self grading in large classes

8/9/2019 Self Grading in Large Classes

1/7

Self-Grading in Large General Education Classes: A Case StudyAuthor(s): Brent Strong, Mark Davis and Val HawksSource: College Teaching, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 52-57Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559178 .Accessed: 27/01/2015 04:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to CollegeTeaching.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27559178?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27559178?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/7

SELF-GRADING IN LARGE

GENERAL EDUCATION

CLASSES

A CASE STUDY

Brent Strong, Mark Davis, and Val Hawks

Abstract. In a large general education class wherestudents demonstrate their personal creativity, a self

grading system was used during one semester and a

conventional teacher-evaluation system was used dur

ing the second semester. The purpose was to gaugewhether the self-grading system was appropriate. Stu

dents adapted well to the procedures used, and they

reported feeling more motivated to learn and took

more responsibility for their learning. A disadvantagewas a tendency for grade inflation to occur.

The

assessment of student learningand the awarding of accurate and

meaningful grades is a difficult task at

best. The traditional grading process,where teachers assess students' performances based on test scores, quizzes, and

so on and then award a final grade usingsome cumulative formula of these assess

ments, often leads to student-instructor

conflicts (Placier 1995). It is even more

troubling that the system may lead toinaccurate assessments as students try to

guess what the instructor wants them to

remember, rather than striving for maxi

Brent Strong is a professor, and Val Hawks is an

associate professor, both of manufacturing

engineering technology, and Mark Davis is a

graduate student, all at Brigham Young Universityin Provo, Utah.

mum learning (Becker, Geer, and Hughes

1968). In some classes, especially where

students are expected to demonstrate sig

nificant creativity, grades can become a

counterincentive to expressions of creativ

ity because students may suppress their

creativity to submit something safe that

is likely to earn a good grade but that doesnot stretch their capabilities (Kohn 1994).

The problems of the traditional gradingsystem became critically obvious in one

of our classes that emphasized the devel

opment of student creativity (Janzow andEison 1990). The class was History of

Creativity in the Arts, Science, and Tech

nology. Not only was creativity a major

subject of the class, but the developmentof student creativity was a principal

objective. We, therefore, felt that the tra

ditional grading system was inappropri

ate, and we wanted to try self-grading. A

case study of the course was conducted

over two semesters with 240 students in

the class each semester. A self-grading

system was used in the first semester,

and a traditional teacher-assessment sys

tem was used in the second semester. In

this paper, we describe the evaluations of

grading systems over the two semesters.

Overview of the Course

The emphasis of the course is on how

personal and collective creativity in thearts, sciences, and technology developed

and became driving forces for civiliza

tion. The first semester dealt with the his

tory of creativity from prehistoric timesuntil the dawn of the Renaissance, and

the second semester covered the period

from the Renaissance through the mod

ern era. The course also attempts to build

students' personal creativity. A creative

project is required of each student in the

class. The students must demonstrate

personal creativity in the project and alsomust link the project to the course mate

rial in a meaningful and creative way.

The two semesters were taught in the

same manner, with the same number of

tests, quizzes, and projects. Furthermore,

the formats of the tests, quizzes, and proj

ects were the same each semester, as

were the grading criteria used by the

instructor to evaluate the products. The

class was taught in the same room, at the

same hour, with the same instructor and

teaching assistants each semester. In

52 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 182. 182.114.143 on Tue, 27 Jan 2 015 04:04:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

short, all aspects of the class were dupli

cated as closely as possible between the

two semesters, except for the fact that the

first semester students' final grades were

determined by the individual students

using self-assessment and the second

semester students' final grades were

determined by the traditional instructor

awarded, point-based method.

An inherent assumption in the gradingsystem is that students are more capable

of self-assessment if they have access to

independent assessments of their work.

Therefore, exams, quizzes, and home

work were administered and graded bythe instructor and teaching assistants.

Characteristics of Exams

and Term Project

Although generally traditional in nature

(including essays, multiple-choice ques

tions, andmatching),

each exam also con

tained a distinct element of creativity. Stu

dents sometimes were asked to create an

example of an important historical work.In one exam, a take-home question asked

the students to create a one-act Greek play

in the style of Sophocles in which Platowas the principle character. One student

pitted Plato against Aristotle in his play,which represented the antagonistic views

that not only divided the city but also the

pantheon of the gods. On another exam, a

take-home question asked students to

write a satire about current governmental

policy in the style of Jonathon Swift. Stillanother take-home exam question asked

students to do a sketch in the Renaissance

style. The quality of the drawings of the

Renaissance style ranged from poor to

spectacular. One student clearly was able

to copy the style of Leonardo da Vinci

using his girlfriend as the model for MonaLisa. Another student, however, confessed

that she was afraid of drawing anything,but when forced to do so she found a mea

sure of self-confidence by pushing herself

beyond her comfort zone. She thanked us

for the opportunity.

The term project was even more of a

departure from the ordinary than were theexams. Students could take one of two

approaches. They could research a topic

from the time period of study and discussa person, event, or historical work by

addressing some aspect of creativity, or

they could create something relating to

the time period studied and could includea discussion of how their own personal

creativity was affected by the project.To earn a grade of A, students needed

to be creative in the presentation of their

research or personal work. They also

needed, simultaneously, to creatively tie

their work into the subject matter of the

class. Overall, this approach has beensuccessful, eliciting a myriad of interest

ing projects including original paintings,plays, video and audio presentations,

Web sites, models, music compositions,

and computer games, including one game

that was equal in complexity and graphicsto those in video arcades.

Self-Assessment Details

An effective self-assessment program

allows students to meaningfully compare

their success against that of their class

mates, encourages academichonesty,

and

yet still gives each student considerablelatitude when assigning their own grade.

In short, an effective system of self

assessment must be given a formal status

and must be used within well-defined

parameters, characteristics that we feel

our system incorporates (Cox 1994). Theself-assessment process used in this

course proceeded as follows:

1. Over the course of the semester, stu

dents were graded on all assignments

in the traditional manner. At the end ofthe semester, after the final exam but

before final grades were awarded, each

student met with one of the teachingassistants to discuss the course and his

or her grade.

2. During this meeting, the teachingassistant and the student reviewed allof the student's grades and the final

point total was determined. The teach

ing assistant then informed the studentof his or her class ranking based on the

points earned. For example, the student

may have achieved 480 points out of a

possible 530, which placed them as the

forty-seventh highest total out of 240students. This allowed students to beaware of both their relative position in

the class and the general shape of thecurve. The teaching assistants also

informed the students that they mightbe asked to meet with the professorconcerning their grades.

3. After the meeting with the teachingassistant, students were given a self

evaluation sheet to help them determinethe grade they would assign themselves

(see appendix A). Questions asked

ranged from very specific, such as,

Did I average 8-12 hours a week of

concentrated study on this course? and

How did I perform relative to others inthe class? to broader, more general

ones, such as, Am I significantly more

aware of and confident in the funda

mentals of the subject than Iwas beforeI took the class? and Could I teach or

converse intelligently with others aboutthe subject and share insights I have

gained from my studies?

4. After reviewing the questions, students

assigned themselves letter grades andreturned the self-evaluation sheet to the

teaching assistant, who then brieflydiscussed the reasoning behind the

grade with them.

5. The teaching assistant then gave the

student the opportunity tomeet with the

professor to discuss any further ques

tions, concerns, or points of interest.

Once the student left, the teachingassistant compared the self-grade to the

point-based grade based on ranking (aswould be done using a traditional curve),

and as long as the self-grade fell withinone whole letter grade of the points-basedgrade, the student-assigned grade was

given with no questions asked. However,

if a student's self-grade was more than a

full letter grade different than the pointbased grade, the student could be contact

ed and asked to meet with the professor to

discuss the grade and find out why therewas such a variance. For example, stu

dents with a point-based grade of a B

could award themselves any gradebetween a C- and an A- without question,but if students with a B- awarded them

selves an A, they could be asked to meet

with the professor to discuss why theyfelt the grade was justified.

The use of the self-evaluation sheet to

guide student reflection helped ensure

that all of the students used the same

basic criteria and standards when assess

ing themselves. This also helped providestructure and direction to the self-grading

process, making it more credible and

Vol. 52/No. 2 53



4/7

accurate. Finally, using the questions to

guide their self-assessment also ensured

that students would think about the factors that we wanted them to consider.

Some comments from students illumi

nate understanding of how the self-grading

system affects students. A common com

ment from students was that they struggled

with knowing how they actually performed in class. Because they rarely do

self-assessment, they do not quite know

how to gauge their own performance.

Some find this self-assessment dauntingand do not particularly like it.We have hadsome students who contemplate their

grade for more than fifteen minutes and

then still feel that they have not done the

job properly. Others find the process liber

ating, exhilarating, and rewarding.

At the end of the second semester (whenfinal grades were assigned based on rank

ing and points awarded in the traditional

manner), an effort was made to determine

the students' reactions to self-grading. Just

as with the first semester, students were

asked to meet with the teaching assistants

after the last day of class. During this ses

sion, students were informed of their

assigned grade, and a questionnaire was

given to the students who had been in the

class for both semesters. More than 80 percent of the students (150 total) who had

been in both semesters responded. The

questionnaire was designed to identify the

effect of self-grading on student study

habits, motivation, stress levels, and atti

tudes about the class in general by havingthem indicate varying levels of agreementor disagreement with the statements on the

questionnaire.

Outcomes

Student Motivation

A key benefit of self-assessment was

the positive effect on student motivation.

One of the questions on the comparison

survey asked whether students felt more

motivated to learn because of self-grading.Of the students who responded, 52.4 per

cent either agreed or strongly agreed that

self-grading made them more motivated to

learn, as opposed to only 11.7 percent who

disagreed with the statement (none strong

ly disagreed). The remaining 35.9 percentfelt that self-grading made no difference intheir motivation.

The results are important for several

reasons. First, student motivation is keyto student success in and attitudes regard

ing education. Both professional educa

tors and educational psychologists agreethat teachers often place too much

emphasis on extrinsic motivations such as

grades. In this situation, students are

rewarded for performance, but they donot necessarily learn (Becker, Geer, and

Hughes 1968). As Kohn suggests (1994),external motivators such as grades are

dangerous teaching tools if we want to

encourage students to engage in challeng

ing thinking and a lifelong pursuit of

learning; extrinsic motivation does not

change underlying desires. A student whois taught to perform only for externalrewards has every reason to quit perform

ing when that motivation is removed.

Intrinsic motivation is an especiallyimportant aspect for us because one of the

goals of our class is to promote students'

creativity. We want to have a learning

environment in which students feel freeto experiment with learning and be cre

ative. As professional educators, it also is

our responsibility to work with and guideour students.

Of course, we do not live in a utopiawhere students learn for the pure joy of

learning. In reality, both intrinsic and

extrinsic motivations are constantly at

work within students. The trick is not to

completely eliminate the extrinsic motiva

tion but to balance it properly with theintrinsic motivation (Lowman 1990). This

is what our self-grading system encour

ages. By grading individual assignmentsand providing students with information

regarding their performance compared to

both the standard and the curve, we create

a situation where extrinsic motivation

encourages students to work hard, do their

best, and be academically honest. Howev

er, because the nature of the creative pro

ject and the final grade ultimately are

decided by students, student creativity andthe exploration of ideas occur more freelyand without fear of failure, at least in the

ory (Forsyth and McMillan 1991).

Students'Responsibility

for Their Own Learning

In addition to improved motivation, a

second significant area in which studentsindicated improvement because of self

assessment was a greater responsibility for

their own learning. When asked to respondto the statement Because of self-grading I

felt increased responsibility for my learn

ing, 66 percent of students agreed or

strongly agreed. Only 5.8 percent felt thatit decreased responsibility, and 28.2 percent felt that there was no difference. In

response to the statement Self-grading

motivated me to want to learn more about

the subject even after the class was over,

46.6 percent agreed or strongly agreed,

44.7 percent felt that it made no difference,and only 8.7 percent disagreed. Although a

relatively high percentage of students feltthat self-grading had no influence on their

desire to learn more outside of class, near

ly half felt that it increased their desire to

learn on their own.

We believe that one of the most difficult

tasks for students who are grade-oriented

is to stop trying to guess what the teacherwants from them and to decide instead

what they want from themselves. We find

that some students continue to ask for

details about the expectations of the proj

ect and other open-ended assignments.

They become frustrated when we refuseto supply such details.

Perception of Teacher Roles

When one person judges another's

work, there are bound to be conflicts and

disagreements. The situation is made

worse because professors often are

required to play contradictory roles of

teacher, mentor, and friend to students,

while at the same time acting as gate

keepers to their disciplines. Faculty mem

bers' attitudes and opinions are actually

some of the main obstacles to decreasing

the tensions that result from grading in

student-teacher relations. Part of the

problem is that many professors are so

accustomed to the system of teacher

awarded letter grades or percentages that

they view grading as a job requirement,

rather than as one possible assessment

option (Milton, Pollio, and Eison 1986).Our survey overwhelmingly found that

students do not feel that final assessment

is a required component of a professor's

job. When asked if Because of self

grading [they] felt the instructor was not

fulfilling his duty as a teacher, 92.2 per

cent disagreed or strongly disagreed, 5.8

percent felt that self-grading made no dif

54 COLLEGE TEACHING



5/7

ference, and 1.9 percent agreed or strong

ly agreed with the statement.

Grade Inflation

In our course, 93.4 percent of students

understood that receiving a C meant that

their work was average. However, when

students that described their own work as

average were asked what grade they

expected to receive in the course, only

25.7 percent expected to receive a grade

of C; 60.3 percent expected a B, 11.9 percent expected an A, and only 1.9 percent

expected a D. Conditions in modern edu

cation have forced the average grade of Cto become a low grade, as C-range stu

dents routinely are denied entrance into

graduate programs and in some cases are

even placed on academic probation (Lan

drum 1999).

Frankly, we were worried that our self

assessment system would contribute to

the problem of grade inflation. Indeed,there was a considerably higher percent

age of A-range grades during the self

graded semester than in the traditionallygraded one. We found that 57 percent of

students scored themselves in the A rangein the self-assessment semester, and only

31 percent scored in the A range underthe traditional grading system. Therefore,

the self-grading system can be criticized

for contributing to grade inflation.

We believe that this problem may be

reduced by tightening the spreadbetween the acceptable self-assessment

grades and the strict numeric grades. (As

stated previously, we accepted without

challenge any self-assessment that was

within one full grade of the numerical

grade.) However, this tightening of the

acceptable spread has not yet been inves

tigated. Another possible reason for higher grades with student self-evaluation is

that students are learning more because

they feel more comfortable in a learning

oriented environment.

ImprovingAssessment Instrument

Effectiveness

Self-grading likely improves the effec

tiveness of the most common assessment

instruments: objective testing, essays, and

projects. With self-grading, many inherent

problems with assessment are reduced

simply because the grades that the student

receives in these assessments are less crit

ical to the final grade. The student has the

ability to integrate these assessments with

reality and therefore obtain what is per

ceived as, and what may in fact be, a bet

ter assessment of learning. Furthermore,

with self-grading, the instructor has the

ability to be openly subjective in grading,

when appropriate, without a fear of beingunfair. This is especially important in

grading essays and projects.

Projects are especially difficult to

assess because they vary widely. It is difficult to compare them accurately to one

another or to a standard. For example, in

the case-study course, History of Creativ

ity (second semester), student A mightchoose to paint an original Fauvist paint

ing, and student B might design a com

puter program illustrating where different

European nations colonized and explain

ing why they chose those places. Even

with an extremely broad grading rubric, it

would be difficult to grade these two projects comparatively or using the same

standard. Would the importance of one

subject (such as European actions in the

nineteenth century that subsequentlyaffected the history of the world in large

measure) count more in grading thananother project (an obscure, relatively

unimportant art movement limited mostlyto one decade in Paris)? Should it? Fur

thermore, would itmake a difference thatthe computer program may have required

twenty hours and the painting only twohours? Also, should it affect the grade if

the computer program on colonialism

was done by a computer science major,

and the painting was done by a studentwho had never before attempted to paint?

One solution is to be subjective in theassessment and to try to grade on the basis

of what was learned by the student,

assuming that the faculty member hassome way of judging that. To assist in this

task, we require that all projects come

with a short paper in which the student

explains the motivation for the work and

what was learned by doing the project.

Student Benefits

Our survey comparing student opinions

about self-grading versus traditional grad

ing resulted in several other interesting

insights on the benefits of self-grading inthe large classroom environment. Of the

respondents, 53.4 percent agreed thatBecause of self-grading [they] finished

the course with a better understanding of

the material, and only 8.7 percent dis

agreed. The remaining students felt that itmade no difference. Furthermore, 51.5

percent of students felt that self-gradingmade them more willing to try different

ways to learn, as opposed to only 8.7 percent who were less willing to experiment

with different learning styles. The surveyshowed that 58.3 percent agreed or

strongly agreed that self-grading made itmore enjoyable to come to class, and

only 4.9 percent found it less enjoyable to

attend class. The survey also indicated

that a significant number of students feltthat self-assessment encouraged them to

work harder on assignments and readings,

to be more open in class, and to increase

the quality and thoughtfulness of performance on assignments.

Summary and Conclusions

We recognize that the sample for this

study was small and that its size may have

had some bearing on results. Also, our

attempt was more of a case study than an

experimental design. However, a similar

outcome was observed at Brigham Young

University in another study (Hawks1996). Furthermore, we have taught the

History of Creativity class using self

grading numerous times since the study

and have confirmed the results we have

seen herein, at least on an anecdotal level.We also realize that the system of self

assessment that we developed is neither

perfect, nor is it the only possible system.However, we feel our system works well

and that self-evaluation, if properly

implemented, is an effective, fair, and

appropriate way to assess student learn

ing. The results of our case study and sur

vey indicate that self-assessment opens

doors for increased student interest, moti

vation, creativity, learning, and retention,

thus improving the possibility of havingsuccessful academic experiences.

Furthermore, the benefits gained byusing student self-grading are magnified

when it is used in high enrollment class

es. Many problems associated with large

classes are alleviated when self-grading is

used. Also, the effectiveness of assess

ments, especially essay questions and

projects, improves with self-assessment.

Vol. 52/No. 2 55



6/7

Students seem to strongly support self

grading whenever it is used in a class.

An obvious overall difficulty with the

self-grading system is a tendency toward

grade inflation. We believe that this problem might be reduced by tightening the

allowable nonchallenged spread betweenthe grade given using the student and the

grade that would have been given by thetraditional method. Another possible wayto reduce the tendency toward grade infla

tion would be adopting a method where

the student bases his or her grade on a

written set of course objectives for learn

ing that can be used as a standard against

which the final grade can be compared.The major deciding factor for whether

the faculty member can successfully

implement the self-grading program seems

to hinge on whether the faculty member is

willing to step back and let students gradethemselves. This is not easy, as faculty

members feel the responsibility of grading

deeply, and many worry that self-grading

will not represent a true grading curve.

Despite these fears, self-gradingseems to

be accepted by faculty members who have

tried it. In our own cases, we found that

grading drops in importance in our jobsand teaching becomes more of a focus. We

also find that we have more time to devote

to individual students, thus enriching our

teaching experiences.

Key words: grading, self-grading, evalua

tion

APPENDIX A. Self-Evaluation Sheet

I will need your feedback for the assignment of your grade. Take a few minutes and

review how you did in the course. The grade should be considered in two parts: (1) what

you have learned (growth), which is linked closely to how much effort you have made;and (2) the evidence of that learning (performance), which is closely linked to compe

tency.

To further assistyou,

thefollowing rating system

isgiven:

Outstanding Good Acceptable Poorone

I-1-1-1-1-1

A B C D E

The following questions may be helpful in assessing the level at which you learned from

this class and the effort you put into the class:

Could I teach or at least converse intelligently with others about the subject and share

insights I have gained from my studies?

Have my views changed or been improved, and do the changes allow me to see positive applications of the subject material?

Can I better relate information from one subject to another as a result of this class?

Have I become more creative?

Did I attend class, and was I on time?While in class did I stay attentive and understand the concepts being presented? Did I

participate in a reasonable way?Was my reading of the text, readings, notes, etc. complete?Did I search for knowledge and enlightenment beyond the text (in other books, con

versations, and research)?

Did I show my effort to learn by strong involvement in the reading and lectures (for

example, writing notes in the margins, taking notes on important items, asking questions in class, sharing insights with others about my reading, etc.)?

Did I average 8-12 hours a week of concentrated study on this class?

Grade for learning and effort:_

The second part of the evaluation has to do with the evidence of learning, which also is

very important. Evidences are most often evaluated relative to others in the class. This

type of assessment is a statistical view of how you performed. Some of the following

questions might assist you in making a fair evaluation:

How did I perform relative to others in the class?

Did my reports, tests, assignments, quizzes, reading, etc. reflect my very best work,and were they on time?

Was the paper/project a significant achievement in learning (or merely fulfillment of an

assignment)?

(Appendix A continues)



7/7

APPENDIX A. (continued)

Did I demonstrate a professional (mature) attitude by being polite and respectful to

other students, teachers, teaching assistants, etc., and do I reflect well on BYU?

Did I learn at a level that was not just recitation of facts, but rather at a deeper level of

understanding, and did I demonstrate that deeper understanding in the paper/projectand the tests?

Grade for performance:_

Please note that an A in combined grade implies that you did well in both grading areas.

Combined grade:_

Name:

Social Security Number:

Phone where you can be contacted:

REFERENCES

Becker, H.S., B. Geer, and E. C. Hughes. 1968.

Making the grade: The academic side of col

lege life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Cox, B. 1994. Practical pointers for universi

ty teachers. Philadelphia: Kogan Page Ltd.

Forsyth, D. R., and J. H. McMillan. 1991. Prac

tical proposals for motivating students. In

College teaching: From theory to practice,ed. R. J. Menges and M. D. Svinicki, 53-65.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning,no. 45. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hawks, V. 1996. Rediscovering learning: A

survey of factors that affect student learningin engineering education. Paper presentedat the IEEE/ASEE'96 Frontiers in Educa

tion Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Janzow, F.,and J. Eison. 1990. Grades: Their

influence on students and faculty. In The

changing face of college teaching, ed. M.

D. Svinicki, 93-102. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, no. 42. San Fran

cisco: Jossey Bass.

Kohn, A. 1994. The risks of rewards. ERIC

Digest (December), http://ericps.ed.uiuc.

edu/eece/pubs/digests/1994/kohn94.html.-. 1999. The costs of overemphasizing

achievement. School Administrator (Novem

ber), http://www.aasa.org/SA/nov9904.htm.

Landrum, E. R. 1999. Student expectations of

grade inflation. Journal of Research and

Development in Education 32 (2): 124-28.

Lowman, J. 1990. Promoting motivation and

learning. College Teaching 38 (4): 137-38.

McMillan, J. H., and D. R. Forsyth. 1991.

What theories of motivationsay

aboutwhy

learners learn. In College teaching: From

theory to practice, ed. R. J. Menges and M.

D. Svinicki, 39-51. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, no. 45. San Fran

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milton, O., H. R. Pollio, and J. A. Eison. 1986.

Making sense of college grades. San Fran

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pintrich, P. R., and G R. Johnson. 1990.

Assessing and improving students' learning

strategies. In The changing face of college

teaching, ?d. M. D. Svinicki, 83-91. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, no.

42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Placier, M. 1995. But I have to have an A :

Probing the culturalmeanings

and ethical

dilemmas of grades in teacher education.

Teacher Education Quarterly 22:48-59.

Vol. 52/No. 2 57

This content downloaded from 182. 182.114.143 on Tue, 27 Jan 2 015 04:04:27 AMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

self grading in large classes

Documents