What do you think?
Rate this book
Elements of Grading: A Guide to Effective Practice
Effective teacher feedback is crucial to improving student achievement. The author provides educators with practical suggestions for making the grading process more fair, accurate, specific, and timely. In addition to examples and case studies, this edition offers a significant amount of new content, including an exploration of how the Common Core State Standards and new technologies impact grading practices.
140 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2010
9 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 22, 2011
I’m glad I read Douglas Reeves’s Elements of Grading. Reeves has thought deeply about grading processes and engagingly articulates his ideas and attitudes in this brief book’s pages.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Reeves’s thinking is the no-zero policy, which says that a zero is mathematically brutal when using a percentage-based grading scale, not to mention that zeros are virtually always an inaccurate representation of student learning. If a student cannot or does not prove learning, how do represent that situation in his grade? I believe we can find middle ground on this issue if we (1.) keep learning as the focus and objective; and (2.) think in terms of incomplete grades rather than mathematical zeros. There is room for compromise between the hardheaded teacher policies that say absolutely-no-late-work-accepted and the silliness of those who think that a student should have almost unlimited opportunities to complete and revise work without her grade being affected. Neither the hardheadedness nor the silliness enhances student learning.
Common sense says that sometimes students will turn in work late. They may have good reasons or bad reasons, but late work will happen. Regardless of the reason for late or missing work, that work demonstrates a student’s learning, and it should be taken into consideration in some fashion. Common sense also says that learning that takes place in sync and sequence with class activities is likely to be more significant than work completed out of sequence and out of sync with class activities.
If a grade is to be an accurate reflection of a student’s learning, a zero is not valid because it’s unlikely that a student learned nothing. Similarly, if a grade is an accurate reflection of a student’s learning, the grade should be higher if work is completed in sequence with timeliness than if it’s completed in a more random chronology.
If we think of missing work as temporarily incomplete rather than as an absolute zero, then we can talk about reasonable conditions for making up the incomplete work. Eventually, incomplete work needs to be converted to a no-credit status that will negatively impact a student’s grade, but again, the time frame can be discussed more sensibly if we’re thinking about a student’s learning and not a cold hard zero.
Discussions like these are conducted in the context of a school building or school system. But grading policies may not be the only policies affecting learning that are routinely based on traditions and nothing else. If a school is going to examine, question, and consider changing its grading traditions, that school should make everything fair game, not just grading. If grading is the only change under consideration while other learning-related problems are ignored—well, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
One of the most useful ideas in Elements of Grading is the language Reeves provides for how to discuss beliefs. Frustration can result when those arguing particular positions confuse their opinions and experiences with more global levels of evidence and certainty. In other words, just because I believe something does not automatically means it’s true, even if it’s based on my personal experience. My opinions and my experience are worth something, but they are not the same as collective experiences, evidence based on more widespread experiences, or mathematical certainties. Although Reeves might not agree, we should acknowledge that as we radiate outward from the “opinion” level of belief to include the experiences and experiments of others, more variables are introduced, making valid comparisons and generalizations more difficult.
While I agree with Reeves’s assertions about the needs for accuracy, fairness, specificity, and timeliness in any grading paradigm, I also felt the English teacher in me coming out when he focused on timeliness. Timeliness looks different to a writing teacher than to those in most other disciplines. Providing worthwhile feedback to students on writing takes significantly more time than do most other forms of feedback. Reeves predictably shouts out the glories of rubrics for saving time while teaching writing, but I’ve always felt that writing rubrics tend to miss the best aspects of some students’ writing. For an in-depth exploration of this phenomenon, Maja Wilson’s Rethinking Rubrics in Writing Assessment (Heinemann, 2006) is indispensable. Teaching writing is different from any other discipline.
Timeliness is still important when providing feedback on writing. It’s harder for writing teachers to achieve timeliness, but that should not be an excuse. Writing teachers have an extra burden when we do our jobs well. Unfortunately, the example provided by Reeves for how writing teachers can provide timely feedback is weak: Let students give feedback to each other. Yes, that can be a useful strategy, but it cannot be the only strategy, and Reeves provides no other ideas.
More valuable to writing teachers is Reeves’s suggestion that teachers use “mid-course corrections” in order to speed up the timeliness of feedback. That works for me. When I provide feedback on an early draft of a student’s writing without grading it, the final draft is almost always in better shape and takes less time to grade. Yes, it takes time to give the early-draft feedback, but the net time gain is still significant, and students learn better from that in-process feedback than they do from an autopsy report on their final drafts.
The most disappointing section of Elements of Grading is Chapter 9, “Leading Change for Effective Grading Practices,” which outlines Reeves’s suggestions for how to bulldoze his grading changes into a school’s culture. Reeves recommends the inclusion of all stakeholders in discussions; he then characterizes disagreement with his ideas as “complaints” (113) and recommends that school leaders accept that “complaints are inevitable,” (113) and just go ahead and make the changes: “Leaders undermine their own best intentions time and time again when they equivocate … There remain many areas of teacher discretion, such as engaging scenarios for lessons and assessments, but grading policies or any other educational reform will not achieve improved results if implementation specification is left to chance” (112).
It strikes me as hypocritical to go through the motions of soliciting input in a democratic fashion, all while fully intending to ignore the results of that discussion if it is at odds with the leader’s pre-determined outcome. When leaders only pretend to listen, they lose credibility when their pretenses are exposed. And when student learning is involved, too much is at stake to play these kinds of games. While I agree with much of what Reeves says about grading, his ideas should stand or fall based on their merits, not because those in positions of power have the authority to ram them through. I respect that Mr. Reeves has an all-encompassing grading philosophy. I have one too. It overlaps that of Mr. Reeves in many areas. But I’m disappointed that his philosophy apparently excludes room for any variation or difference of opinion.
The best teachers tend to be reflective practitioners, professionals who question themselves and constantly seek ways to improve their instructional and motivational techniques. Douglas Reeves’s advice to school leaders undermines that reflective capacity. If teachers are encouraged to examine their practices, that’s fine, but there is no point in questioning one’s practices if there is no opportunity to act upon one’s reflection. If leaders tell teachers, “Think about why you do what you do” but then prevent them from acting upon the results of those thoughts unless they mirror the leader’s preferences, the teachers’ reflective capacities are, let’s just say, not strengthened.
I gained some insights into grading from reading Elements of Grading. I’m going to make some changes based on those insights. I value the process of questioning my beliefs and practices and re-calibrating when necessary. I encourage teachers to read Elements of Grading. It contains important insights about grading. Read the last chapter too for some illuminating insights into how school leaders are advised to make and implement decisions.
Cross-posted on What's Not Wrong?
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Reeves’s thinking is the no-zero policy, which says that a zero is mathematically brutal when using a percentage-based grading scale, not to mention that zeros are virtually always an inaccurate representation of student learning. If a student cannot or does not prove learning, how do represent that situation in his grade? I believe we can find middle ground on this issue if we (1.) keep learning as the focus and objective; and (2.) think in terms of incomplete grades rather than mathematical zeros. There is room for compromise between the hardheaded teacher policies that say absolutely-no-late-work-accepted and the silliness of those who think that a student should have almost unlimited opportunities to complete and revise work without her grade being affected. Neither the hardheadedness nor the silliness enhances student learning.
Common sense says that sometimes students will turn in work late. They may have good reasons or bad reasons, but late work will happen. Regardless of the reason for late or missing work, that work demonstrates a student’s learning, and it should be taken into consideration in some fashion. Common sense also says that learning that takes place in sync and sequence with class activities is likely to be more significant than work completed out of sequence and out of sync with class activities.
If a grade is to be an accurate reflection of a student’s learning, a zero is not valid because it’s unlikely that a student learned nothing. Similarly, if a grade is an accurate reflection of a student’s learning, the grade should be higher if work is completed in sequence with timeliness than if it’s completed in a more random chronology.
If we think of missing work as temporarily incomplete rather than as an absolute zero, then we can talk about reasonable conditions for making up the incomplete work. Eventually, incomplete work needs to be converted to a no-credit status that will negatively impact a student’s grade, but again, the time frame can be discussed more sensibly if we’re thinking about a student’s learning and not a cold hard zero.
Discussions like these are conducted in the context of a school building or school system. But grading policies may not be the only policies affecting learning that are routinely based on traditions and nothing else. If a school is going to examine, question, and consider changing its grading traditions, that school should make everything fair game, not just grading. If grading is the only change under consideration while other learning-related problems are ignored—well, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
One of the most useful ideas in Elements of Grading is the language Reeves provides for how to discuss beliefs. Frustration can result when those arguing particular positions confuse their opinions and experiences with more global levels of evidence and certainty. In other words, just because I believe something does not automatically means it’s true, even if it’s based on my personal experience. My opinions and my experience are worth something, but they are not the same as collective experiences, evidence based on more widespread experiences, or mathematical certainties. Although Reeves might not agree, we should acknowledge that as we radiate outward from the “opinion” level of belief to include the experiences and experiments of others, more variables are introduced, making valid comparisons and generalizations more difficult.
While I agree with Reeves’s assertions about the needs for accuracy, fairness, specificity, and timeliness in any grading paradigm, I also felt the English teacher in me coming out when he focused on timeliness. Timeliness looks different to a writing teacher than to those in most other disciplines. Providing worthwhile feedback to students on writing takes significantly more time than do most other forms of feedback. Reeves predictably shouts out the glories of rubrics for saving time while teaching writing, but I’ve always felt that writing rubrics tend to miss the best aspects of some students’ writing. For an in-depth exploration of this phenomenon, Maja Wilson’s Rethinking Rubrics in Writing Assessment (Heinemann, 2006) is indispensable. Teaching writing is different from any other discipline.
Timeliness is still important when providing feedback on writing. It’s harder for writing teachers to achieve timeliness, but that should not be an excuse. Writing teachers have an extra burden when we do our jobs well. Unfortunately, the example provided by Reeves for how writing teachers can provide timely feedback is weak: Let students give feedback to each other. Yes, that can be a useful strategy, but it cannot be the only strategy, and Reeves provides no other ideas.
More valuable to writing teachers is Reeves’s suggestion that teachers use “mid-course corrections” in order to speed up the timeliness of feedback. That works for me. When I provide feedback on an early draft of a student’s writing without grading it, the final draft is almost always in better shape and takes less time to grade. Yes, it takes time to give the early-draft feedback, but the net time gain is still significant, and students learn better from that in-process feedback than they do from an autopsy report on their final drafts.
The most disappointing section of Elements of Grading is Chapter 9, “Leading Change for Effective Grading Practices,” which outlines Reeves’s suggestions for how to bulldoze his grading changes into a school’s culture. Reeves recommends the inclusion of all stakeholders in discussions; he then characterizes disagreement with his ideas as “complaints” (113) and recommends that school leaders accept that “complaints are inevitable,” (113) and just go ahead and make the changes: “Leaders undermine their own best intentions time and time again when they equivocate … There remain many areas of teacher discretion, such as engaging scenarios for lessons and assessments, but grading policies or any other educational reform will not achieve improved results if implementation specification is left to chance” (112).
It strikes me as hypocritical to go through the motions of soliciting input in a democratic fashion, all while fully intending to ignore the results of that discussion if it is at odds with the leader’s pre-determined outcome. When leaders only pretend to listen, they lose credibility when their pretenses are exposed. And when student learning is involved, too much is at stake to play these kinds of games. While I agree with much of what Reeves says about grading, his ideas should stand or fall based on their merits, not because those in positions of power have the authority to ram them through. I respect that Mr. Reeves has an all-encompassing grading philosophy. I have one too. It overlaps that of Mr. Reeves in many areas. But I’m disappointed that his philosophy apparently excludes room for any variation or difference of opinion.
The best teachers tend to be reflective practitioners, professionals who question themselves and constantly seek ways to improve their instructional and motivational techniques. Douglas Reeves’s advice to school leaders undermines that reflective capacity. If teachers are encouraged to examine their practices, that’s fine, but there is no point in questioning one’s practices if there is no opportunity to act upon one’s reflection. If leaders tell teachers, “Think about why you do what you do” but then prevent them from acting upon the results of those thoughts unless they mirror the leader’s preferences, the teachers’ reflective capacities are, let’s just say, not strengthened.
I gained some insights into grading from reading Elements of Grading. I’m going to make some changes based on those insights. I value the process of questioning my beliefs and practices and re-calibrating when necessary. I encourage teachers to read Elements of Grading. It contains important insights about grading. Read the last chapter too for some illuminating insights into how school leaders are advised to make and implement decisions.
Cross-posted on What's Not Wrong?
January 24, 2018
A quick read on the topic of grading. I'm not sure I agreed with the author on all principles, but this book got me thinking a lot about my grading philosophies and practices.
November 22, 2020
I found this book helpful and useful. It would be a great guy to a teacher who is pre-service or in the early years of their career, or who needs some more work on improving their assessment.
January 28, 2016
The key question that Doug Reeves addresses in Elements of Grading is as follows: How can we make grading systems accurate, fair, specific, and timely?
Before answering this question, Reeves establishes an important premise: The primary purpose of grading is feedback to improve student achievement.
Reeves begins his inquiry by discussing is what he terms “the grading debate” - that is, the distorted perceptions of some educators about the purpose of grading and their subsequent inaccurate, unfair, and non-specific practices. Reeves reveals the flawed logic behind the practice of assigning a zero for assessments not submitted. A teacher who gives a grade of zero in such situations is making a moral judgment that goes like this: The student deserves a zero as punishment, and this consequence is fair in that it teaches the student an important lesson. The flawed thinking here is, of course, that the “zero” is neither an accurate nor a fair assessment of the student’s academic achievement.
Accuracy: In his chapter on accuracy in grading, Reeves shows that the practice of averaging undermines accuracy in that it does not reflect current student performance when the grade is awarded. In other words, it does not reflect the student’s improved achievement over time or decline over time. He uses the following humorous analogy to emphasize his point: “You would never decide whether or not to wear a coat on January 31 based on the average temperature during the month.”
Reeves offers 3 strategies for improving accuracy in grading:
1. Reality checks – comparison of student results in classes to external standardized
measurements, and determination of whether students are receiving behavioural grades;
2. Collaborative scoring - based on common rubrics; and,
3. Avoidance of mathematical distortions – for example, not assigning zeros for work not
submitted and not averaging marks.
Fairness: Reeves defines fairness in grading as follows: “The grade is a reflection of the student’s performance and the context of that performance.” In other words, the disparities with which students begin their schooling – factors such as disabilities, impoverished living conditions, lack of parental support, etc. – should be taken into consideration in a fair grading process.
Specificity: According to Reeves, the most precise way to grade a student is to report his/her performance relative to an objective standard.
Timeliness: Acknowledging Jeff Howard’s Nintendo Effect, which refers to the dramatic improvement in performance that students can make when they receive immediate feedback, Reeves provides 3 suggestions for teachers on how to improve timeliness:
1. Involve students in establishing academic criteria – Once students know the rules of the game,
they can engage, with integrity, in self and peer assessment;
2. Use the 3-column rubric - Have one column for performance criteria, a second column for
student self-assessment, and a third column for teacher assessment; and,
3. Offer mid-course corrections – Since students who most need help do not usually ask for it, teachers must schedule assistance and intervention.
Reeves also offers some advice for administrators on improving timeliness:
- Ensure that assessments are focused and brief
- Create time for teachers to analyze and use feedback
- Monitor the responses of teachers to student achievement data
Reeves concludes Elements of Grading by offering some advice for leaders on how to successfully implement change to teachers’ grading practices: articulate an explicit vision, specify behavioural expectations, and assess and continually refine the implementation.
Before answering this question, Reeves establishes an important premise: The primary purpose of grading is feedback to improve student achievement.
Reeves begins his inquiry by discussing is what he terms “the grading debate” - that is, the distorted perceptions of some educators about the purpose of grading and their subsequent inaccurate, unfair, and non-specific practices. Reeves reveals the flawed logic behind the practice of assigning a zero for assessments not submitted. A teacher who gives a grade of zero in such situations is making a moral judgment that goes like this: The student deserves a zero as punishment, and this consequence is fair in that it teaches the student an important lesson. The flawed thinking here is, of course, that the “zero” is neither an accurate nor a fair assessment of the student’s academic achievement.
Accuracy: In his chapter on accuracy in grading, Reeves shows that the practice of averaging undermines accuracy in that it does not reflect current student performance when the grade is awarded. In other words, it does not reflect the student’s improved achievement over time or decline over time. He uses the following humorous analogy to emphasize his point: “You would never decide whether or not to wear a coat on January 31 based on the average temperature during the month.”
Reeves offers 3 strategies for improving accuracy in grading:
1. Reality checks – comparison of student results in classes to external standardized
measurements, and determination of whether students are receiving behavioural grades;
2. Collaborative scoring - based on common rubrics; and,
3. Avoidance of mathematical distortions – for example, not assigning zeros for work not
submitted and not averaging marks.
Fairness: Reeves defines fairness in grading as follows: “The grade is a reflection of the student’s performance and the context of that performance.” In other words, the disparities with which students begin their schooling – factors such as disabilities, impoverished living conditions, lack of parental support, etc. – should be taken into consideration in a fair grading process.
Specificity: According to Reeves, the most precise way to grade a student is to report his/her performance relative to an objective standard.
Timeliness: Acknowledging Jeff Howard’s Nintendo Effect, which refers to the dramatic improvement in performance that students can make when they receive immediate feedback, Reeves provides 3 suggestions for teachers on how to improve timeliness:
1. Involve students in establishing academic criteria – Once students know the rules of the game,
they can engage, with integrity, in self and peer assessment;
2. Use the 3-column rubric - Have one column for performance criteria, a second column for
student self-assessment, and a third column for teacher assessment; and,
3. Offer mid-course corrections – Since students who most need help do not usually ask for it, teachers must schedule assistance and intervention.
Reeves also offers some advice for administrators on improving timeliness:
- Ensure that assessments are focused and brief
- Create time for teachers to analyze and use feedback
- Monitor the responses of teachers to student achievement data
Reeves concludes Elements of Grading by offering some advice for leaders on how to successfully implement change to teachers’ grading practices: articulate an explicit vision, specify behavioural expectations, and assess and continually refine the implementation.
May 25, 2012
Reeves is a major thinker in the school reform effort. His work in this instance should be the focal point of a long discussion before every faculty in the nation's schools. Surely, not everyone will warm to the reform it calls for. But anyone who does will find students more eager and able to succeed, and a school community capable of meeting it's promise.
Read
July 5, 2014This book helped me wrap my brain around the "no-zero" philosphy of grading. As an educator (and one for whom math was never a strong point) I needed to make a shift in my thinking that grades have to be on a 100 point scale-- and how that is so different from the A,B,C,D,F scale that so many schools use.
August 19, 2014
It was a book that made you think about how you grade. Grading according to the standards is important, but there are many variables in grading that way. This book had many answers, but not all. Grading is subjective no matter what.
December 2, 2012
Good, fairly quick read on standards based grading. Gets down to the nitty gritty about questioning current grading practices and suggestions for improvement in a readable direct fashion.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews