Catherine Wasson

1. ICCTE Conference
Catherine Wasson
Graduate Teacher Education
Belhaven University
Thursday – May 24, 2012

2. Aristotle

3.  CURRENT PERFORMANCE
 Exam & Portfolio
 CONGRUENCE
 Exitexpectations
 Course outcomes
 CONCERNS
 Intervention/Remediation
 Program redesign

4. What is the relationship
between performance on
program exit requirements
(exam & portfolio) and
program grade point average?

5. Program Effectiveness
 Teacher education programs
inadequately prepare graduates to meet
the realities of today’s standards-based,
accountability-driven classrooms . . . .
Levine, 2006
 Educating the highly skilled, creative
thinkers who can compete in the global
economy requires a change in the way
teachers are trained.
Tucker, 2011

6. CCSS implementation
 To improve teacher quality,
policymakers . . . must consider whether
teacher education programs are aligned
to these (CCSS) standards.
Perry, 2011, p. 2
 The Common Core State Standards
should influence every part of every
teacher preparation program . . . .
SMTI/TLC, 2011, p. 3

7. are current
grading practices
serving God,
serving others,
or serving self?

8. 2007-09 n = 114 r = .340 2010-11 n =81 r = .414

9. 2007-09 n =114 r = .385 2010-11 n = 81 r = .387

12.  Defined
 . . . “net” increase in grades resulting from changes to
grading practices and standards over time, independent
of other contributing factors. ASHE, 2005, p. 30
 Supported – just a few of MANY stats!!
 Only 10-20% of college students received grades lower
than B-. Farley (1995) as reported by Sooner, 2000
 1969 - 7% grade of A- or higher, 26% grade of C or less
1993 – 26% grade of A- or higher, 9%grade of C or less
Vanderslice, 2004
 NOT supported
 Most evidence is anecdotal or reported perceptions;
limited empirical evidence exists . ASHE, 2005

13.  Grade Increase
 Gross measure of the trend of college grades over
time without consideration of changes in other
related factors (p. 29).
 Data support a general upward trend.
 Grade Compression
 Inability of grades to differentiate student
performance; current empirical evidence does not
support.
 Grading Disparity
 Empirical evidence supports significant disparities
in grades among different courses and disciplines.
ASHE, 2005

14.  Place immediate self-interests over
long-term outcomes; equate good
grades to attaining high paying jobs
Martinson, 2004
 Value social learning more than
academic learning; select courses
with little reading, few
requirements, and ―easy‖
instructors and don‘t esteem courses
that promote academic learning or
professional preparation
Arum & Roksa, 2011

15.  Good grades = good evaluations =
tenure, promotion, and better pay
Germain & Scandura, 2005;
Lanning & Perkins, 1995
 ―Disengagement compact‖
I give minimal work and higher
grades; you accept limited
grading of assignments and
feedback.
Arum & Roksa, 2011; Cushman, 2003
 ―Other-directedness‖
Need for approval from students;
popularity takes precedence over
standards in grading.
Cushman, 2003

16.  Keeping the customer happy
sustains current tuition & future
contributions
Cushman, 2003
 Diversion of resources to
student services—fastest
growing employment category in
higher education
 Decline in full-time tenure track
faculty – from 78% in 1970 to
52% in 2005; adjuncts are more
cost effective
Arum & Roksa, 2011

17.  Themission of the AAUP ―is to . . . ensure
higher education‘s contribution to the
common good‖.
Cushman, 2003, p. 454
 Gradeintegrity – extent to which grade
equates to quality of performance.
Sadler, 2009
 Serving―common good‖ requires GPA‘s to
be a valid reflection of students‘ abilities
and talents.
Cushman, 2003

18.  Decision
Making
Rationale
 Graduate & Based on college
professional schools grades, employers
have difficulty in
applicants that can
distinguishing the
succeed or excel
most and least
 Employers competent
applicants with skills applicants.
and potential for Vanderslice, 2004
fulfilling job
responsibilities
Walhout1997

19.  Self-Understanding
Rationale Obscure
relationship
 Students
between grades and
progress, student learning;
improvement, and students have
potential for success difficulty correctly
 Faculty judging their own
competence.
evaluation and
Vanderslice, 2004
instructional practices
Walhout1997

20.  Ethical Considerations
 Work judged on its quality; not other
factors
 Basis of judgments known; no surprises
 Grades comparable across
 courses in program (no courses characterized as
―lenient‖ or ―tough‖)
 courses offered by institution
 institutions
Sadler, 2009

21.  Doing the Right Thing
 Resurrect and maintain high standards
Cushman, 2003
 Reclaim ―gate keeper‖ role; rightly
discriminate between the different
learning levels of students.
Lanning & Perkins, 1995; Walhout, 1997

22. Anyone who cares a
lot about something
is very critical in
making judgments
about it. Far from
the opposite of
caring, being
critical is the very
consequence of
caring.
Vanderslice, 2004, p. 25

23.  Grading disparity
 Correlated specific course grades to outcome
measures
 Grading patterns
 Compare grade distributions to faculty
perceptions of student performance
 Embedding outcomes
 Explicit performance outcomes
 Align course and exit outcomes
 Monitor and manage student progress

24. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
on College Campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cushman, T. (2003). Who best to tame grade inflation? Academic
Questions, 16(4), 48-56.
Germain, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). Grade inflation and student
individual differences as systematic bias in faculty evaluations.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 58-67.
Hu, S., Ed. (2005). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in
higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 30(6), 1-80.
Lanning, W., & Perkins, P. (1995). Grade inflation: A consideration of
additional causes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2),
163-168.
Levine, A. (2006). Taming the wild west of teacher education.
Scholastic. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/taming-
wild-west-teacher-education.
Martinson, D. L. (2004). A perhaps ―politically incorrect‖ solution to
the very real problem of grade inflation. College Teaching, 52(2),
47-51.

25. Perry, A. (2011). Teacher preparation programs: A critical vehicle to
drive student achievement. Re:VISION, 1, 1-8.
Sadler, B. R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of
academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 807-
826.
SMTI/TLC. Discussion Paper. The Common Core State Standards and
Teacher Preparation: The Role of Higher Education.
http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=3482.
Sonner, B. S. (2000). A is for ‗adjunct‘: Examining grade inflation in
higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1), 5-9.
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An
American Agenda for Educational Reform. Boston: Harvard
Education Press.
Vanderslice, R. (2004). When I was young, an A was an A: Grade
inflation in higher education. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84(4), 24-25.
Walhout, D. (1997). Grading across a career. College Teaching,
45(3), 83-91.