Reimagining assessment: Exploring teachers’ motivations and practices in alternative grading

Steve  Verhoff; Karen H.  Larwin

doi:10.59400/fes2332

Reimagining assessment: Exploring teachers’ motivations and practices in alternative grading

Steve Verhoff Upper Valley Career Center, Piqua, OH 45356, USA
Karen H. Larwin Department of Educational Leadership, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44514, USA

Article ID: 2332

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2332

Keywords: grading practices; grading equity; student-centered feedback; assessment

Abstract

This mixed-method study explored the motivations, sustainability, and implementation of alternative grading practices among high school teachers in Ohio. Findings revealed that teachers adopt student-centered feedback methods such as rubrics, conferences, and self-reflection to enhance learning and support skill development. Social interactions, professional development, and peer influence emerged as significant factors shaping grading practices. Teachers often face challenges, including traditional grading pressures and limited formal training. Key limitations included a small, region-specific sample and reliance on teacher-reported data. Future research should investigate teacher preparation programs, the impact of policy mandates, and strategies for fostering systemic change. By understanding these dynamics, educational institutions can better support the adoption of innovative grading approaches that align with meaningful student learning and long-term academic success.

Published

2025-06-03

How to Cite

Verhoff, S., & Larwin, K. H. (2025). Reimagining assessment: Exploring teachers’ motivations and practices in alternative grading. Forum for Education Studies, 3(2), 2332. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2332

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

[1]Durm MW. An A is not an A is not an A: A History of Grading. The Educational Forum. 1993; 57(3): 294-297. doi: 10.1080/00131729309335429

[2]Schneider J, Hutt E. Making the grade: a history of the A–F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2013; 46(2): 201-224. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2013.790480

[3]Guskey TR. The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership. 2013; 71(1): 68-72.

[4]Brookhart SM, Guskey TR, Bowers AJ, et al. A Century of Grading Research. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86(4): 803-848. doi: 10.3102/0034654316672069

[5]Starch D, Elliott EC. Reliability of the Grading of High-School Work in English. The School Review. 1912; 20(7): 442-457. doi: 10.1086/435971

[6]Brimi HM. Reliability of grading high school work in English. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2011; 16(1): 1-17.

[7]Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB. Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings. Australian Journal of Education. 2016; 60(3): 245-256. doi: 10.1177/000494411666461

[8]Hu S. Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report. 2005; 30(6): 1-90.

[9]Quinn DM. How to reduce racial bias in grading: New research supports a simple, low-cost teaching tool. Education Next. 2021; 21(1): 72-78.

[10]Hinnerich BT, Höglin E, Johannesson M. Discrimination against students with foreign backgrounds: evidence from grading in Swedish public high schools. Education Economics. 2014; 23(6): 660-676. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2014.899562

[11]Bygren M. Biased grades? Changes in grading after a blinding of examinations reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 45(2): 292-303. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1638885

[12]Angelo C, Reis AB. Gender gaps in different grading systems. Education Economics. 2020; 29(1): 105-119. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2020.1853681

[13]Coates J, Draves WA. Smart boys, bad grades. Learning Resources Network. 2006.

[14]Tomlinson CA. Teach up for equity and excellence. Educational Leadership. 2023; 80(8): 28-34.

[15]Doyle L, Easterbrook MJ, Harris PR. Roles of socioeconomic status, ethnicity and teacher beliefs in academic grading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 93(1): 91-112. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12541

[16]Carifio J, Carey T. A Critical Examination of Current Minimum Grading Policy Recommendations. The High School Journal. 2009; 93(1): 23-37. doi: 10.1353/hsj.0.0039

[17]Cross LH, Frary RB. Hodgepodge grading; Endorsed by students and teachers alike. National Council on Measurement in Education; 1996. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1201_4

[18]Erickson JA. How grading reform changed our school. Educational Leadership. 2011; 69(3): 66-70.

[19]Guskey TR, Link LJ. Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2018; 26(3): 303-320. doi: 10.1080/0969594x.2018.1555515

[20]O’Conner K, Wormelli R. Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership. 2011; 69(3): 40-44.

[21]Westphal A, Lazarides R, Vock M. Are some students graded more appropriately than others? Student characteristics as moderators of the relationships between teacher‐assigned grades and test scores in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 91(3): 865-881. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12397

[22]Chen PP, Bonner SM. Teachers’ Beliefs About Grading Practices and a Constructivist Approach to Teaching. Educational Assessment. 2016; 22(1): 18-34. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2016.1271703

[23]Guskey TR. Bound by tradition: Teachers’ views of crucial grading and reporting issues. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2009; San Francisco, CA, United States.

[24]Percell JC. Lessons from Alternative Grading: Essential Qualities of Teacher Feedback. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 2017; 90(4): 111-115. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2017.1304067

[25]Frankin A, Buckmiller T, Kruse J. Vocal and Vehement: Understanding Parents’ Aversion to Standards-Based Grading. International Journal of Social Science Studies. 2016; 4(11). doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v4i11.1923

[26]Sackstein S. Earning good grades versus learning. Education Week. 2018.

[27]Townsley M, Buckmiller T. What does the research say about standards-based grading? A research primer. Faculty Publications; 2026.

[28]Feldman J. Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform. Phi Delta Kappan. 2019; 100(8): 52-55. doi: 10.1177/0031721719846890

[29]Moore C. Alternatives to traditional grading. Oakland University; 2023.

[30]Ajawd MI, Bilo S. Seen and unseen effects of COVID-19 school disruptions. Brookings; 2022.

[31]Patrinos HA, Vegas E, Carter-Rau R. COVID-19 school closures fueled big learning losses, especially for the disadvantaged. World Bank; 2022.

[32]Sawchuk S. Grading students during the coronavirus crisis: What’s the right call? Education Week. 2020.

[33]Strauss V, George D. Teachers second-guess letter grades as they search for a fairer way. The Washington Post, 28 February 2022.

[34]Sultana F, Bari R, Munir S. Impact of school closures due to COVID-19 on education in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Global Health Reports. 2022; 6. doi: 10.29392/001c.36902

[35]Kohn A. The accidental benefits of COVID-19. Education Week. 2020; 40(1): 20.

[36]Townsley M. Grading Principles in Pandemic-Era Learning: Recommendations and Implications for Secondary School Leaders. Journal of School Administration Research and Development. 2020; 5(S1): 8-14. doi: 10.32674/jsard.v5is1.2760

[37]McMillan JH. Secondary Teachers’ Classroom Assessment and Grading Practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2001; 20(1): 20-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00055.x

[38]Link L. Teachers’ perceptions of grading practices: How pre-service training makes a difference. Journal of Research in Education. 2018; 28(1): 62-91.

[39]Grainger PR, Adie L. Title: How do Preservice Teacher Education students Move From Novice to Expert Assessors? Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2014; 39(7). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.9

[40]Bergman DJ. Pre-service teachers’ pliable perceptions of ethical practices in student evaluation. Issues in Teacher Education, 27(3). 2018; 5-23.

[41]Grogan M, Shakeshaft C. A new way. In: The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership. Wiley; 2013. pp. 111-130.

[42]Louis KS, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom KL, Anderson SE. Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation; 2010.

[43]Hallinger P, Heck RH. Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management. 2010; 30(2): 95-110. doi: 10.1080/13632431003663214

[44]Gano-Phillips S, Barnett RW, Kelsch A, et al. Rethinking the Role of Leadership in General Education Reform. The Journal of General Education. 2011; 60(2): 65-83. doi: 10.5325/jgeneeduc.60.2.0065

[45]Daly AJ, Moolenaar NM, Bolivar JM, et al. Relationships in reform: the role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration. 2010; 48(3): 359-391. doi: 10.1108/09578231011041062

[46]Nimmon L, Artino AR, Varpio L. Social Network Theory in Interprofessional Education: Revealing Hidden Power. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2019; 11(3): 247-250. doi: 10.4300/jgme-d-19-00253.1

[47]Dokuka S, Valeeva D, Yudkevich M. How academic achievement spreads: The role of distinct social networks in academic performance diffusion. PLOS ONE. 2020; 15(7): e0236737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236737

[48]Coburn CE, Russell JL, Kaufman JH, et al. Supporting Sustainability: Teachers’ Advice Networks and Ambitious Instructional Reform. American Journal of Education. 2012; 119(1): 137-182. doi: 10.1086/667699

[49]Datnow A. Teacher Agency in Educational Reform: Lessons from Social Networks Research. American Journal of Education. 2012; 119(1): 193-201. doi: 10.1086/667708

[50]Grunspan DZ, Wiggins BL, Goodreau SM. Understanding Classrooms through Social Network Analysis: A Primer for Social Network Analysis in Education Research. Dolan E, ed. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2014; 13(2): 167-178. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0162

[51]Desing R, Kajfez R. How to Use Q Methodology in Engineering Education Research. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings. doi: 10.18260/1-2--34737

[52]Coogan J, Herrington N. Q methodology: An overview. Research in Secondary Teacher Education. 2011; 1(2): 24-28.

[53]Irie K. Q methodology for post-social-turn research in SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2014; 4(1): 13-32. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.1.2

[54]Lundberg A, de Leeuw R, Aliani R. Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review. 2020; 31: 100361. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100361

[55]Valenta AL, Wigger U. Q-methodology: Definition and Application in Health Care Informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1997; 4(6): 501-510. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501

[56]Damio SM. Q methodology: An overview and steps to implementation. Asian Journal of University Education. 2016; 12(1): 105-122.

[57]Watts S, Stenner P. Doing q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage; 2012.

[58]Franke TM, Ho T, Christie CA. The Chi-Square Test. American Journal of Evaluation. 2011; 33(3): 448-458. doi: 10.1177/1098214011426594

[59]Mueller J. The authentic assessment toolbox: Enhancing student learning through online faculty development. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2005; 1(1): 1–7.

[60]Wolf K, Stevens E. The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching. 2007; 7(1): 3-14.

[61]Shum DL. Empower students through individual conferences. ASCD. 2019; 14(22).

[62]Lektorich B. Empowering students: How to foster self-directed learning. Education World. 2023.

[63]Stenger M. 5 research-based tips for providing students with meaningful feedback. Edutopia. 2014.

[64]Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77(1): 81-112.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

Indexing

Polish Scientific Bibliography

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.