their students (Aiken 1963;Hills and Gladney 1968;Goldman, Schmidt, Hewitt, and Fisher 1974;Goldman and Slaughter 1976;Gallini 1982). That is, when student ability increases, faculty tend to use stricter grading standards and, when student ability decreases, grading standards are lowered.…”

Section: Faculty Grading Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is suggested by the increases in GPA observed since the late 1960s. These increases remain substantial even after controlling for the academic preparation of the students (Goldman, Schmidt, Hewitt, and Fisher 1974;Goldman and Slaughter 1976;Summerville, Ridley, and Maris 1988). Faculty may have experienced changes in attitudes or grading philosophies during the past two decades.…”

Section: Faculty Grading Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

College Grades: An Exploratory Study of Policies and Practices

Ekstrom¹,

Villegas²,

Bruschi³

et al. 1994

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined policies and practices related to grading at 14 colleges and universities and how they had changed between 1980 and 1990. It also examined the grading orientation and practices of over 500 faculty members in the business, chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and psychology departments of these institutions. The study sought information to answer four questions: What are the current institutional and/or departmental grading policies and practices? Were there changes in these policies and practices between 1980 and 1990 and, if so, what was the nature of the changes? What are the current grading orientation and practices of faculty who teach undergraduate courses? Have these changed over time? Do faculty grading orientation and practices differ across departments and, if so, how? Information was collected from 14 colleges and universities, 8 public and 6 privately controlled. Within each institution, information was collected from department chairs and faculty in each of the designated departments that was established at that institution. Usable questionnaire responses were received from 58 department chairs (68 percent response rate) and from 542 faculty members (25 percent response rate). Institutional changes between 1980 and 1990 that may have affected grades included greater prescription of the curriculum, greater differentiation in grading systems, and increased use of student evaluations of faculty members. While none of the department chairpersons said there were specific departmental grading policies, faculty had a very different perspective. Approximately a quarter of the faculty said their department had a policy of grading against specific standards, 14 percent of these said there was a policy that all students be given an A or B in honors courses, and 11 percent said there was a policy that attendance should be a factor in course grades. Additionally, about two‐thirds of the faculty said that, although not specific policy, their department expected them to grade students against specific standards. About half of these faculty said their department expected them to grade students relative to the overall performance of the class. Only about a third of the department chairpersons reported having formal meetings to discuss grading, but informal meetings about grading were reported by 75 percent. Fifty‐six percent of the responding faculty said their department had tried to raise standards during the decade between 1980 and 1990. Faculty orientations toward grading could be categorized into two approaches, one viewing grades as formal and objective, the other insisting that grades cannot be reduced to a set of objective measures. There were significant differences across departments, with chemistry, mathematics, and psychology faculty more likely to subscribe to the “objective” view while English, education, and history faculty tended to favor the “nonobjective” view. Faculty in business appeared to have diverse attitudes toward grading and could not be easily ...

show abstract

Section: Faculty Grading Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Faculty Grading Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

College Grades: An Exploratory Study of Policies and Practices

Ekstrom¹,

Villegas²,

Bruschi³

et al. 1994

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nuttall et al (1974) produced similar findings, using data from several GCE boards processed by a wide range of analytical techniques, and explored the implications of differences in the apparent difficulties of subjects between the sexes. Data from other countries (Kelly, 1975(Kelly, , 1976Goldman et al, 1974;Goldman & Widawski, 1976) give general support to the view that large between-subject performance levels exist.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

Subject Preferences, Sex Differences and Comparability of Standards

Newbould

1982

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports research into the relationship between the apparent variety of standards applied to different GCE Ordindary level subjects and schoolchildren's avowed preferences for subjects. The ordering of subjects by grades awarded agrees closely with those derived in similar research in England and elsewhereand is shown to be comparatively stable across time. This ranking is also shown to agree closely with expressed preferences of subjects by 14-year-olds, and reasonably closely with those of 16-year-olds.

show abstract

“…Other researchers suggest that enrollment pressures and fiscal policies are responsible (Stone, 1995). Goldman, Schmidt, Hewitt, and Fisher (1974) found that fields with lower-ability students tend to adopt lower grading standards, while higher standards are implemented in fields with higher-ability students. Further, courses with lenient grading standards tend to have growth in student enrollment.…”

Section: Causes Of Grading Disparitymentioning

confidence: 97%

2005

ASHE Higher Education Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grading Problems in Higher EducationAssessment of College Student LearningPurposeOverview and ScopeCorrelates of College GradesStudentsFacultyCoursesDisciplineInstitutionReframing the College Grading ProblemGuiding Conceptual FrameworkConsequences of College Grading ProblemsReexamining the Empirical EvidenceGrade IncreaseGrade InflationGrade CompressionGrading DisparityUncovering the RootsInfluences on Grade ChangeCauses of Grading DisparityCauses of Grade InflationIncentive MattersSearching for CuresEmerging PracticesStrategies and InnovationsA Shared ResponsibilityPolicy Instruments as a Guide for Policy DesignConclusions and ImplicationsImplications for ResearchImplications for PracticeDiagnostic Method for Grading ProblemsAppendix: Grading Proposals at Princeton UniversityReferencesName IndexSubject IndexAbout the Author

show abstract

Grading Practices in Different Major Fields

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

College Grades: An Exploratory Study of Policies and Practices

College Grades: An Exploratory Study of Policies and Practices

Subject Preferences, Sex Differences and Comparability of Standards

Table of Contents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About