COLLEGE GRADES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Authors: Ekstrom Ruth B. , Villegas Ana MarÍa , Bruschi Barbara A. , Cline Frederick A. 
Published: August 2014

This study examined policies and practices related to grading at 14 colleges and universities and how they had changed between 1980 and 1990. It also examined the grading orientation and practices of over 500 faculty members in the business, chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and psychology departments of these institutions.

The study sought information to answer four questions:

What are the current institutional and/or departmental grading policies and practices?

Were there changes in these policies and practices between 1980 and 1990 and, if so, what was the nature of the changes?

What are the current grading orientation and practices of faculty who teach undergraduate courses? Have these changed over time?

Do faculty grading orientation and practices differ across departments and, if so, how?

Information was collected from 14 colleges and universities, 8 public and 6 privately controlled. Within each institution, information was collected from department chairs and faculty in each of the designated departments that was established at that institution. Usable questionnaire responses were received from 58 department chairs (68 percent response rate) and from 542 faculty members (25 percent response rate).

Institutional changes between 1980 and 1990 that may have affected grades included greater prescription of the curriculum, greater differentiation in grading systems, and increased use of student evaluations of faculty members.

While none of the department chairpersons said there were specific departmental grading policies, faculty had a very different perspective. Approximately a quarter of the faculty said their department had a policy of grading against specific standards, 14 percent of these said there was a policy that all students be given an A or B in honors courses, and 11 percent said there was a policy that attendance should be a factor in course grades. Additionally, about two‐thirds of the faculty said that, although not specific policy, their department expected them to grade students against specific standards. About half of these faculty said their department expected them to grade students relative to the overall performance of the class.

Only about a third of the department chairpersons reported having formal meetings to discuss grading, but informal meetings about grading were reported by 75 percent. Fifty‐six percent of the responding faculty said their department had tried to raise standards during the decade between 1980 and 1990.

Faculty orientations toward grading could be categorized into two approaches, one viewing grades as formal and objective, the other insisting that grades cannot be reduced to a set of objective measures. There were significant differences across departments, with chemistry, mathematics, and psychology faculty more likely to subscribe to the “objective” view while English, education, and history faculty tended to favor the “nonobjective” view. Faculty in business appeared to have diverse attitudes toward grading and could not be easily categorized into either group.

Forty‐three percent of the responding faculty said their grading philosophy had changed since they began to teach. Faculty believed that the meaning of a grade varies more across disciplines than across institutions and that the major reason why grades today are higher than they were 20 years ago is because faculty now expect less of students.

When asked about the purpose of grades, responding faculty saw the primary purposes as providing feedback to students, providing information about students to graduate or professional schools, motivating students to do good work, and helping the college or university make decisions about students.

Faculty were asked if they ever used each of three grading approaches. Eighty‐one percent said they sometimes used a criterion‐referenced approach, 57 percent a norm‐referenced approach, and 44 percent a self‐referenced approach. When asked which one they used most often, 64 percent named the criterion‐referenced approach, 29 percent the norm‐referenced approach, and 8 percent the self‐referenced approach.

When asked about the importance they gave to various components of grades when assigning grades in introductory and advanced courses, tests and quizzes were rated as most important for introductory courses, papers and written assignments for advanced courses. Other factors that took on increased importance in grading advanced courses included oral reports, creativity, class participation, group projects, and subject‐specific skills and techniques. There were many significant differences across departments in the importance assigned to different components of grades.

Responding faculty were more likely to use essay than multiple‐choice tests in their introductory courses, but again, there were significant differences by department.