Teachers' Experiences of Unfair Grading

Alm, Fredrik; Colnerud, Gunnel

doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1028620

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CIT is most appropriate when individuals are asked to report retrospectively from memory about salient incidents that happened in the past (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, and Maglio, 2005). For this study, CIT serves well to investigate incidents of un/fairness because previous qualitative studies focusing on students' fairness experiences (Alm and Colnerud, 2015;Buttner, 2004;Chory et al, 2017;Čiuladienė and Račelytė, 2016;Horan et al, 2010;Houston and Bettencourt, 1999) demonstrated that un/fairness incidents were particularly salient in students' memories, able to be recalled years later.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ critical incidents of fairness in classroom assessment: an empirical study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualizing fairness through social psychology theory has recently been called for in classroom assessment (CA) literature. This study used two open-ended questionnaires to explore university students' critical incidents of fairness and unfairness and their affective and behavioral reactions to experiences of un/fairness. The findings showed that students' perceptions of CA fairness were comprised of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice principles. Collectively, students considered the distribution of outcomes, the procedures for outcome distributions, the interpersonal relationships, and the communication procedures in conceptualizing fairness. Students also reported positive feelings such as happiness, satisfaction, feeling valued, and hopefulness when describing fair incidents, while they tended to report negative feelings such as anger, upset, disappointment, and embarrassment as responses to unfair incidents. Students also reported increased classroom engagement and greater adaptation in responses to fairness incidents, while they reported class disengagement, inaction, and dissent as responses to unfair incidents. Building on these empirical findings, a more comprehensive conceptualization of fairness in CA contexts is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ critical incidents of fairness in classroom assessment: an empirical study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…INSERT TABLE 2 HERE The analysis of the 10 studies suggests that five studies employed principles of equity, equality, and need as their theory of CA fairness (Alm & Colnerud, 2015;Cowie, 2015;Lantolf & Poehner, 2013;Murillo & Hidalgo, 2017;Poehner, 2011). These three principles describe fairness based on whether or not outcomes in the classroom (e.g., grades, feedback, and opportunity to demonstrate learning) should be distributed based on merit, equality, or need.…”

Section: Ca Fairness Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accuracy refers to whether classroom procedures are carried out correctly. In addition to being a procedural justice principle in organizational justice (Leventhal, 1980), accuracy has been documented to be associated with the students' perception of justice in domains such as grading (Alm & Colnerud, 2015;Fellenz, 2006) and attendance policy (Rodabaugh, 1994).…”

Section: Classroom Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings indicated that students' conception of fairness includes diverse phases of assessment such as planning, collecting, scoring, interpreting and reporting assessment information. Alm & Colnerud 2015 Qualitative This study explored teachers' perspectives of unfair grading. The authors identified several themes that contributed to teachers' unfair perception when they were students: failure to apply the grading systems suggested by standards, use of insufficient, unsuitable, and insignificant data for scoring, alteration of grades due to reasons other than achievement, and failure to effectively communicate the reasons behind grades.…”

Section: Morgan and Watson 2002 Qualitativementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

Rasooli

Zandi

DeLuca

2019

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fairness has recently moved into the spotlight as a core foundation of classroom assessment (CA). However, despite its significance for high quality CA, fairness definitions and theories have been limited in the literature. Driven by the critiques directed at the 'inadequacy' and 'fuzziness' around CA fairness and recommendations to conceptualize fairness particularly for CA contexts, this paper aims to provide an explicit definition of CA fairness. Specifically, this paper brings together current scholarship in organizational justice theory and recent findings from the CA fairness literature to offer a more thorough conceptualization. This conceptualization not only presents a distinction between justice and fairness, but also provides a novel discussion of the relationship between justice and fairness with consideration for potential effects on students' learning. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research on CA fairness.

show abstract

“…Similarly, 48% of the teachers believed it was fair to grade an essay test knowing the identity of the student who wrote the essay; 52% believed it was unfair. Students, on the other hand, seem to be much more in agreement when it comes to the issue of the fairness (Alm & Colnerud, 2015). In general, students perceive grading and grades to be unfair when teachers:…”

Section: Recommendationmentioning

confidence: 98%

A critique of grading: Policies, practices, and technical matters

Anderson

2018

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years there was been a raft of criticisms of the way that grades (or marks) are assigned to students. The purpose of this paper is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of grading systems and grading practices, drawing upon both historical and contemporary research and writing. Five questions are used to frame the review and organize the paper. They are: (1) Why do we grade students? (2) What do grades mean? (3) How reliable are students’ grades? (4) How valid are students’ grades? and (5) What are the consequences of grading students? The results suggest that (1) The are several purposes for grading students; the way that grades are assigned and reported should be consistent with the specified purpose. (2) Grades mean different things to different people (including the teachers who assign them). (3) Grades on a single task (e.g., a test or project, a homework assignment) are quite unreliable, whereas cumulative grades (that is, those based on several data sources) are reasonably reliable. (4) The validity of grades on a single task is virtually impossible to determine; however, the evidence suggests that cumulative grades are reasonably valid. (5) Grades influence a variety of student affective characteristics (e.g., self-esteem). However, their influence is no greater, nor less than, a host of other school-related factors.

show abstract

Teachers' Experiences of Unfair Grading

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

Students’ critical incidents of fairness in classroom assessment: an empirical study

Students’ critical incidents of fairness in classroom assessment: an empirical study

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

A critique of grading: Policies, practices, and technical matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About