Many of us have heard the story of students with excellent grades in the classroom but, when facing standardized tests, such as the PAES (now AVANZO), tend to achieve results below expectations. This discrepancy seems to be related to the way we grade. According to Feldman (2018), many teachers include both academic and non-academic aspects when evaluating their students, which affects the validity of classroom grades. In other words, in addition to reflecting a student's performance, other factors such as responsibility, participation, and effort are generally included as part of the student's final grade. Including these aspects leads to grade inflation and invites subjectivity and biases (Feldman, 2018; Townsley, 2019). On the one hand, subjectivity occurs when we base our evaluations on our observations and experiences with the student. On the other hand, biases are beliefs we form about our students based on these subjective observations. These beliefs influence how we treat the student and our expectations of them. Both subjectivity and biases lead to an environment of inequity and inaccuracy when grading our students (Feldman, 2018).
If the purpose of grades is to communicate the extent to which students have achieved learning objectives (Link & Guskey, 2022), traditional grading practices, such as using a single number as a representation of all students’ learning, limit the communication about the content that has been mastered and needs revision (Scarlett, 2018). Often, this results in grades that do not align with teachers' perceptions of what the student has learned. Consequently, many teachers resort to what Feldman (2018) calls "grading tricks," such as altering some of the grades, either by adding or subtracting points, to make the final grade better reflect what they believe the student deserves.
Aware of the opportunity for improvement, I found a more equitable grading system called "Standards-Based Grading" (SBG), through which students' performance and progress are assessed based on the extent to which they have achieved certain learning standards (Link & Guskey, 2022). According to Townsley (2019), SBG must meet three criteria:
The grade clearly communicates the level of performance achieved by the student. Unlike traditional grading methods, students understand their areas of improvement and mastery through the standards.
Students have the opportunity to demonstrate their level of mastery multiple times. When a student does not meet the expected standards, after guided preparation by the teacher, they can retake the assessment to show their new level of mastery.
Academic and non-academic aspects are graded separately, so the grade reflects the student's academic performance level.
The implementation of this system in classrooms can raise many questions (Willcox & Townsley, 2022) as it differs significantly from the traditional grading system. Some of the major concerns relate to students getting comfortable if they have many opportunities to retake assessments. While this is a common fear, my experience in the classroom suggests otherwise. Most students prepared enough to avoid retaking, as it added extra time to their academic workload.
Another concern when implementing SBG is not evaluating responsibility as part of a grade. Many teachers assess responsibility as a strategy to motivate their students to submit assignments on time. Although this represents a challenge at first, it is necessary to follow up with students who fail to submit assignments on time, emphasizing the learning opportunity they miss when submitting their assignments late.
Aware of all these challenges, I embarked on the adventure of applying this system in the classroom. In this article, I share this experience, the lessons learned, and suggestions for teachers interested in innovating how they grade.
The implementation of this practice was carried out in the English subject, with 36 second-year general high school students from various public and private institutions in La Libertad and San Salvador. The students are scholarship recipients of the Centro ¡Supérate! Merlet, a supplementary education program located in Antiguo Cuscatlán and sponsored by the private sector. The students are divided into two groups, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, based on the availability of their high school schedules.
This system was executed in different phases throughout the year, and through a trial-and-error process, it was fully implemented in the last quarter of the year, from September to November 2022.
First, I selected the study unit I would work with. This unit covered various contents that would be addressed throughout the quarter. I did not use any specific criteria for selecting the unit, except the time I would spend to develop the contents of the unit.
Once the contents were identified, I detailed the objective for each topic. To do this, I constantly asked myself what I expected to achieve with the content and how I would assess it, whether through exams, presentations, or projects.
With the learning objectives clarified, I proceeded to write the different proficiency levels for each objective. These proficiency levels were the grades students received after each exam. Due to time constraints, I decided to evaluate using short exams that allowed me to determine the strengths and challenges of students in understanding the content. For this reason, I divided the proficiency levels based on the grade range obtained in the exams. For example, if a student scored between 10-9 on the exam, the proficiency level achieved was "Mastered"; if their grade range was between 8-7, the proficiency level translated to "In Progress"; and if their grade range was between 6-5, it was understood as "Needs Support." When students received their graded exams, they received their proficiency level along with feedback indicating the aspects they needed to work on. It is worth noting that although students only received their proficiency level, I maintained the numerical grade in my gradebook, which allowed me to track improvements after retakes when necessary. It also allowed me to convert the proficiency levels into a single grade, which would be reported on their quarterly report cards.
After receiving their graded exams, students discussed their mistakes and successes with their peers. This was done to explain the reasons for their answers and discover any misconceptions about the content. Since there were no numerical grades, only proficiency levels, I observed that comparing results did not generate feelings of inferiority; instead, it served as a way for students to engage in genuine conversations about learning.
After receiving their proficiency levels, I conducted a brief leveling class with those who had obtained low results. In this class, I explained the content, focusing on helping students understand the mistakes in the exam. Attendance to this class became a condition for retaking the exam. It is important to mention that students could only retake the exam twice. This served as an assurance that results would improve.
Finally, to close the quarter, I transformed all proficiency levels into grades. Since the institution I worked for maintained a numerical grading system, grades for all subjects were presented in that format. To do this, I assigned percentages to each category so that all exams for each topic were averaged and accounted for 60% of the final grade, while the final exam for the quarter accounted for 30%. The remaining 10% was allocated to non-academic factors, such as late assignment submissions primarily. I decided to assign 10% to these factors because it would not significantly affect the final grade, and if it did, the reason would be easily identifiable.
The implementation of this grading system produced several changes. The first change I observed was related to the language students began to use to refer to their exam results. The question commonly heard after receiving a grade, "What did you get?", had been replaced by "How did you do?" This change, although seemingly minor, led to an environment that reduced comparisons and allowed students to focus on what they had mastered and what they still needed to work on.
A second change I noticed was that students began to adopt a growth mindset (Dweck, 2001), due to the opportunities they had to retake assessments in which they had not met the expected standard. In this sense, students realized that their performance is not something over which they have no control; rather, it is equivalent to the effort and study strategies they use.
A third change I observed was in my way of viewing assessment. Implementing this system allowed me to have a better understanding of my students' strengths and areas for improvement, making assessment more intentional and meaningful. This constantly made me reflect on how to assess in a way that students could demonstrate they had achieved the standards.
Despite the benefits of this system, there are many challenges to consider before its implementation. The first of these is the initial confusion it can create in students and, sometimes, in the teacher as well. At the beginning, students did not understand the meaning of each proficiency level and would often ask for their grades in numerical terms, mainly in the first week of its implementation. Although students eventually asked less about it, the concern about numerical grades always existed, so they sometimes approached me to know their grades translated into numbers. It is up to the teacher to decide whether to provide the numerical equivalent to the student or not. I chose not to do it. Instead, I showed them the progress chart with their proficiency levels to give them a holistic view of the aspects they needed to improve. I also reminded them of the numerical translation of each proficiency level so that they could come up with their own approximations. For the sake of fairness and objectivity, at the end of the quarter, I showed them the translated grades so that they were aware of their results.
The second challenge is related to the work involved in applying this method. In addition to planning and conducting classes, keeping a record of students who have met the standards and those who have not, designing retake exams, conducting leveling classes, and translating levels into numerical format for report cards took a lot of time. To mitigate this workload, as Knight & Cooper (2019) suggest, I recommend starting with short units and only with a group of students. After the first experiences with this system, the dynamics become simpler and less labor-intensive.
Finally, the implementation of this grading system does not guarantee improvements in student performance (Link & Guskey, 2022). What guarantees improvements is how we use the information we collect through assessment. SBG allows us to detail the progress and areas for improvement of our students more clearly than traditional systems. Although my experience with this system was positive, I am aware that its effectiveness varies depending on the context in which it is implemented. That is why I invite teachers and educational leaders to try this system and innovate the way they grade learning in the classroom.
Feldman, J. (2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin Press.
Townsley, M. (2019). Considering Standards-Based Grading: Challenges for Secondary School Leaders. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 4(1), 35-38.
Link, L. J., & Guskey, T. R. (2022). Is standards-based grading effective?. Theory Into Practice, 61(4), 406-417.
Scarlett, M. H. (2018). "Why Did I Get a C?": Communicating Student Performance Using Standards-Based Grading. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 13, 59-75.
Wilcox, J., & Townsley, M. (2022). Debunking Myths of Standards-Based Grading. The Science Teacher, 90(1).
Knight, M., & Cooper, R. (2019). Taking on a new grading system: The interconnected effects of standards-based grading on teaching, learning, assessment, and student behavior. NASSP Bulletin, 103(1), 65-92.