An Education Leadership Program‘s Continuous Improvement Journey Toward a Standards-Based System

Authors

  • Randy Peters
  • Trent Grundmeyer
  • Tom Mark Buckmiller

Keywords:

Standards-based grading (SBG), higher education, education leadership

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to evaluate the
perceptions of graduate students enrolled in an education leadership
program that used standards-based grading (SBG), about their
perceptions of the effectiveness of SBG and their inclination to use it
later in their own classrooms. Data and conclusions from this study will
help the authors refine the ways they are using SBG in their courses and
programmatically. Results indicated that SBG facilitated ownership of
learning and deep levels of thinking and engagement. Students
observed that they benefitted from the ongoing and substantive
formative feedback, which they report is often neglected, even in their
professional evaluation processes. Further, they reported the ability to
better track their progress toward standards. In spite of these benefits,
students were mixed in their predictions as to whether they would
ultimately incorporate SBG in their own classrooms. As such, the
authors have committed to a more comprehensive transition to a
standards-based learning, assessment, and grading model in their
educational leadership program. They have expanded their inquiry of
SBG‘s effects, and have advanced discussion about its appropriateness
in other areas of the university. Ultimately, they encourage others in
higher education to become more conversant in SBG principles and to
conduct classes in a manner consistent with preparing educators for
standards-based environments.

References

Beatty, I. (2013). Standards-based grading in introductory university physics Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1-22.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Guskey, T. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9).

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice†in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4).

O’Connor, K. (1999). The Mindful School: How to Grade for Learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.

Olsen, L. (1995). Cards on the table. Education Week, 15(41), 23–28.

xxxx, x. and xxxx, x. (2014). Our grades were broken: Overcoming the

barriers to implementing standards-based grading. Journal of Educational

Leadership in Action. 2(2).

Reeves, D. (2004). Making standards work: How to implement standards-

based assessments in the classroom, school and district. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Manen, M. (2003). Tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy. Left Coast Press.

Yin, R. (2003). K.(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.

Downloads

Published

2016-07-30

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)