- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Relative impacts of different grade scales on student success in introductory physics

David J. Webb1, Cassandra A. Paul2,3, and Mary K. Chessey4

  • 1Department of Physics, University of California–Davis, Davis, 95616 California, USA
  • 2Department of Physics & Astronomy, San Jose State University, San Jose, 95192 California, USA
  • 3Science Education Program, San Jose State University, San Jose, 95192 California, USA
  • 4Department of Physics, University of Maryland–College Park, College Park, 20742 Maryland, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020114 – Published 27 August, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020114

Abstract

In deciding on a student’s grade in a class, an instructor generally needs to combine many individual grading judgments into one overall judgment. Two relatively common numerical scales used to specify individual grades are the 4-point scale (where each whole number 0–4 corresponds to a letter grade) and the percent scale (where letter grades A through D are uniformly distributed in the top 40% of the scale). This paper uses grading data from a single series of courses offered over a period of 10 years to show that the grade distributions emerging from these two grade scales differed in many ways from each other. Evidence suggests that the differences are due more to the grade scale than to either the students or the instructors. One major difference is that the fraction of students given grades less than C− was over 5 times larger when instructors used the percent scale. The fact that each instructor who used both grade scales gave more than 4 times as many of these low grades under percent scale grading suggests that the effect is due to the grade scale rather than the instructor. When the percent scale was first introduced in these courses in 2006, one of the authors of this paper, who is also one of the instructors in this dataset, had confidently predicted that any changes in course grading would be negligible. They were not negligible, even for this instructor.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (38)

  1. C. A. Paul, D. J. Webb, M. K. Chessey, and W. H. Potter, Equity of success in CLASP courses at UC Davis, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cinncinnati, OH, edited by L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (AIP, New York, 2017), p. 292, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.068.
  2. W. Potter, D. Webb, C. Paul, E. West, M. Bowen, B. Weiss, L. Coleman, and C. De Leone, Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis, Am. J. Phys. 82, 153 (2014).
  3. J. Feldman, School Grading Policies are Failing Children: A Call to Action for Equitable Grading (Crescendo Education Group, Oakland, CA, 2018).
  4. C. Paul, D. J. Webb, M. K. Chessey, and J. Lucas, Pondering zeros: Uncovering hidden inequities within a decade of grades, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018), 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Paul.
  5. M. Cahalan, L. W. Perna, M. Yamashita, J. Wright-Kim, and N. Jiang, 2019 Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: Historical Trend Report., Tech. Rep. [The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD), 2019].
  6. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  7. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  8. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  9. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 1 (2014).
  10. C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, V. H. Kuo, P. Heller, and K. Heller, Grading student problem solutions: The challenge of sending a consistent message, Am. J. Phys. 72, 164 (2004).
  11. E. Marshman, R. Sayer, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Contrasting grading approaches in introductory physics and quantum mechanics: The case of graduate teaching assistants, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 1 (2017).
  12. I. D. Beatty, Standards-based grading in introductory university physics, J. Scholar. Teach. Learn. 13, 1 (2013).
  13. A. Rundquist, Standards-based grading with voice: Listening for students’ understanding, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 69 (2012).
  14. T. Zimmerman, Grading for understanding standards-based grading, Phys. Teach. 55, 47 (2017).
  15. R. Wormeli, Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessing and Grading in the Differentiated Classroom, 2nd ed. (Stenhouse Publishers, Portsmouth, NH, 2018).
  16. T. R. Guskey, On Your Mark: Challenging the Conventions of Grading and Reporting (Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN, 2014), p. 134.
  17. J. Feldman, Grading for Equity: What it is, Why it Matters, and How it can Transform Schools and Classrooms (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018).
  18. S. M. Brookhart, Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses, Educ. Meas. 22, 5 (2003).
  19. J. H. McMillan, SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013).
  20. How to Convert Your GPA to a 4.0 Scale (College Board, New York, NY, 2019), https://pages.collegeboard.org/how-to-convert-gpa-4.0-scale.
  21. How is Grade Point Average Calculated? (National Center for Education Statistics, College Park, PA, 2019), https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/hsts/howgpa.asp.
  22. T. R. Guskey, The case against percentage grades, Educ. Leadersh. 71, 68 (2013).
  23. D. B. Reeves, The case against the zero, Phi Delta Kappan 86, 324 (2004).
  24. K. O’Connor and R. Wormeli, Reporting student learning, Educ. Leadersh. 69, 40 (2011).
  25. D. Selby and S. Murphy, Graded or degraded: Perceptions of letter-grading for mainstreamed learning-disabled students, B.C. J. Spec. Educ. 16, 92 (1992).
  26. H. Grant and C. S. Dweck, Clarifying achievement goals and their impact, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 541 (2003).
  27. A. M. L. Cavallo, W. H. Potter, and M. Rozman, Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors, School Sci. Math. 104, 288 (2004).
  28. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  29. S. Rojstaczer and C. Healy, Where a is ordinary: The evolution of American college and university grading, 1940–2009, Teachers College Record 114, 1 (2012).
  30. T. Carey and J. Carifio, The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study of seven years of grading data from an urban high school, Educ. Res. 41, 201 (2012).
  31. S. M. Brookhart, T. R. Guskey, A. J. Bowers, J. H. McMillan, J. K. Smith, L. F. Smith, M. T. Stevens, and M. E. Welsh, A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure, Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 803 (2016).
  32. L. W. Anderson, A critique of grading: Policies, practices, and technical, Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 26, 1 (2018).
  33. C. Paul, W. H. Potter, and B. Weiss, Grading by response category: A simple method for providing students with meaningful feedback on exams in large courses, Phys. Teach. 52, 485 (2014).
  34. S. M. Brookhart, Assessment theory for college classrooms, New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2004, 5 (2004).
  35. S. S. Stevens, On the theory of scales of measurement, Science 103, 677 (1946).
  36. S. Shim and A. Ryan, Changes in self-efficacy, challenge avoidance, and intrinsic value in response to grades: The role of achievement goals, J. Exp. Educ. 73, 333 (2005).
  37. J. H. Corpus, M. S. McClintic-Gilbert, and A. O. Hayenga, Within-year changes in childrens intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Contextual predictors and academic outcomes, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 154 (2009).
  38. T. R. Guskey, Computerized gradebooks and the myth of objectivity, Phi Delta Kappan 83, 775 (2002).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020114– Published 27 August, 2020
  • Received 15 March 2019
  • Revised 24 April 2020
  • Accepted 4 August 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation