Reliability and Distribution of Grades

Starch, Daniel

doi:10.1126/science.38.983.630

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the work of Edgeworth (1888) previewed, these studies identified several sources of the variability in grading. Starch (1913), for example, determined that three major factors produced an average probable error of 5.4 on a 100-point scale across instructors and schools.…”

Section: Grading Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Grading Research

Brookhart

Guskey

Bowers

et al. 2016

Review of Educational Research

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grading refers to the symbols assigned to individual pieces of student work or to composite measures of student performance on report cards. This review of over 100 years of research on grading considers five types of studies: (a) early studies of the reliability of grades, (b) quantitative studies of the composition of K-12 report card grades, (c) survey and interview studies of teachers' perceptions of grades, (d) studies of standards-based grading, and (e) grading in higher education. Early 20th century studies generally condemned teachers' grades as unreliable. More recent studies of the relationships of grades to tested achievement and survey studies of teachers' grading practices and beliefs suggest that grades assess a multidimensional construct containing both cognitive and non-cognitive factors reflecting what teachers value in student work. Implications for future research and for grading practices are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Grading Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Grading Research

Brookhart

Guskey

Bowers

et al. 2016

Review of Educational Research

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies of the period sought to understand and perfect grading systems (Cureton, 1971). Grading on a 100-point scale was found to be highly unreliable, with different teachers unable to assign consistent grades on papers in English, math, and history (Starch, 1913). Researchers felt that getting away from a 100-point scale and grading into only five categories (e.g., letter grades) could increase reliability (Finkelstein, 1913, p. 18).…”

Section: A Brief History Of Grading In Higher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)

Schinske

Tanner

2014

LSE

190

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The grades ranged from 50 to 90 for one essay and from 64 to 98 for the other essay. For the worked-out mathematics problem, the range, unexpectedly, was even larger (from 28 to 92; Starch, 1913).…”

Section: How Reliable Are Students' Grades?mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The landmark studies were conducted by Starch andElliott (1912, 1913), the first in high school English, the second in high school mathematics. In each study a reasonably large group of teachers was given either an essay (1912) or a worked-out solution to a mathematics problem (1913).…”

Section: How Reliable Are Students' Grades?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the evidence of a lack of teacher agreement mounted, both academicians and practitioners began to search for possible explanations. Starch (1913) identified four possible sources of low inter-rater reliability: (1) differences caused by the inability of teachers to "distinguish between closely allied degrees of merit" (p. 630), (2) differences in the criteria used by different teachers (e.g., content, mechanics, and style in grading essays), (3) differences in the quality standards used by different teachers (e.g., what differentiates "excellent" work from "good" work? ), and (4) differences in the way that teachers distribute their grades.…”

Section: How Reliable Are Students' Grades?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Reliability and Distribution of Grades

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

A Century of Grading Research

A Century of Grading Research

Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About