1. Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature and Present System Analysis
In any research endeavors, an analysis is made to ensure the itinerary of the program
and the quality of the design to be employed. Without proper analysis of the system, some
important details about the research might be discounted from study and problems to be met
along the way might be overlooked. Analysis includes reviewing literatures and scholarly works
related to this research parallel to the features of the introduced system and presenting an
overview of the processes and documents concerning the existing system utilized by the school.
This chapter hereby contains comparative literatures associated with this paper and the
necessary elements such as diagrams representing data flow processes observed on the
present manual grading system.
2.1. Literature Review of Related Papers
The related and previous studies presented on this paper would give the readers and
future researchers an idea of the presented system of the proponents. Through this chapter,
the readers can acquaint themselves with the insights contained in the study of this project.
The proponents selected and reviewed these studies and previous works to provide
background information to the readers. Some comparisons have been made with the previous
20

2. works to provide parallel assessment between the established, current, and introduced
systems.
2.1.1. The K-12 Grading Program
The Department of Education launched a new basic education program which included
two additional compulsory years to the curriculum and the encouragement of Kindergarten
enrolment to pre-elementary children. The curriculum also includes a new learning assessment
scale which replaces the traditional numerical value in report cards for elementary and high
school students. This grading scheme summarizes academic and co-curricular performance into
letter-based scales equivalent to the standard percentage shares of grades.
Effective this school year, DepEd said parents and students will no longer see numbers
in report cards of students from Grades 1 to 10. Based on DepEd Order No. 31, S. 2012, or the
“Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC)
Effective School Year 2012-2013”, public schools were ordered to implement the K to 12 BEC,
particularly on Grades 1 to 7 which will be most affected by the new curriculum, and challenged
schools “to implement the guidelines in creative and innovative ways for the curriculum can be
localized without compromising the philosophy of total learner development.”
“The new grading system seeks to measure the students’ level of proficiency at the end
of each quarter”, Education Secretary Armin Luistro said. “The assessment process is holistic
and aims to ensure the quality of student learning with emphasis on formation and
development”, he added.
21

3. In the new rating scheme, letter A reflects will reflect as the highest grade, letter P as
the second highest, and letter B as the lowest. Equivalence scores were assigned to each letter
grades corresponding to its numeric counterpart, where grade A has a 90 percent and above
rating equivalent, grade P for scores 85 to 89 percent rating, grade AP for scores 80 to 84
percent rating, grade D for scores 75 to 79 percent rating, and grade B for numerical values of
74 percent and below rating.
At the end of the quarter, performance of students shall be described in report cards
based on the level of proficiency. Rating A (Advanced) are given to students who “exceeds the
core requirements in terms of knowledge, skills, and understandings and can transfer them
automatically and flexible through authentic performance tasks.” Rating P (Proficient) reflects
those who exhibit “developed fundamental knowledge and skills and core understandings and
can transfer them independently through authentic performance tasks.” Rating AP
(Approaching Proficiency) means that students have “developed the fundamental knowledge
and skills and core understandings and with little guidance from teachers and/or with some
assistance from peers, can transfer these understandings through authentic performance
tasks.” Rating D (Developing) suggests those who “possess the minimum knowledge and skills
and core understandings but needs the help throughout the performance of authentic tasks”
while those given with B (Beginning) means that the student “struggles with his/her
understanding; prerequisite and fundamental knowledge and/or skills have not been acquired
or developed adequately to aid understanding.”
22

4. 2.1.2. Subject Rubrics
The term rubric derives from the Latin rubrica, or “red”, and relates to red prints used to
direct or redirect readers’ attention to text of special importance. Today’s grading rubric is
essentially a set of scoring guidelines enumerating the percentage shares of performance
indicators in a particular subject course. Performance indicators are the categories in a subject
that measures the students’ progress in certain areas of learning and proficiency and includes
quizzes, periodical examinations, homework, projects, and other performance scales. A good
subject rubric identifies the criteria by which work will be judged and to what area of learning
the teacher should attend to and also describes the difference between excellent and weaker
performance of student learning.
The table below enumerates the rubric for Grades 1 to 6 in San Isidro Elementary School
and reflects the breakdown of percentage shares to each areas of learning.
Measure of Achievement English Filipino Science Math HEKASI E.P.P. Music Arts P.E.
Periodical Test 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Quizzes 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Class
20% 20% 20% 25% 30% 15% 15%
Interaction/Recitation
Homework 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 15% 15%
Projects 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 25% 10% 5% 5%
Informal/Formal Themes
(Literary Writing)
10% 10% 20% 10%
Experiments 15%
Other Performance 15% 15% 10% 15% 15% 15% 30% 20% 30%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 2.1 Measure of Achievement Matrix for each subject showing the corresponding rates and percentage breakdown
23

5. 2.1.3. Academic Grading in the Philippines
The Philippines has varied educational grading standards adapted by learning
institutions. Most institutions, particularly public schools, follow the percentage point system of
100% - 65%, in which 100% is the highest grade and 65% is the lowest possible grade; the
passing rate for both subject and final average grades is 75%. Some satellite schools of
elementary and secondary level to public and private institutions adapt the grade point system
of 1.00 to 5.00 of most universities, where 1.00 is the highest points and 5.00 is the lowest; this
scale differs with every school, same with the passing rate. An example is provided for the
convenience of the readers.
Uniiverrsiitty off Santto Tomas Grrade Poiintt Systtem
Un ve s y o San o Tomas G ade Po n Sys em IIntterrnattiionall Schooll Maniilla Letttterr Grrade Systtem
n e na ona Schoo Man a Le e G ade Sys em
Grade Point Grade Point Letter Grade Point %
Equivalence Description Equivalence
Equivalence Equivalence Equivalence
1.00 96% - 100& Excellent 4.0 A 94% - 100%
1.25 94% - <95% 3.7 A- 90% - 93%
Very Good
1.50 92% - <93% 3.3 B+ 87% - 89%
1.75 89% - <91% 3.0 B 83% - 86%
2.00 87% - <88% Good 2.7 B- 80% - 82%
2.25 84% - <86% 2.3 C+ 77% - 79%
2.50 82% - <83% 2.0 C 73% - 76%
Fair
2.75 79% - <81% 1.7 C- 70% - 72%
3.00 75% - <78% Pass 1.3 D+ 67% - 69%
5.00 Below 75% Failure 1.0 D 63% - 66%
0.7 D- 60% - 62%
Nothing follows
0.0 F Below 60%
Table 2.2 Point System Scale of the University of Santo Tomas and International School Manila
Since the implementation of the K-12 program of the Department of Education, a
number of schools still keep to the old percentage grading method and their report cards do
not reflect the letter-oriented scheme proposed by the government agency. San Isidro
24

6. Elementary School is expected to adapt to the new practice with the introduction of the
computerized grading school in their grading process.
Scores were identified as raw or transmuted depending on the nature of the subject
rubric. Mostly quizzes are assigned with raw scores, but there are some instances where
instructors give raw scores to other areas depending on their discretion (i.e. Homework);
periodical tests and other performance measurements such as projects and recitations were
typically allotted with transmuted ratings. Equivalence ratings were provided to instructors for
their expediency in the conversion process of raw scores for every total score item.
% N=20 N=25 N=30 N=35 N=40 N=45 N=50 N=55 N=60 N=65 N=70 N=75 N=80 N=85 N=90 N=95 N=100 %
95 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 95
94 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 88-89 93-94 98-99 94
93 19 24 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 82-83 86-87 91-92 96-97 93
92 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 77 80-81 84-85 89-90 94-95 92
90 17 23 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 75-77 78-79 82-83 87-88 92-93 90
90 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 73-74 76-77 80-81 85-86 90-91 90
89 16 22 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 71-72 74-75 78-79 83-84 88-89 89
88 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 67-68 69-70 72-73 76-77 81-82 86-87 88
87 15 21 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 65-66 67-68 70-71 74-75 79-80 84-85 87
86 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 58-60 63-64 65-66 68-69 72-73 77-78 82-83 86
85 14 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 57 61-62 63-64 66-67 70-71 75-76 80-81 85
84 19 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 55-56 59-60 61-62 64-65 68-69 73-74 78-79 84
83 13 18 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 53-54 57-58 59-60 62-63 66-67 70-72 76-77 83
82 17 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 51-52 51-52 55-56 57-58 60-61 64-65 67-69 74-75 82
81 12 16 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 49-50 49-50 53-54 55-56 58-59 61-63 64-66 71-73 81
80 15 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 47-48 47-48 51-52 53-54 56-57 58-60 61-63 68-70 80
79 11 14 14 19 24 29 34 39 42-44 44-46 45-46 49-50 51-52 54-55 55-57 58-60 65-67 79
78 13 13 18 23 28 33 38 39-41 41-43 43-44 47-48 48-50 51-23 52-54 55-57 62-64 78
77 10 12 12 17 22 26-27 32 35-37 36-38 38-40 41-42 45-46 46-47 48-50 49-51 52-54 58-61 77
76 11 11 16 21 24-25 31 23-34 33-35 35-37 38-40 42-44 43-45 45-47 46-48 49-51 54-57 76
75 9 10 10 15 20 22-23 29-30 29-31 30-32 33-34 35-37 39-41 40-42 52-44 45-47 46-58 50-53 75
74 9 9 14 18-19 20-21 26-28 26-28 27-29 30-32 32-34 35-38 37-39 38-41 41-44 42-45 46-49 74
73 8 8 8 13 16-17 18-19 23-25 23-25 24-26 27-29 29-31 31-34 33-36 34-37 37-40 38-41 41-45 73
72 7 7 7 12 14-15 16-17 20-22 20-22 21-23 24-26 26-28 27-30 29-32 30-33 33-36 34-37 36-40 72
71 6 6 6 11 12-13 14-15 17-19 17-19 18-20 20-23 23-25 23-26 25-28 26-29 29-32 31-33 31-35 71
70 5 5 5 9-10 10-11 12-13 14-16 14-16 15-17 16-19 20-22 20-23 21-24 22-25 26-29 27-30 28-32 70
69 4 4 4 7-8 8-9 10-11 11-13 11-13 12-14 12-15 16-19 16-19 17-20 18-21 21-25 22-26 23-27 69
25

7. 68 3 3 3 5-6 6-7 8-9 8-10 8-10 9-11 9-11 12-15 12-15 13-16 14-17 16-20 17-21 18-22 68
67 2 2 2 3-4 4-5 5-7 5-7 5-7 6-8 6-8 8-11 8-11 9-12 10-13 11-15 12-16 13-17 67
66 1 1 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 3-5 3-5 4-7 4-7 4-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 6-12 66
65 0 0 0 0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-5 65
Table 2.3 Transmutation Table of Raw Score Points and their Equivalent Percentage Ratings (50% cutoff)
To assist the instructors in the computation of transmuted scores, the computed value
for converted scores were provided for every percentage shares. For example, the transmuted
rating of 92% is computed as 13.80 points under the 15% share of Projects in Mathematics
subject.
Transmuted Transmuted
Ratings (%) Computed Value Ratings (%) Computed Value
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
100 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 77 3.85 7.70 11.55 15.40 19.25 23.10 26.95 30.80
99 4.95 9.90 14.85 19.80 24.75 29.70 34.65 39.60 76 3.80 7.60 11.40 15.20 19.00 22.80 26.60 30.40
98 4.90 9.80 14.70 19.60 24.50 29.40 34.30 39.20 75 3.75 7.50 11.25 15.00 18.75 22.50 26.25 30.00
97 4.85 9.70 14.55 19.40 24.25 29.10 33.95 38.80 74 3.70 7.40 11.10 14.80 18.50 22.20 25.90 29.60
96 4.80 9.60 14.40 19.20 24.00 28.80 33.60 38.40 73 3.65 7.30 10.95 14.60 18.25 21.90 25.55 29.20
95 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 28.50 33.25 38.00 72 3.60 7.20 10.80 14.40 18.00 21.60 25.20 28.80
94 4.70 9.40 14.10 18.80 23.50 28.20 32.90 37.60 71 3.55 7.10 10.65 14.20 17.75 21.30 24.85 28.40
93 4.65 9.30 13.95 18.60 23.25 27.90 32.55 37.20 70 3.50 7.00 10.50 14.00 17.50 21.00 24.50 28.00
92 4.60 9.20 13.80 18.40 23.00 27.60 32.20 36.80 69 3.45 6.90 10.35 13.80 17.25 20.70 24.15 27.60
91 4.55 9.10 13.65 18.20 22.75 27.30 31.85 36.40 68 3.40 6.80 10.20 13.60 17.00 20.40 23.80 27.20
90 4.60 9.00 13.50 18.00 22.50 27.00 31.50 36.00 67 3.35 6.70 10.05 13.40 16.75 20.10 23.45 26.80
89 4.45 8.90 13.35 17.80 22.25 26.70 31.15 35.60 66 3.30 6.60 9.90 13.20 16.50 19.80 23.10 26.40
88 4.40 8.80 13.20 17.60 22.00 26.40 30.80 35.20 65 3.25 6.50 9.75 13.00 16.25 19.50 22.75 26.00
87 4.35 8.70 13.05 17.40 21.75 26.10 30.45 34.80 64 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 16.00 19.20 22.40 25.60
86 4.30 8.60 12.90 17.20 21.50 25.80 30.10 34.40 63 3.15 6.30 9.45 12.60 15.75 18.90 22.05 25.20
85 4.25 8.50 12.75 17.00 21.25 25.50 29.75 34.00 62 3.10 6.20 9.30 12.40 15.50 18.60 21.70 24.80
84 4.20 8.40 12.60 16.80 21.00 25.20 29.40 33.60 61 3.05 6.10 9.15 12.20 15.25 18.30 21.35 24.40
83 4.15 8.30 12.45 16.60 20.75 24.90 29.05 33.20 60 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00
82 4.10 8.20 12.30 16.40 20.50 24.60 28.70 32.80 59 2.95 5.90 8.85 11.80 14.75 17.70 20.65 23.60
81 4.05 8.10 12.15 16.20 20.25 24.30 28.35 32.40 58 2.90 5.80 8.70 11.60 14.50 17.40 20.30 23.20
80 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 57 2.85 5.70 8.55 11.40 14.25 17.10 19.95 22.80
79 3.95 7.90 11.85 15.80 19.75 23.70 24.65 31.60 56 2.80 5.60 8.40 11.20 14.00 16.80 19.60 22.40
78 3.90 7.80 11.70 15.60 19.50 23.40 27.30 31.20 55 2.75 5.50 8.25 11.00 13.75 16.50 19.25 22.00
Table 2.4 Computations Table of computed % share values for transmuted scores
26

8. 2.1.4. The Grading Process
Grades in the realm of education are standardized measurements of varying levels of
comprehension within a subject area. Grades can be assigned in letters (i.e., A, B, C, D, or E, or
F), as a range (i.e., 5.0 – 1.0), as a number out of a possible total (i.e., a score of 20 out 100), as
descriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement), in percentages, or as is
common in some post-secondary institutions in some countries, as a Grade Point Average.
Grading Point Average (GPA) is calculated by taking the number of grade points a student
earned in a given period of time divided by the total number of credits taken. The GPA can be
used by potential employers or further post-secondary institutions to assess and compare
applicants. A Cumulative Grade Point Average is a calculation of the average of all of a student's
grades for all semesters and courses completed up to a given academic term, whereas the GPA
may only refer to one term.
History of Grading
Keith Hoskin argues that the concept of grading students' work quantitatively was
developed by a tutor named William Farish and first implemented by the University of
Cambridge in 1792. Hoskin's assertion has been questioned by Christopher Stray, who finds the
evidence for Farish as the inventor of the numerical mark to be unpersuasive. Stray's article
elucidates the complex relationship between the mode of examination (testing), in this case
oral or written, and the varying philosophies of education these modes imply, both to teacher
and student. As a technology, grading both shapes and reflects many fundamental areas of
educational theory and practice.
27

9. 2.1.5. Scholarly Works
An A is not an A is not an A: A History of Grading by Mark W. Durm
(1)
“Is that information going to be on the test?” This question is one teachers often hear from
students. When instructors hear this, they should realize those particular students probably
consider grades a higher priority than learning. It seems, for some, that securing a higher
grade point average takes precedence over knowledge, learning career-related skills, and
other aspects needed to compete in today’s world. This fact, coupled with the realization
that many college students will, if given a choice, opt for the “easy teacher” rather than one
from whom they may learn more, should make teachers reexamine the current system of
grading.
(2)
Measuring Progress. Why do most schools use the A, B, C, D and F marking system? What
happened to E? Why divisions of grades? Why not three, four, seven, or eight for that
matter? I.E. Finkelstein (1913), concerned with these questions, offered the following:
When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a
system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment
of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very
great stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real
measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith
that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators
have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument…. What
faults appear in the marking systems that we are now using, and how can these
be avoided or minimized?”
28

10. Finkelstein wrote this in 1913! Can we better answer these questions today? Is our grading
system still uncalibrated? Finkelstein further wrote:
. . . [V]ariability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils
by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to the
students… Nor may anyone seek refuge in the assertion that the marks of the
students are of little real importance. The evidence is clear that marks constitute
a very real and very strong inducement to work, that they are accepted as real
and fairly exact measurements of ability or of performance. Moreover, they not
infrequently are determiners of the student’s career.
In addition, there was apparently no standard process for the selection of the valedictorian.
Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale in the late 18th century, had an interesting valedictory
oration in his diary concerning the valedictory oration in Latin for July of 1871. The
valedictorian was elected by the class. Stiles wrote: “The Seniors presented me their
Election of Gridly for Valedictory Orator, whom I approved…” (Stiles, 1901).
(3)
Yale Beginnings. The history of grading in American colleges was eloquently detailed by
Mary Lovett Smallwood (1935). She related that marking, or grading, to differentiate
students was first used at Yale. The scale was made up of descriptive adjectives and was
included as a footnote to Stile’s 1785 diary.
2.1.6. Related Computerized Systems
Two systems were derived from established computer-generated information systems
and are included in this paper to provide comparisons with this project’s grading software.
29

11. The Comprehensive Information Management for Schools G/T (CIMS® G/T)
This system is package system developed by the National Computer Systems, Inc. in
1997 to help manage and control student information in school districts and administrate data
pertinent to student achievement performance and academic standing. The following is a direct
citation from Student Grading System (SGS) User’s Guide Manual (*Copied without permission.
No copyright infringement intended):
(1)
The CIMS G/T student applications provide an integrated student record system
designed to meet the challenges of student administration. The flexibility of CIMS G/T
applications can help you meet your information requirements.
The integrated CIMS G/T student applications are:
 Student Management System (SMS™)
 Student Scheduling System (SCH®)
 Student Attendance System (SAS™)
 Student Grading System (SGS™)
(2)
Overview of the SGS Application
The Student Grading System offers a flexible and automatic method to record student
achievement. The SGS application helps you process and track specific academic
achievement throughout the school year, as well as maintain permanent student
transcripts, both current and post graduation.
30

12. The SGS application exchanges information with the Student Management System. The
following figure shows how the SGS application works with the other CIMS G/T
applications.
Through the Student Grading System, you can perform the following tasks:
 Select grading system options
 Format worksheets to record and edit student grades
 Maintain student grades
 Format and print report cards
 Calculate and report grade point averages
 Track graduation requirements
31

13.  Maintain and report honor roll information
 Maintain and report transcript information
 Print standard and custom grading reports
Personalized Grading System Software
This system provides an individual and exclusive experience to users who would
want to know right away the status of their grades by providing a simple interface where
users type in their grades and get instant general weighted average grade (GWA). The
system is developed free of charge with Open-System copyright (*needs
citation/acknowledgment of developer) and is available for download at
http://www.brothersoft.com. The following is a screenshot image of this software:
Figure 2.1 Screenshot of Personalized Grading System v.4.6
32

14. 2.2. Literature on Present Grading System of San Isidro Elementary School
San Isidro Elementary School has been implementing their manual grades computation
and recording for years. In this scheme, the advisers of different class sections first draft their
grades computation for a particular subject course they were assigned to. They then pass this
to another fellow adviser which needs that grade to compute for the final average (weighted)
of students. The floating teachers (those with no assigned class section but holds subject
load/s) in turn also submit their grades to the appropriate adviser. This cycle continues to flow
from teachers to advisers to teachers until a final processed grade list (general average of
students for all subject courses) has been produced and students were ranked according to the
highest average grade earner. Grades were disseminated from teachers (subject course’s
grade) to advisers (general average of students in a class section) to students and the principal.
To picture how the grades were pooled and generated, a cycle diagram is presented exhibiting
the flow of grades.
The hyphenated curve arrow lines shown in Figure 2.2 indicate that grades may not be
relayed to the next teacher/adviser as these grades may be restricted only to a particular
advisory class section. This means that all subject courses are handled alone by a teacher for
his/her advisory class and that the grades are generated, disseminated and are exclusive only to
that class section. Unbroken lines mean that processed grades are passed on directly to the
appropriate people. Venn diagram shows the relative connection of different people; i.e.,
teachers 1-3 may not be needed by adviser 1 in the computation of grades in that adviser 1
solely generates grades for all subject courses for his/her specific advisory class section. Such is
33

15. the case in Grades 1-4. Conversely, Grades 5-7 have shared subject courses in each advisory
class section for the computation of final general weighted average grade, which is why arc
lines are drawn to represent the flow of grades to different teachers and advisers.
Figure 2.2 Cyclic Diagram of the Flow of Grades in San Isidro Elementary School
2.2.1. Materials, Methods, and Processes Used in Existing Grading System
Materials
Like every schools in the country, teachers in San Isidro Elementary use the usual Class
Record book in recording the grades of students. They compute for the grades using standard
calculators. Corrections were made using correction fluid in case an error in recording was
made. Standard pens were made for recording; some may prefer to use red pens to emphasize
34

16. grades that need to be attended. The final grades of the students are produced in Form 137
report card.
Figure 2.3 Official Class Record and Form 137 employed by San Isidro Elementary School
Computation of Grades
Scores were computed according to their nature. Raw scores follow a different
computation as well as the transmuted scores. To compute the raw scores, the following
equation is complied with:
35

17. For example, a student scores 7 out of 10 score items in Quiz 1, 10 out of 15 points in
Quiz 2, and 16 out of 20 points in Quiz 3. To compute his raw scores for his quizzes in English
which has a 15% share in the subject rubric (percent takes a decimal form in the computation),
the following calculations were made:
For transmuted scores, the ratings are just multiplied to their equivalent rubric
percentage share. In cases where one subject rubric (i.e. Recitations) contains multiple score
entries, the following formula is followed:
For example, a student scores 95% in Periodical Exam in Filipino. This equals to 95%
multiplied to 0.25 (percentage assumes a decimal form in computation) which results to 23.75
points. If a student is rated 89% for his first recitation and gets a 91% and 88% in his succeeding
recitations in Filipino, this will be computed following the formula for multiple entries of
transmuted scores:
All the points in each subject rubric are totaled to compute for the periodical grade of a
subject. There are four grading periods or quarters in a school year, so the process is repeated
four times for each subject rubric or subject category (like Quizzes, Periodical Tests, etc.). The
36

18. four periodical grades are then processed to compute for each rubric’s arithmetic mean or
periodical average grade. These periodical average grades were totaled rubric by rubric to
compute for the final subject grade. After the subject grades are computed, they will be
computed to get the final average grade of a student.
37