GRADING REFORM: FROM TRADITIONAL TO STANDARDS-BASED GRADING by April M. Fenn A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah August 13, 2020 Approved ____________________________________ Dan Pyle, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Stephanie Speicher, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Carly Maloney, M.Ed. GRADING REFORM 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Louise Moulding for granting me an extension so that I could finish what I started in 2013 and for sharing her life experiences and giving me encouragement. Dr. Peggy Saunders for her patience with my horribly written Lit Reviews and for sharing excellent professional advice. Dr. Daniel Pyle for reaching out to me with gentle reminders and words of encouragement during a world-wide pandemic. He has pointed me in the right direction and kept me going. I am thankful for Dr. Speicher for her willingness to help with this project and for her feedback and support. Carly Maloney has been my sounding board, example, friend and collaborator and I deeply appreciate her. She is a huge supporter of SBG and reevaluating our current traditional grading practices. I would like to recognize my Logan, Wyatt, and baby girl Audrey. They have made this journey very challenging but so incredibly worth it. I want them to know that they can do hard things, even when it seems like they cannot. They are my reason. I would like to thank my husband for his unwavering support and encouragement through two different graduate programs in seven years. I could not have survived without his reassurance, unconditional love, and total loyalty. Counselors, family, and fellow church members doubted and judged me, but my Jared has always been my biggest advocate. GRADING REFORM 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………………..…5 Literature Review….………………………………………………………………….….14 Traditional Grading System……………………………………………………….9 Benefits……………………………………………………………………7 Challenges…………………………………………………………………9 Standards-Based Grading System………………………………………………..13 Benefits………………………………………………………………..…11 Challenges……………………………………………………………..…12 Rationale for Transitioning to SBG……………………………………...13 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……14 PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………………………..16 METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………..18 Participants………………………………………………………………...……………..18 Instrument………………………………………………………………………………..18 Procedure……………………………………………………………………….………..19 DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………....31 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………....32 GRADING REFORM 4 Limitations and Recommendations …………………………………………………...…33 REFERENCES……………………..…………………………………………………………....36 APPENDICES…………………………...……………………………………………………....37 Appendix A: Qualtrics Survey Questions…………………..…………………………....43 Appendix B: Weber State IRB approval………………………………………………....48 Appendix C: Informed Consent form ………………………………………………...…49 Appendix D: School District Letter of Support…………….…………………………....53 Appendix E: Email to all Jr. High Principals ……………...…………………………....55 Appendix F: Google form to principals……………………………….………………....56 Appendix G: Second email to Jr. High principals…………………………….………....57 GRADING REFORM 5 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM A final grade should be an accurate reflection of student content mastery and should communicate the whole story of what students know. The traditional grading system is outdated and is an inaccurate report of students’ genuine learning because the final grade is an average of multiple items placed on a report card that have little to do with learning (Kohn, 1999). Research shows fundamental issues and inconsistencies with the grading procedures that have been commonly accepted and used throughout the United States for decades. A traditional grading system has several inconsistencies (i.e. non-academic behaviors, not accepting late work, assigning zeros for missed assignments, teacher subjectivity, etc.). Canady and Hotchkiss (1989) reported, “inconsistent grading practices within a school, from teacher to teacher, and by the same teacher from one grading period to another add to grading inconsistencies” (p. 69). The students’ grade is an average of standards or skills learned and depends on which standards or skills are chosen to teach, the final grade may not accurately tell the whole story of what students know. Traditional grading systems have been generated based on teachers’ subjectivity and reins of control (O’Connor, 2011; Wormeli, 2011), and consequently, the students’ learning experience is often compromised and misreported. Unfortunately, traditional grading is not a fair representation of students’ knowledge or ability to demonstrate a skill(s). Standards-based grading (SBG) is one solution to improve inaccurate grade reporting. An SBG report card is a fair reflection of what students know because grades are not tainted by non-academic factors such as extra credit or point reduction for late work: “Students do not understand less because they handed their teacher something three days after it was expected” (Schimmer, 2016, p. 25). A standards-based report card separates academic performance from GRADING REFORM 6 non-academic habits and student cognitive and academic immaturity. Therefore, the students’ final grade on an SBG report card tells what the students know (O’Connor, 1995). For teachers to effectively use SBG in their classrooms, they require professional development during their educator preparation programs as well as support and professional development from their schools/districts after they have been hired. Additionally, teachers need an introduction to SBG theory, practice, and practical application examples through professional development. The true value of a standards-based approach to education will be realized once all stakeholders (teachers, parents, community, and students) recognize that the primary purpose for grades is to help improve student learning (Guskey, 2001). Literature Review This literature review will present traditional grading practices as well as standards-based grading to present information on which method of grading reflects best practice with facilitating student learning. The first section will present research that explains that traditional grading system. Section two will provide research regarding standards-based grading system. The last section will describe different types of support and resources available to or recommended for teachers to effectively incorporate standards-based grading system and mindset. Traditional Grading System Grading and reporting were virtually unknown before 1850, and schools placed students of all ages and backgrounds together in the same classroom and had no formal grade reporting system (Guskey, 1994). At the turn of the 20th century, high schools in the US surged. Because the instruction in high schools became subject-based, teachers began using overall percentages to determine grades (Guskey, 2002). The main reason the traditional model so prevalent in our GRADING REFORM 7 educational system is that most teachers report the primary source and basis for their own grading practices are their own experiences being graded as students (Guskey, 2006). Early in the twentieth century, grading and reporting was a new concept, and teachers turned to grading scales with fewer and larger categories of excellent, average, poor and failing. Later, corresponding letters of A, B, C, D and F were introduced and then largely accepted by most educational institutions as the grading standard (Johnson, 1918). This shift was the beginning of the traditional grading and reporting systems that exist today. The traditional grading system focuses on a variety of assessments and non-academic performance and then assigns the student a grade (Heritage, 2007). For many years, traditional grading systems have combined student non-academic behaviors with academic performance which does not present an accurate communication of student content understanding (Guskey & Jung, 2006). Non-academic behaviors are factored into the traditional grading system. Wormeli (2011) clarified that, “grading policies such as not accepting late work, assigning zeros for missed assignments, and not allowing student to redo assignments and assessments provide an inaccurate picture of a students’ understanding of the content” (p. 22). Punishing students [not accepting or reducing points] for failure to turn in work or turning in late work represents an ineffective grading practice (Erickson, 2001; Wormeli, 2011) and misrepresents the genuine level of learning of a standard (O’Connor, 2007). Teachers, in the traditional system, use percentages and average scores to report students’ proficiency, and anything not correlated to student proficiency [non-academic behavior], such as penalizing for late work or inflating for extra credit, should not be recorded on the report card (O’Connor, 2007). The traditional grading system has been the standard for most teachers since the early 1900s, and grading in secondary schools has been based on a letter grade system where a GRADING REFORM 8 student’s grade is ultimately determined by the teacher’s personal approach to grading (Erickson, 2001). Teachers began using percentages and letter grades because it was an easier to quantify student overall performance and communicate that with parents. Once computerized grading systems came into existence in the 1990s, the grading became even simpler for the teachers to weight specific categories (McMillan, 2001). A traditional grading scale is what most schools in the United States trust to evaluate student learning (Meador, 2019). An example of a traditional grading scale is A = 90-100%, B = 80-89%, C = 70-79%, D = 60-69%, and F = 0-59%, and the student’s final grade is calculated by averaging each academic score with non-academic behavior such as effort and habits. Within the traditional grading system, students’ ranks and achievements are figured based on final grades; however, these grades should not be the only indication of students’ future success (Munoz & Guskey, 2015). According to Guskey (1994), only summative assessments should be used when deciding final grades because incorporating non-academic factors (e.g., behavior, extra credit, attitudes) often leads to subjectivity and biases. Grades should measure and reflect the students’ learning and provide teachers with clear picture of what the student understands and what needs to be retaught (Erickson, 2011, p. 46). Defining standards is “The distinction between the two types of knowledge is reflected in current efforts to define standards for what students should know and be able to do” (Marzano, 1992, p. 33). Benefits of traditional grading system. Traditional grading system has several benefits. The traditional grading scale is universally recognized, denotating that an A means good and F means failure, which is why most schools implement this grading method (Meador, 2019). The traditional letter grade system is easier for parents to interpret because it is familiar and lettered GRADING REFORM 9 grades make it easy to track students’ success. It is understood by most that grades communicate the general quality of their children’s classroom performance and efforts (Reynolds, 2017). Challenges with traditional grading system. A student’s final grade is more than a summary of all earned points on a variety of assignments and assessments based on content the teacher covers. The final grade is often “a hodgepodge grade that includes elements of achievement, attitude, effort, and behavior” (Guskey, 2015, p. 74). It is a common practice, with traditional grading system, for teachers to allow students to fail a course or an assessment, expecting that the failing grade will discipline the students and teach them to be more responsible (Erickson, 2001). Frequently, the final grade is not the most accurate report of what the student knows or can do due to teacher subjectivity and content the teacher covers (O’Connor, 2007). Under the traditional grading system, grades should focus on student learning and be a clear, accurate representation of what a student understands and is able to do (Erickson, 2001; Grimes, 2010). For decades, traditional grading reports have not accurately represented students’ learning because the final grade has been combined with both academic and nonacademic factors. When teachers incorporate non-academic behaviors into the final summative grade, the grade is inaccurately inflated, the meaning is distorted, and the grade is not a reflection of learning (Erickson, 2001). Often, teachers become accustomed to giving extra points for bringing in classroom supplies, donating canned food, participating in extracurricular activities, and so on (Erickson, 2001). Because of the fundamental purpose for grades, educators must ensure that grading and reporting always meet the criteria for validity and reliability and are meaningful and fair (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). GRADING REFORM 10 It is not uncommon for students and parents to place higher priority on the final grade and less priority on the actual learning process and then use those grades to gauge their children’s intelligence (The Graide Network, 2018). Grades become very high stake because they count toward the overall GPA, and GPAs determine internships, college admissions, and future employment in some cases. Unfortunately, when the final grades become the gauge and focus, the interest in learning is lost (Kohn, 1999). It has been observed by many teachers that students and parents concern themselves more on final grades than what the students knows and can reproduce (The Graide Network, 2018). Students learn at different rates, therefore permitting students to redo, retake or submit assessments when completed provides students with opportunities to demonstrate proficiency at their rate of learning. Wormeli (2011) argues that, “Whether a student was initially irresponsible or responsible, moral or immoral, cognitively ready or not is irrelevant to the supreme goal: learning” (p. 22). Allowing students to submit assessments when completed are referred to ”evolving assignments” and are completed in installments with teacher feedback but no grades until the end (The Graide Network, 2018). An evolving assignment type is an example that connects the idea that learning is never finished, that work can always be improved and supports different rates of learning. Every student achieves learning at different rates and levels (Wormeli, 2011). Standards-Based Grading System Standards-based grading communicates accurate and valid information regarding student mastery on specific concepts taught in the classroom and is a possible solution to the inaccurate traditional grading system. O’Connor and Wormeli (2011) believed “the primary purpose of grades is communication about achievement, with achievement being defined as performance GRADING REFORM 11 measured against accepted published standards and learning outcomes” (p. 7). SBG measures individual student performance against the standards rather than comparing scores to other students and allows for flexible timeframes for completing tasks and relearning material, if necessary (Grimes, 2010; Shimmer, 2016). Additionally, SBG removes nonachievement factors [point reduction for late assignments or a zero for work not submitted] from academic achievement; therefore, the final grade is more accurate and valid (Shimmer, 2016). Standards-based grading uses a one to four rubric scale that equally distributes points and can replace the traditional 100-point scale (Wormeli, 2006). An F grade on a traditional report card is between 0% and 59%, where on the SBG rubric scale, the spread is four points (Wormeli, 2006). Benefits of standards-based grading system. Standards-based grading is beneficial to all students, those with special needs, including the gifted and talented and. Those students who show early content mastery can continue to apply the content in other areas or teach others while those who struggle can retest or show proficiency through alternate assessments (Scriffiny, 2008). Standard-based grading allows students to have a clearer understanding of their learning progress because teachers to provide meaningful, timely feedback on formative and summative assessments to help students increase their learning (Erickson, 2011; Grimes, 2010). SBG supports consistent formative assessments to improve students’ scores, understanding, confidence, quality learning, and guide instruction (Erickson, 2011; Grimes, 2010; Wormeli, 2006; Brookhart, 2011). Standard-based grading implies that assessments are standard-based and therefore, avoids grading students on a curve and other inconsistent elements. “Three grading practices widely used by teachers that are inappropriate: grading on the curve, using grades to motivate or punish students, and assigning zeros” (Guskey, 2001, p. 25). Designating zeros in the grade book can GRADING REFORM 12 take a students’ grades down significantly and does not communicate or measure effectively what students have learned. The zero is discouraging, and the moment the student receives a zero it is likely the student will stop trying to master priority standards (Asplund, 2014). In a traditional grading system, teachers use the zero as penalty for not completing an assignment; however, giving a zero or deducting points for late work encourages students to give up rather than encouraging them to learn the information (Erickson, 2011). Punishing students with a zero rarely motivates students and using an “I” for incomplete would be a more accurate response to missing work (Shimmer, 2016). Assessments and grading practices can contribute to raising students’ anxiety which could interfere with memory, attention, and concentration (Schimmer, 2016). Student anxiety would be greatly reduced when teachers offer understandable feedback, opportunities to be retaught, and clear direction (Scriffiny, 2008). Student anxiety could also be reduced by providing students opportunities to learn from their mistakes and then allow students to demonstrate their new level of understanding (Schimmer, 2014). SBG could promote student motivation to learn and decreases anxiety since students are given a clear path and direction for success through feedback and reteaching and would feel more optimistic about their potential achievement (Schimmer, 2016). Challenges with standards- based grading system. Standard-based assessments require that the teachers provide feedback and attach each assessment to relevant standards rather than assigning a general grade, which can be time-consuming for teachers (Schimmer, 2014; Murray, 2019). According to Kohn (1999), teachers should abandon grades altogether to focus on authentic feedback such as individual conferences between teacher and student. Giving verbal or written feedback to each student increases the communication between teacher and student GRADING REFORM 13 while giving the teacher a clear sense of where students are in their learning and how to proceed (Schimmer, 2014) with future instructional decisions. A standards-based report card lists each standard for every subject which could be very extensive and possibly complicated, depending on how many standards are taught (Guskey 2015). Replacing the current traditional grading system with a standards-based grading reporting system takes time, cost, and administrative support to make a change from traditional to standards-based report card (Guskey & Jung, 2006; Asplund, 2014). Additionally, most electronic grade reporting systems used by schools today do not accommodate a standards-based grading model (Franklin, 2016). School administration should provide clear policies and procedures to assist teachers in the separation of academic performance and non-academic factors, this would help with the transition from a traditional grading report card to an SBG report card (Schimmer, 2016). Standards-based report cards typically break down each subject area or course into precise elements of learning. Reporting on each of these standards within each subject area gives parents a detailed description of their child’s achievement” (Guskey & Jung, 2006, p. 4). Many educators make the mistake of first deciding the grade reporting system without understanding the communication purpose of the report card (Guskey & Jung, 2006). Rationale for Transitioning to SBG It can be difficult for teachers to reflect on the validity of their grading traditions and to separate academic achievement from nonacademic behavior. Schimmer (2016) indicated that the teacher should remove any negative behavior from academic behavior to maintain the integrity of the proficiency grade. Often, teachers do not agree that grades should exclusively reflect academic achievement because the common belief is that by removing the non-academic factors GRADING REFORM 14 from academic performance, students are not being prepared for the real world. Perhaps a better balance would be for parents to teach their students at home about the real world and professional teachers should teach students content and how to be innovative. Teachers with a standards-based mindset still hold students accountable, but it is a different working definition of accountability that views accountability not as punishment for undesirable behavior, but as responsibility for learning (Erickson, 2011; Schimmer, 2016). Given today’s educational culture and how students currently learn, there is a need for significant grading reform. Letter symbols and numeric point values have been used for decades to calculate a grade that is meant to explain a student’s level of understanding of a certain content area. “Traditional grading is downright wrong given today’s pedagogical landscape and what we now know about instruction and assessment” (Schimmer, 2016, p. 3). Today’s students learn and acquire knowledge differently, and it is time for the traditional grading practice of averaging, penalizing, assessing non-academic behavior, and using weighted task types to fade away. Traditional policies and practices should be questioned and renounced and education, like society, evolves and we can begin to embrace the change (Guskey & Bailey, 2009; Schimmer, 2016). Conclusion Traditional grading has been the standard for grade reporting for decades; however, as education evolves, grade reporting should be reevaluated. Traditional grading was the model grading system in the past but does not accurately communicate what a student knows or can do (Meador, 2019). When teachers combine non-academic factors with academic performance, the final grade is distorted and grades should represent what students can do (Schimmer, 2014; GRADING REFORM 15 Franklin, 2016). Standards-based grading provides teachers with a system to accurately report what a student knows and can do by removing non-academic behaviors. Even though SBG provides clear philosophy of why there is a need for a change, some teachers do not agree or understand with how to move from traditional to SBG. Mindset change and professional development is necessary for teachers, parents, and administrators to move forward with this necessary shift (Franklin, 2016). Educators have a responsibility to students and parents to clearly communicate students’ learning progress and traditional grading systems do not meet this responsibility (Schimmer, 2016). Grades should be meaningful and reporting grades are important tools for improving student learning (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). GRADING REFORM 16 PURPOSE Many current traditional grading practices either inflate grades by giving extra credit or deflate grades by penalizing students for non-academic behaviors (Erickson, 2001). Therefore, the traditional grading system does not often reflect students’ academic ability. However, the traditional grading system has been widely accepted as the model for reporting grades for over 100 years (Guskey & Jung, 2006; Reynolds, 2017). Today, students learn and acquire knowledge differently, and it is important that our grading systems evolve and adapt to these changes (Schimmer, 2014). For teachers to effectively use SBG in their classrooms, professional development and support is necessary. Knowing that this professional development will be facilitated by district and school site administrators, must draw attention to commonly occurring challenges schools face when adopting SBG to ensure teachers receive professional development on the most essential elements that allow for successful implementation. “Only when all groups [teachers, parents and students] understand what grades mean and how they are used to improve student learning will we realize the true value of a standards-based approach to education” (Guskey, 2001, p. 22). To save time and effort, districts can focus professional development on mindset change from traditional to SBG rather than revamping the entire grading system (Franklin, 2016). The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers teachers encountered during transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading practices in the 2019-2020 school year. The challenges that are identified will be used to drive future professional development that will support teachers in a successful transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading practices. This study will answer the following questions: 1. Do GRADING REFORM 17 teachers feel like they enough administrative support and resources to successfully transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading? 2. Do teachers feel like their colleagues are supportive of the transition from traditional grading practices to Standards-Based grading? 3. Do teachers need additional guidance on how to separate nonacademic behaviors form academic grade? GRADING REFORM 18 METHOD This research project seeks to identify challenges teachers have encountered during transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading practices. This quantitative research project surveyed teachers from six different Jr. High School in a northern Utah school district that implemented SBG in their classrooms during the 2019-2020 school year. Teacher’s responses to the Qualtrics survey will be used to improve future professional development training sessions for the northern Utah school district personnel. Teacher responses were used to gain insight to answer the following research questions: 1. Do teachers feel like they enough administrative support and resources to successfully transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading? 2. Do teachers feel like their-workers are supportive of the transition from traditional grading practices to Standards-Based grading? 3. Do teachers need additional guidance on how to separate nonacademic behaviors form academic grade? After obtaining university IRB and district support, the researcher emailed the principals of those schools that implemented standards-based grading this school year to ask permission to share the Qualtrics survey link with their teachers. An email with the Qualtrics survey link, directions and rationale was sent to all the teachers from the schools that implemented standards-based grading. Additionally, the researcher asked the district curriculum director, in an email, to encourage the principals to be supportive of their teachers participating in the survey. Subjects were invited to take an optional and anonymous online survey of 16 Likert scale questions which took approximately 10-12-minutes. Qualtrics was used for collection of data. The survey went to teachers who have implemented standards-based grading in their classroom this year. The survey questions were used in Likert scale: strongly disagree (5), disagree (4), undecided (3), agree (2) GRADING REFORM 19 and strongly agree (1). The quantitative research method was used to evaluate the data after the allotted two-week period has expired. Participants Teachers across six junior high schools in a large public-school district in northern Utah selected to pilot standards-based grading in the 2019-2020 school year were asked to complete the survey. There were 116 Jr. High teachers who participated in the survey. The research study was conducted during the fourth quarter of the 2019-2020 school year. The researcher obtained participants consent by receiving district approval for research and by sharing the Informed Consent Form to the participants (see Appendix C). Participation was optional and anonymous. The potential risk to the subjects is minimal because participation is optional and anonymous. The survey data will be applied directly to professional development for all teachers in the school district, including the participants at a future date. Instrument The researcher-developed survey used the Qualtrics and included Likert-scale questions to assist in answering the research questions (see Appendix A). The data from the Qualtrics survey and focus groups will guide future professional development. Originally, the researcher had planned to incorporate focus groups, one from each SBG piloted school, consisting of 4-6 teachers who will be asked open-ended questions about their experiences with the transition from traditional grading practices to SGB however, due to the world-wide pandemic of COVID-19, focus groups were eliminated from this research project. Procedures GRADING REFORM 20 Before implementing this research project, an application was submitted to WSU IRB committee and permission was granted (see Appendix B). Next, an application to the Assessment Department of a northern Utah school district, was submitted and granted to gain permission to conduct research. After receiving WSU IRB approval and school district approval (see Appendix D), the researcher sent the research objective and survey questions via email to all Jr. High Principals (see Appendix E) and included a Google Form survey (see Appendix F) for Jr. High Principals to give their support for the researcher to administer the Qualtrics survey to their teachers. The researcher gave a list of those principals who approved the survey teacher participation to the Assessment Director, then the Assessment Director gave a list of all the Jr. High teachers’ emails. Additionally, a second email was sent to the Jr. High Principals with information that the principals would not need to distribute the survey to their teachers because the researcher was given permission to do that (see Appendix G). Then, the Qualtrics survey was emailed to all the Jr. High teachers. After a two-week period, survey data was collected. There were 116 of 300 respondents to the survey. Results Participants were given two weeks to respond to the Qualtrics survey before data was collected and reviewed. The survey data was aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics for the Likert-scale questions. The data was made available to district and school administrators so that future standards-based grading professional development can be created. The protections in place to transfer data are to disseminate the data via secure shared files through the district OneDrive program. GRADING REFORM 21 The survey questions identified areas of concern teachers experienced during the transition from Traditional Grading to Standards-Based Grading and have answered researchers’ initial questions: 1. What went well with the transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading? 2. What support do teachers need from administrators to successfully transition from traditional grading practices to standards-based grading? 3. What information is critical for district in-service instructors to include in the course that is being developed? The survey results showed that 28.45% of teachers felt that they did not receive adequate training before implementing Standards-Based Grading this year with 27.59% of teachers felt that they had. Data results indicate that teacher in-service before implementation of SBG would have been beneficial. as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Survey question, “I received adequate training before implementing Standards-Based Grading this year.” Mean 3.16, Standard deviation, 1.21, variance 1.46 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. GRADING REFORM 22 Teachers were asked if the advantages of SBG outweigh the disadvantages of SBG and 25% of teachers agree and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Survey question, “The advantages of Standards-Based Grading outweigh the disadvantages of Standards-Based Grading.” Mean 2.80, Standard deviation, 1.28, variance 1.64 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Most survey participants strongly agreed and agreed that transitioning form traditional grading to SBG has been challenging as shown in Figure 3. GRADING REFORM 23 Figure 3. Survey question, “Transitioning from traditional grading to Standards-based grading has been challenging.” Mean 2.29, Standard deviation, 1.03, variance 1.05 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Data points to that transitioning from traditional grading to SBG has been successful for many teachers with 32.76%, but many teachers neither agree nor disagree, which suggests that additional transitional experience is necessary as shown in Figure 4. GRADING REFORM 24 Figure 4. Survey question, “Transitioning from traditional grading to Standards-based grading has been successful.” Mean 2.84, Standard deviation, 1.05, variance 1.10 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. When asked if their administration has provided support to successfully transition from traditional grading to SBG, 35.34% teachers agreed and 10.34% strongly agree. These results indicate that generally the school administration has provided resources and support to teachers but there is a need for additional support because 14.66% do not know feel supported by their administration as shown in Figure 5. GRADING REFORM 25 Figure 5. Survey question, “My administration has provided me with support to successfully transition from Traditional Grading to Standards-Based Grading.” Mean 2.76, Standard deviation, 1.10, variance 1.20 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. According to the survey results, 49.17% of teachers know where to go if they have questions or concerns about SBG as shown in Figure 6. GRADING REFORM 26 Figure 6. Survey question, “I know where to go if I have questions or concerns about Standards-Based Grading.” Mean 2.76, Standard deviation, 1.17, variance 1.36 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Only 11.20% of teachers do not feel supported by their co-workers with the transition from traditional grading to SBG which indicates that many teachers do feel supported by co-workers as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Survey question, “I feel supported by my co-workers with the transition from traditional grading to Standards-Based Grading.” Mean 2.33, Standard deviation, .96, variance .93 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. There is no clear indication whether parents are receptive to the transition from traditional grading to SBG. One conclusion could be that parents need to be made more aware of the grading transition and changes occurring in the school as shown in Figure 8. GRADING REFORM 27 Figure 8. Survey question, “Parents have been receptive of the transition from traditional grading to standards-based grading.” Mean 3.06, Standard deviation, 1.02, variance 1.04 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed as shown in Figure 9. Teachers account that students have been more receptive than parents to the transition from traditional grading to SBG. 7% of students strongly agree and 33.04% agree compared to parents 6.03% strongly agree and 22.41% agree. Data confirms that 40.36% of students have been receptive to the transition and 28.44% of parents are receptive. GRADING REFORM 28 Figure 9. Survey question, “Students have been receptive of the transition from traditional grading to standards-based grading.” Mean 2.97, Standard deviation, 1.14, variance 1.29 and 115 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Remarkably, when asked if their colleagues have been receptive to the transition from traditional grading to SBG, 39.66% (combined disagree and strongly disagree percentages) of teachers reported that they do not think that their colleagues have been receptive. Teachers are less receptive to the transition than parents and teachers, perhaps this is due to a lack of preparation teachers expressed in previous survey question as shown in Figure 10. GRADING REFORM 29 Figure 10. Survey question, “My colleagues (i.e. teachers) have been receptive of the transition from Traditional Grading to Standards-Based Grading.” Mean 3.10, Standard deviation, 1.05, variance 1.11 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Most teachers agree that teachers should implement the same class preferences: letter grade, cutoff % and rubric grade as shown in Figure 11. GRADING REFORM 30 Figure 11. Survey question, “Teachers should implement the same class preferences: letter grade, cutoff % and rubric grade.” Mean 2.32, Standard deviation, 1.12, variance 1.25 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Teachers were asked if agreed or disagreed that allowing extra credit discredits the accuracy of the students’ final grade and most strongly agreed and agreed, 68.11%, combined totals as shown in Figure 12. Figure 12. Survey question, “Allowing extra credit discredits the accuracy of the students’ final grade.” Mean 2.12, Standard deviation, 1.18, variance 1.40 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Separating nonacademic behavior from the academic grade has not been challenging for 50% (combined totals, disagree and strongly disagree) of teachers yet 38.79% (combined totals) report that it has been challenging as shown in Figure 13. GRADING REFORM 31 Figure 13. Survey question, “Separating nonacademic behavior (penalizing for late assignments, classroom behavior, missing work, cheating, etc.) from the academic grade has been challenging.” Mean 3.18, Standard deviation, 1.36, variance 1.84 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. Very few teachers have a tough time allowing students to retake assessments because it goes against their educational philosophy as shown in Figure 14. GRADING REFORM 32 Figure 14. Survey question, “I have a tough time allowing students to retake assessments because it goes against my educational philosophy.” Mean 4.08, Standard deviation, 1.07, variance 1.14 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. According to the data, 62.93% (combined strongly agree and agree totals) of teachers would like additional SBG training with very few not wanting additional training as shown in Figure 15. Figure 15. Survey question, “I would like additional Standards-Based Grading training.” Mean 2.45, Standard deviation, 1.12, variance 1.26 and 116 respondents. Percentages equal 100 because only one response was allowed. GRADING REFORM 33 DISCUSSION Mindset Change. Participants that responded to the Qualtrics survey indicate that 44%, of teachers agree that the advantages of SBG outweigh the disadvantages which is an indication that many teachers are willing to shift their mindset from traditional grading practices to SBG. Guskey (2001) explains that the actual benefit of a standards-based grading mindset within education will be realized once all stakeholders (teachers, parents, community, and students) recognize that the primary objective for grades is to support student learning which requires teacher preparation and guidance. A mindset change is necessary for teachers, parents, and administrators to move forward with this necessary shift (Franklin, 2016). Although many teachers agree that the advantages of SBG outweigh the disadvantages, the Qualtrics survey results reveal that 40% of respondents disagree that their teacher colleagues have been receptive of the transition from traditional grading to SBG. Only 31% of respondents feel that their colleagues have been receptive to SBG. Challenges and Grade Reporting. In Addition, 66% of teachers say that transitioning to SBG is challenging. Teachers become accustomed to one type of grading system and transition to an unfamiliar grading system can be challenging (Erickson, 2001). Separating nonacademic behavior (extra credit, missing work, late work, etc.) from a students’ final grade is essential because grades should accurately measure and reflect the students’ learning and provide teachers with clear picture of what the student understands and what needs to be retaught (Erickson, 2011, p. 46). The Qualtrics survey results suggest that 39% of teachers feel that separating nonacademic behavior from the academic grade has been challenging and 49% of teachers feel that it has not been challenging to separate. GRADING REFORM 34 The students’ final grade on an SBG report card accurately informs what the students know (O’Connor, 1995). According to the Qualtrics survey, 62% of teachers agree that to maintain grade reporting accuracy and consistency, teachers should implement the same grade settings (i.e. cutoff percentages, weighted percentages, rounding up and dropping lowest scores, etc.) in the district grading system. Also, 68% of teachers surveyed agree that extra credit discredits the accuracy of the student’s final grade and Erickson (2011) verifies that extra credit reduces grading accuracy. Guskey (2006) noted that most researchers and measurement specialists agree that product criteria (i.e. assessments) are the only criteria that should be used to determine academic grades. Research confirms that students learn at different rates and according to Wormeli (2011), allowing students to retake assessments provides students with opportunities to demonstrate learning at their rate of learning. In the Qualtrics survey, only 10% of teachers admit that they have a difficult time allowing students to retake assessments and 77% approve of assessment retakes. Research maintains that grades should accurately measure and reflect the students’ learning and provide teachers with clear picture of what the student understands and what needs to be retaught (Erickson, 2011). Professional Development. Almost half (i.e. 44%) of teachers surveyed feel they did not receive adequate amount of training before implementing SBG this school year and 63% of teachers indicated that they would like additional SBG training. Research confirms that curriculum and instruction alignment, development of common formative assessments, and other elements of SBG should be routinely included in teacher professional development to have a successful grading transition (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). GRADING REFORM 35 Limitations The end of the 2019-2020 school year presented itself with many, unprecedented restrictions, and limitations. The world-wide pandemic of COVID-19 caused many constraints in all facets of life, including continuing research and educational pursuits. During this unprecedented time, teachers experienced an astonishing influx of emails, phone calls, virtual meetings, teaching which may have reduced teachers’ time and desire to answer the Qualtrics survey questions sincerely. Many questions from the Qualtrics survey were answered with “neither agree nor disagree” which could indicate a level of disinterest in the survey participation. The disinterest was noted with a contradiction in responses: 59% of teachers feel supported by co-workers with the change of grading practices but 40% of teachers report that their colleagues have not been receptive to the change. Therefore, teachers feel supported but feel that their colleagues are not receptive to the change to SBG. This research project proposed forming focus groups where teachers from various schools could get together to discuss the challenges and benefits of transitions from traditional grading to standards-based grading. However, due to the overwhelming stressors of school closures which forced teachers to teach virtually from home, focus groups were eliminated from the present study. GRADING REFORM 36 Recommendations After reviewing the data from the Qualtrics survey, the researcher recommends that all schools transitioning from traditional grading to SBG should be included in virtual focus groups in the fall. Asking teachers to participate during the late spring and summer of 2020 would not be recommended due to COVID-19 restrictions and end of school year fatigue. Even though the transition from current traditional grading practices to SBG momentum has been halted by the pandemic, the administrators should provide several flexible training opportunities for teachers, including small groups and online. It would be best for the school district to access the knowledge of teachers who have already led the way in transitioning from traditional grading practices to SBG. Bresman (2013) published supporting research that showed by studying the participation can help explain what actions would best lead to a deeper understanding of SBG. There is limited research that provides useful strategies and methods on how to successfully transition from a traditional grading program to SBG. The current research provides ample data on teachers’ perceptions on the transition from traditional grading and standards-based grading but limited research regarding how to successfully convert traditional grading to SBG. The Qualtrics survey results indicate that despite the transition from traditional grading to SBG being challenging (66%), 41% of teachers felt they were successful making the transition. To understand how to best improve the transition process from traditional grading to SBG, future research on this topic should include authentic recommendations from teachers who have put the transition into practice. Administrators ought to formally survey their teachers and GRADING REFORM 37 students for direction when considering important grading reforms because major changes require significant support, training, and a mindset change. Conclusion The traditional grading system is outdated and is an inaccurate report of students’ genuine learning because the final grade is an average of multiple items placed on a report card that have little to do with learning (Kohn, 1999). Implementing any novel system, especially a new system to change a system that has been in place from the early days of education will take time to gain wide acceptance from teachers, parents, and students. A students’ final grade should be an accurate reflection of content mastery and should communicate the whole story of what students know. Standards-based grading (SBG) is one solution to improve current traditional grading inaccuracies. To do this successfully, school administration must provide support to assist teachers with the transition from using a traditional grading report card to a SBG report card (Schimmer, 2016). The findings of this study detailed several barriers to one school districts’ transition away from traditional grading practices and adopting standards-based grading practices in the 2019-2020 school year. Data that emerged suggested that not all teachers that participated in the research study felt support from their colleagues and that many did not receive adequate SBG training before implementation of this novel grading procedure. In a final review of the information obtained through this research investigation determined that for teachers to effectively transition from traditional grading practices to SBG, they need support from administration and colleagues, and adequate professional development. GRADING REFORM 38 References Asplund, D. (2014). Standards-based grading that results in grades accurately reflecting students’ knowledge (Master’s thesis, St. Catherine University Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu.maed/73. Bresman, H. (2013). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 14-34. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10–14. Canady, R. L., & Hotchkiss, P. R. (1989). It's a good score! Just a bad grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(1), 68–71. Erickson, J. A. (2011). A call to action: Transforming grading practices. Principal Leadership, 11(6), 42–46. Franklin, A. (2016). Growth mindset development: Examining the impact of standards-based grading model on middle school students’ mindset characteristics. (Doctoral dissertation. Drake University). Retrieved from https://escholarshare.drake.edu/bitstream/handle/2092/2165/Franklin_drake_0387E_10059.pdf?sequence=1. Grimes, T.V. (2010). Interpreting the meaning of grades: A descriptive analysis of middle school teachers’ assessment and grading practices (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51292909.pdf Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students? Educational Leadership, 52(2), 14–20. Guskey, T. R. (2001). Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 20–27. GRADING REFORM 39 Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2006). The challenges of standards-based grading. Leadership Compass, 4(2), 1–4. Guskey, T. R. (2015). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Johnson, R. H. (1918). Educational research and statistics: The coefficient marking system. School and Society, 7(181), 714-716. Kohn, A. (1999). From degrading to de-grading. High School Magazine, 6(5), 38-43. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39. McMillan, J. H. (1999). The devastating effect of zeros on grades: What can be done? Retrieved from http://fiiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428136.pdf, Meador, D. (2019). Pros and cons of using a traditional grading scale. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-utilizing-a-tradtional-grading-scale- 3194752 Muñoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64-68. doi: 10.1177/0031721715579043 Murray, J. (2019). Classroom management: What is standards-based grading? Retrieved from http://www.teachhub.com/classroom-management-what-standards-based-grading. O'Connor, K. (2007). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Portland, OR: Pearson Assessment Training Institute O’Connor, K., & Wormeli, R. (2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, GRADING REFORM 40 69(3), 40-44. O'Connor, K. (1995). Guidelines for grading that support learning and student success. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 91-101. doi: 10.1177/019263659507957112 Reynolds, B. (2017, November 21). The pros & cons of report cards & letter grades. Retrieved from https://education.seattlepi.com/pros-cons-repo rt-cards-letter-grades-3633.html Schimmer, T. (2016). Grading from the inside out: bringing accuracy to student assessment through a standards-based mindset. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Schimmer, T. (2014). The case for confidence. Educational Leadership, 71(6), The Graide Network. (2018). Grades vs learning – Shifting attention to what’s important. Retrieved from https://www.thegraidenetwork.com/blog-all/2018/8/1/retiring-the-red-pen-shifting-attention-from-grades-to-learning. Wormeli, R. (2011). Redos and retakes done right. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 22-26. GRADING REFORM 41 APPENDICES Appendix A: Qualtrics Survey Questions…………………..…………………………....43 Appendix B: Weber State IRB approval………………………………………………....48 Appendix C: Informed Consent form ………………………………………………...…49 Appendix D: School District Letter of Support…………….…………………………....53 Appendix E: Email to all Jr. High Principals ……………...…………………………....55 Appendix F: Google form to principals……………………………….………………....56 Appendix G: Second email to Jr. High principals…………………………….………....57 GRADING REFORM 42 Appendix A Qualtrics Survey Questions Standards-Based Grading Survey - Copy Start of Block: Default Question Block 1 I had previous experience with Standards-Based Grading before this school year. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 2 I received adequate training before implementing Standards-Based Grading this year. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 3 The advantages of Standards-Based Grading outweigh the disadvantages of StandardsBased Grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o GRADING REFORM 43 4 Transitioning from traditional grading to Standards-based grading has been challenging. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 5 Transitioning from traditional grading to Standards-based grading has been successful. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 6 My administration has provided me with support to successfully transition from Traditional Grading to Standards-Based Grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 7 I know where to go if I have questions or concerns about Standards-Based Grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) GRADING REFORM 44 Select one (1) o o o o o 8 I feel supported by my co-workers with the transition from traditional grading to StandardsBased Grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 9 Parents have been receptive of the transition from traditional grading to standards-based grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 10 Students have been receptive of the transition from traditional grading to standards-based grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o GRADING REFORM 45 11 My colleagues (i.e. teachers) have been receptive of the transition from Traditional Grading to Standards-Based Grading. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 14 Teachers should implement the same class preferences: letter grade, cutoff % and rubric grade. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 15 Allowing extra credit discredits the accuracy of the students’ final grade. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 16 Separating nonacademic behavior (penalizing for late assignments, classroom behavior, missing work, cheating, etc.) from the academic grade has been challenging. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) GRADING REFORM 46 Select one (1) o o o o o 17 I have a tough time allowing students to retake assessments because it goes against my educational philosophy. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o 18 I would like additional Standards-Based Grading training. Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Select one (1) o o o o o End of Block: Default Question Block GRADING REFORM 47 Appendix B Weber State IRB Approval WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Institutional Review Board March 10, 2020 Dear April Fenn, Your project entitled "Grading reform: From traditional to standards-based Grading" has been reviewed and is approved as written. It is approved as "exempt" because it involves using an online survey with a single point of contact. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate. Dr. Daniel Pyle is your faculty mentor who will oversee the study. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D.) You may proceed with your study as written, and your IRB expires one year from today. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. A final copy of your application will remain on file with the IRB records. If you need further assistance or have any questions, call Dr. Williams at 626-8654 or e-mail her at nataliewilliamsI@weber.edu Sincerely, Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee GRADING REFORM 48 Appendix C Informed Consent Form IRB STUDY #XXXXXXXXXX WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT GRADING REFORM: FROM TRADITIONAL TO STANDARDS-BASED GRADING You are invited to participate in a research study that will investigate teachers’ experiences with shifting from traditional grading system to a standards-based grading system. You were selected as a possible subject because your school was one of the schools implementing a standards-based grading system for 2019-2020 school year. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by April M. Fenn as her Project in her Master’s Program at Weber State University/Education Department. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges and successes teachers encountered during the 2019-2020 school year while transitioning from traditional grading system to the standards-based grading system and to determine the what additional standards-based grading in-service professional development is necessary for future success. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of the 200 teachers from the standards-based grading pilot schools who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: take a 10- minute anonymous online survey with three optional open-ended questions. GRADING REFORM 49 RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: The risks of completing the survey are being uncomfortable answering the questions. There may be risks that are currently unforeseeable. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: The alternative to taking part in this study is not participating in this study. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, Weber State University, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher, April Fenn at 801-897-4147 or the Faculty at Weber State University Chairing my Master’s Committee, Daniel Pyle at 385-288-1123. GRADING REFORM 50 For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures: Printed Name of Parent: GRADING REFORM 51 Signature of Parent: Date: GRADING REFORM 52 Appendix D Letter of Approval/Support from School District Davis School District L E A R N I N G F I R S T 24, 2020 April Fenn afenn@dsdmail.net Dear Ms. Fenn, The application you submitted has been reviewed by the Research and Assessment Review Committee. The research project entitled "GRADING REFORM: From Traditional to Standards-Based Grading" is approved for Spring/Summer 2020. As a researcher you are responsible for all aspects of the study. District resources may not be used to conduct the study. All costs associated with the study are paid by the researcher. Please request data, as needed, from the Davis District Assessment Department by submitting a data request (https://www.davis.k12.ut.us/departments/assessment) under "Tools" or calling (801) 402-5305. Approval at the district level allows each site to then determine whether to participate in your proposed research study or project. District approval, therefore, is not a guarantee that you will be able to conduct the study at the locations, with the employees, or with the students you wish to include in the study or project. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the study and approved procedures must be submitted to this office prior to implementation. It is our understanding that you will protect the anonymity of individuals involved in the research. We hope your research proves insightful and fulfilling. Sincerely, GRADING REFORM 53 Janeal Magalei Assessment Director Davis School District (801) 402 5356 jmagalei@dsdmail.net PO Box 588 | 45 East State Street, Farmington UT 84025 | 801-402-5261 | davis.k12.ut.us BOARD OF E DUCATION John L Robison, President Liz Mumford, Vice President Gordon Eckersley Brigit Gerrard Cheryl Phipps Marie Stevenson Julie Tanner GRADING REFORM 54 Appendix E Email to Jr. High Principals Hello Jr., High Principals, My name is April Fenn and I am a Spanish Teacher at Viewmont High and I am also a graduate student at Weber State. I know that your time is valuable so I will make this quick. The district has granted approval and support for me to continue my graduate research project which requires junior high teachers' participation in a brief survey. Before I can ask for teacher participation, I need your permission. Would you take a moment to fill out this Google Form? Additional survey information and research purpose/rationale are in the Google Form. Once I have your permission, I will email you the teacher survey link and ask that you email it to all your teachers. Also, attached to this email is a copy of the survey questions and if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Deepest appreciation for your time and support, Mrs. April Fenn, ME.d CE Spanish Teacher World Lang. Dept. Chair Viewmont High School GRADING REFORM 55 Appendix F Google Form for Principals GRADING REFORM 56 Appendix G Second email to Principals Hello, Jr. High Principals, Thank you for being willing to support my graduate project. Research and Assessment is assisting in getting the survey out to teachers. No further action on your part is necessary. The data from this research will benefit future professional development for our district and I look forward to receiving the important feedback our teachers can provide. With much appreciation, Mrs. April Fenn Spanish Teacher World Lang. Dept. Chair Viewmont High School If you have questions about research request approval process, please contact Janeal Magalei Assessment Director Davis School District jmagalei@dsdmail.net 2-5345