Érudit - Promouvoir et diffuser la recherche
FrançaisEnglishEspañol
 

Recherche détaillée

.

Année Volume Numéro Page 
>

Institution :

Usager en libre accès

McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill

Volume 45, numéro 3, automne 2010, p. 535-554

Rédaction : Anthony Paré (editor) et Annie Savard (coeditor)

Éditeur : Faculty of Education, McGill University

ISSN : 0024-9033 (imprimé)  1916-0666 (numérique)

DOI : 10.7202/1003576ar

mje
< PrécédentSuivant >
Article

A Secondary School Teacher’s description of the process of determining report card grades

Marielle Simon

University of Ottawa

Robin D. Tierney

University of Ottawa

Renée Forgette-Giroux

University of Ottawa

Julie Charland

University of Ottawa

Brian Noonan

University of Saskatchewan

Randy Duncan

University of Saskatchewan

Abstract

This paper presents a grade 10 mathematics teacher’s in-depth description of the process she uses to determine the final grade for the report card within a standards-based context. Her case was part of a three-year comparative study of grading practices of teachers from two Canadian provinces that differ in their level of standardization of education. Survey, interview, and document data provided by the teacher revealed clear tensions between current grading policy and principles particularly within mathematics.

Résumé

Description par une enseignante du secondaire du processus de fixation des résultats au bulletin

Dans cet article, une enseignante en mathématiques de secondaire 4 décrit en détails le processus par lequel elle détermine la note finale figurant au bulletin dans un contexte d’évaluation critériée. Son analyse fait partie d’une étude comparative de trois ans examinant les pratiques d’évaluation d’enseignants oeuvrant dans deux provinces canadiennes dont les niveaux de normalisation de l’éducation diffèrent. Les données exposées par l’auteure – émanant de sondages, d’entrevues et de documents – mettent en évidence des tensions évidentes entre les politiques actuelles d’évaluation et les principes, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux mathématiques.

Notes biographiques

Marielle Simon is full professor at the Faculty of Education. Her teaching and research interests include classroom assessment, large-scale assessment, assessment rubrics, secondary data analyses, grading issues and policies.

Robin D. Tierney was an elementary teacher in Ontario and a research assistant at the Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa. She graduated with a Doctorate in Philosophy (Education) in 2010. Her doctoral dissertation draws on teachers’ practical wisdom (phronesis) to understand fairness in classroom assessment. She now lives in California.

Renée Forgette-Giroux was full professor at the Faculty of Education at the time of the study and was one of the principal investigators. Her work is mainly is the area of evaluation, assessment, research methods and statistics.

Julie Charland is currently Principal of a French language secondary school in Eastern Ontario.  She was a doctoral student at the time of this study.  Her research focuses on the assessment of school principals.

Brian Noonan was associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education at the time of the study. He was also one of the principal investigators of the study.

Randy Duncan studied in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, College of Education and obtained his PhD degree in measurement and education in 2009. He was involved in this project from beginning to the end.

 

Bibliographie

 

Anders, P., & Richardson, V. (1992). Teacher as game-show host, bookkeeper, or judge? Challenges, contradictions, and consequences of accountability. Teachers College Record, 94(2), 382-397.

 

Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Creating & recognizing quality rubrics. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon

 

Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

 

Bailey, B. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

 

Bonesronning, H. (2004). Do the teachers’ grading practices affect student achievement? Education Economics, 12(2), 151-167.

 

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring, 35-36.

 

Brookhart, S. M. (1993).Teacher’ grading: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

 

Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279-301.

 

Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

 

Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a stage model for studying teacher concerns about educational innovations. Australia Journal of Education,46(3), 305-322.

 

Cicmanec, K. B. (1999). High school mathematics teachers: Grading practice and pupil control ideology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University. UMI # AAT 9956769.

 

Cross, L. H.. & Frary, R. B. (1996). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, April 9-11.

 

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher,19(1), 3-13.

 

Deeter, B. C. (2002). A comparison between teachers’ assessment, grading and instructional practices on quarter timetable vs. ten-month timetables in British Columbia secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Canada.

 

Duncan, R., & Noonan, B. (2007). Factors affecting teachers’ grading and assessment practices. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1-21.

 

Friedman, S. J., & Troug, A. J. (1998). Evaluation of high school teachers’ written grading policies. ERS Spectrum,17(3), 34-42.

 

Guskey, T. R. (2004). Stability and change in high school grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

 

Guskey, T. R. (2006). “It wasn’t fair!” Educators’ recollections of their experiences as students with grading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

 

Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment: Implications for students with special needs. Theory into Practice, 48, 53-62.

 

Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2003). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association,2 (2-3), 406-415.

 

Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189-214.

 

Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., Bugliari, D. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (1), 1-29. Retrieved from http://eepa.aera.net on March 1, 2010

 

Horn, R. A., Jr. (2004). Standards. New York: Peter Lang.

 

Howley, A., Kusimo, P. S., & Parrott, L. (2000). Grading and the ethos of effort. Learning Environments Research, 3(3), 229–246.

 

Joint Committee. (1999). Principles for fair assessment in Canada. University of Edmonton.

 

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation [JCSEE]. (2003) The student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students. Washington DC: AERA, APA, NCME.

 

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

 

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 20(1), 20-32.

 

McMillan, J. H. (2008). Assessment essentials for standards-based education (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, A SAGE company.

 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons.

 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

 

Noonan, B. (2002) Interpretation panels and collaborative research. Brock University, 12(1), 89-100.

 

O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1999). Guide to the provincial report card, Grades 9-12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education.(2000). The Ontario curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Program planning and assessment. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education (2004). The Ontario curriculum grades 1 to 12: Achievement charts (Draft). Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). The Ontario curriculum grades 9 and 10: Mathematics. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education (2008). Growing success: Improving student learning. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education (2010a). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario schools (First edition, covering grades 1 to 12). Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

 

Ontario Ministry of Education (2010b). Ontario curriculum: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculumsecondary/index.html#role, on 02 July, 2010.

 

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Resh, N. (2009). Justice in grades allocation: Teachers’ perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 315–325.

 

Resh, N., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Gender differences in sense of justice about grades: A comparative study of high school students in Israel and Germany. Teachers College Record 109(2), 322-342.

 

Rich, R. H. (2002). Hidden factors in teachers’ secondary grading practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University. UMI # AAT 3036925

 

Senk, S. L., Beckman, C. H., & Thompson, D. R. (1997). Assessment and grading in high school Mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 187-215.

 

Scriffiny, P. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading, Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.

 

Silva, M., Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2005). Grading adaptations for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic 2005, 41, 87.

 

Speck, B. W. (1998). Unveiling some of the mystery of professional judgment in classroom assessment. In R. S. Anderson & B. W. Speck (Eds), Changing the waywe grade student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learningparadigm, pp.89-96. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.), pp.443-466. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Stiggins, R. J., Frisbie, D. A., Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 1, 5-14.

 

Supovitz, J. A., & Taylor, B. S. (2003). The impact of standards-based reform in Duval County, Florida: 1999-2002. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/ on 16 June 2010.

 

Suurtamm, C. (2004). Developing authentic assessments: Case studies of secondary school mathematics teachers’ experiences.Canadian School of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(4), 497-513.

 

Suurtamm, C., Koch, M., & Arden, A. (2010). Teachers’ emerging assessment practices in mathematics: Classrooms in the context of reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 17(4), 399-417.

 

Suurtamm, C., Lawson, A., & Koch, M. (2008). The challenge of maintaining the integrity of reform mathematics in large-scale assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 31-43.

 

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, Q., Köller, O, Marsh, H. W., & Baument, J. (2006). Tracking, grading, and student motivation: Using group composition status to predict self-concept and interest in ninth-grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 788-806.

 

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

 

Young, J., & Levin, B. (2002). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration (3rd Ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson/Thomson.

 

Zoeckler, L. G. (2005). Moral dimensions of grading in high school English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana. UMI No. AAT3183500.

Notes biographiques

Marielle Simon est professeur titulaire à la Faculté des sciences de l’éducation de l’Université d’Ottawa. Ses intérêts d’enseignement et de recherche englobent l’évaluation en contexte de la salle de classe, l’évaluation à grande échelle, les grilles d’évaluation, l’analyse des données secondaires ainsi que les problématiques et les politiques de notation.

Robin D. Tierney a enseigné à l’élémentaire en Ontario et travaillé comme assistante de recherche à la Faculté des sciences de l’éducation de l’Université d’Ottawa. Elle a reçu son diplôme de doctorat en philosophie de l’éducation en 2010. Sa thèse de doctorat analyse le discernement et la sagesse pratique des enseignants en classe (phronésis) pour expliquer le phénomène de justice dans l’évaluation en classe. Elle habite maintenant en Californie.

Renée Forgette-Giroux était professeur titulaire à la Faculté des sciences de l’éducation de l’Université d’Ottawa au moment de l’étude et en est un des principaux investigateurs. Sa démarche de recherche couvre principalement l’évaluation, l’appréciation, les méthodes de recherche et les statistiques.

Julie Charland est présentement directrice d’une école secondaire francophone dans l’est de l’Ontario. Elle était une étudiante au doctorat au cours de l’étude. Ses recherches portent sur l’évaluation des directeurs d’école.

Brian Noonan était professeur agrégé au département d’Educational Psychology and Special Education de l’Université de la Saskatchewan lors de l’étude. Il est également un des principaux investigateurs de la recherche.

Randy Duncan a étudié au département d’Educational Psychology and Special Education du College of Education de l’Université de la Saskatchewan. Il a reçu son doctorat en mesure et éducation en 2009. Randy Duncan a été impliqué dans la réalisation du projet du début à la fin.

Auteurs : Marielle Simon, Robin D. Tierney, Renée Forgette-Giroux, Julie Charland, Brian Noonan et Randy Duncan
Titre : A Secondary School Teacher’s description of the process of determining report card grades
Revue : McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, Volume 45, numéro 3, automne 2010, p. 535-554
URI : http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1003576ar
DOI : 10.7202/1003576ar

All Rights Reserved © Faculty of Education, McGill University, 2010

À propos d'Érudit | Abonnements | RSS | Conditions d’utilisation | Pour nous joindre | Aide

Consortium Érudit ©  2014