My recent review of assessment has continued, which now includes two major findings:
- Grading is a summative function (i.e., formative assessments should not be graded).
(Black et al., 2004; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Brookhart, 2004; Frisbie & Waltman, 1992; Sadler, 1989; Shepard, 2019) - Findings from an overwhelming number of researchers spanning 115 years suggest that grades hinder learning (re: reliability issues, ineffectiveness compared to feedback, or other negative associations).
(Black et al., 2004; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Brookhart et al, 2016; Butler & Nisan, 1986; Butler, 1987; Cardelle & Corno, 1981; Crooks, 1933; Crooks, 1988; Elawar & Corno, 1985; Ferguson, 2013; Guberman, 2021; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Johnson, 1911; Kohn, 2011; Mandouit & Hattie, 2023; McLaughlin, 1992; Meyer, 1908; Newton et al., 2020; Page, 1958; Rugg, 1918; Shepard, 2019; Starch, 1913; Steward & White, 1976; Stiggins, 1994; Wisniewski et al., 2020)
In other words, 1) any assessment that a teacher grades automatically becomes summative, even if they call it “formative” (I’m referring to these as false formatives), and perhaps more importantly, 2) grades get in the way of learning. These findings suggest that best way to support learning is by a) limiting grading to only true summative assessments given at the end of the grading period (e.g., quarter, trimester, semester, academic year), and b) using alternatives to grading formative assessments that otherwise effectively make them summative. Therefore, my next stage of reviewing literature focuses on reducing summative grading and exploring formative grading alternatives (i.e., so they remain formative). As for now, one of those practices *might* be retakes, which has been on my mind ever since I saw a tweet from @JoeFeldman. Given the findings above, which establish a theoretical framework to study grading, let’s take a look at how retakes are used now, and how they could be used in the future, if we even need them at all…
Retakes
Retakes, or redos, are used by teachers when a student performs poorly, either because they had low understanding, they were suffering from some condition or interfering event (e.g. illness, trauma), or the assessment was confusing (Feldman, 2023). Many teachers have probably experienced the latter even without a retake system. You get results that do not seem right, and you toss out the quiz (or whatever), and you redo it. Retakes, in a more formalized sense, are handled different ways by different teachers and schools, though usually all involve getting the student to show their understanding another day/time.
Formative? Summative?
One question is whether retakes make sense for everything, formative and summative alike. Morris & Mackenzie (2023) found that all of their educator participants allowed retakes on formative assessments, though “varied on if the new retake grade replaced the original grade or if it is averaged with the original grade” (p. 16). This does not fit the theoretical framework; when assessments have grades, they are summative. Morris & Mackenzie also found that nearly all participants did not allow retakes “past their current learning standards” (p. 16). In other words, retakes were allowed during the current unit, and once that timeframe was up, no more retakes. From an equity stance, this peculiar way of qualifying when to using retakes does not account for individual learning rates. According to Feldman (2023), some teachers also try to set a grade maximum that initiates a retake (e.g., “C or lower”), which gets into tricky situations if certain grading scales are used. For example, 79 vs. 80 is a one point difference, but the borderline grade changes to a B. How fair is it to only allow the 79 to retake? Feldman recommends that ALL students be allowed retakes, period.
The only possible grading alternative using retakes on true formative assessments would be by omitting a score or grade. One problem with this is that graded assessment retakes are a common feature of standards-based-grading (SBG). In fact, I have not come across anyone saying that they use SBG and also do not report scores on a 1-4 (or whatever) scale. Typically, teachers assess students on standards and offer retakes until students show “mastery,” or in most systems what is at least a 3, and often a 4. As you can see, we are now moving away from feedback for learning and towards reporting achievement. When this is done throughout the quarter, teachers are effectively constantly summatively assessing?! We are looking for the opposite of that: a system that prioritizes formative assessment for learning, and makes it possible to assign a single summative grade as infrequently as possible, like once per grading period. As far as I know, the only way to do this without making a single summative grade very, very high stakes, is the use of portfolios. The portfolio system described below is a collection of all the learning evidence that summarizes learning so an evaluation can be made ONCE. This is one of my next grading practices to explore in the literature.
We must also keep in mind that Feldman’s framework, though, is a little different in that his formative/summative distinction depends on timing and teacher discernment. He mentions how teachers have to decide “Is the student’s learning completed?” (p. 176). If so, then that assessment becomes summative, and is graded. If not, the student is clearly in the learning process, therefore it is formative, and should not be graded until their retake(s) show understanding. Under this framework, there is more of a need for retakes; the students who do not yet show their understanding must have another opportunity in order to be equitable, and the teacher must gather evidence. Yet, this does not address reducing summative grading. More summative grading is not supported in the literature, and while Feldman agrees that grading formative assessments “makes a grade less accurate” (p. 175), what we are left with is a picture of many, many summatives throughout the grading term once students show their understanding after a few retakes. This is not reducing summative grading.
Are Retakes Needed?!
So far, under the established framework, all example assessments have grades, therefore are summative. If one goal is to reduce summative grading, though—since it gets in the way of learning—the need for retakes would be eliminated. How? Imagine a body of learning evidence gathered by the student that shows their understanding. All of these assessments were formative, with feedback given throughout the grading term. Evidence like drafts and final papers show improvement, which replace what would be assessments with scores of 2 and 4 (i.e., first attempt, then retake attempt) in an SBG system. In other words, it is all there. The summative assessment using the portfolio is just an evaluation of all the student’s work based on an established set of criteria. One grade, once. This is an example of reducing summative grading.
In sum, retakes make sense when teachers are constantly summatively assessing, such as in an SBG system, but this is not a practice that we are looking for if the goals are reducing summative grading and exploring formative grading alternatives.
References
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Assessment theory for college classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(100), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.165
Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.210
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on Second Language Learning of Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586751
Crooks, A. D. (1933). Marks and Marking Systems: A Digest. The Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1933.10880402
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170281
Elawar, M. C., & Corno, L. (1985). A Factorial Experiment in Teachers’ Written Feedback on Student Homework: Changing Teacher Behavior a Little Rather Than a Lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173.
Feldman, J. (2023). Grading For Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms (2nd edition). Corwin.
Ferguson, H. J. (2013). Journey into Ungrading. Counterpoints, 451, 194–209.
Frisbie, D. A., & Waltman, K. K. (1992). Developing a Personal Grading Plan. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(3), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00251.x
Guberman, D. (2021). Student Perceptions of an Online Ungraded Course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.8
Johnson, F. W. (1911). **A Study of High-School Grades. The School Review, 19(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/435677
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Kohn, A. (2011). The Case against Grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28–33.
Mandouit, L., & Hattie, J. (2023). Revisiting “The Power of Feedback” from the perspective of the learner. Learning and Instruction, 84, 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101718
McLaughlin, T. F. (1992). Effects of Written Feedback in Reading on Behaviorally Disordered Students. Journal of Educational Research – J EDUC RES, 85, 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941131
Meyer, M. (1908). The Grading of Students. Science, 28(712), 243–250.
Morris, S., & McKenzie, S. (2023). A Glimpse into Arkansas Teachers’ Grading Practices. Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/edrepub/144
Newton, J. R., Williams, M. C., & Feeney, D. M. (2020). Implementing non-traditional assessment strategies in teacher preparation: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.01.3
Page, E. B. (1958). Teacher comments and student performance: A seventy-four classroom experiment in school motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041940
Rugg, H. O. (1918). **Teachers’ Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System. The Elementary School Journal, 18(9), 701–719. https://doi.org/10.1086/454643
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Starch, D. (1913). Reliability and Distribution of Grades. Science, 38(983), 630–636.
Shepard, L. A. (2019). Classroom Assessment to Support Teaching and Learning. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843818
Stiggins, R. (1994). Student-centered classroom assessment. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Student-centered-classroom-assessment-Stiggins/d44ed1ed460c5ef89a4dda59593f49ecdeadbc0a
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Magister P. 