Accessing Assessment: The Correspondence of Longitudinal Assessment Tools to Grades in a Writing-Intensive Course
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Researchers have long cast grades as an unreliable proxy for student learning despite their enduring use in higher education. Grounding assessment instruments in student learning outcomes (SLOs) provides an accurate and accessible means of evaluating student performance and guiding instructional practice. Using a SLO-guided pre-test/post-test assessment instrument, this study evaluated the correspondence between student learning and grades in a writing-intensive, large-lecture communication course. Learning scores were found to be significantly positively associated with final grades and scores on individual assignments. The study further explored differences in learning and grades between online and in-person course formats. Implications for assessment instrument design are discussed.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Anderson, D., Imdieke, S., & Standerford, N. S. (2011). Feedback please: Studying self in
the online classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4, 3–15.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. The
University of Chicago Press.
Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference
guide to writing across the curriculum. Parlor Press.
Boyd, J. (2010). The best of both worlds: The large lecture, writing-intensive course.
Communication Teacher, 24(4), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2010.513992
Boyd, J., & Morgan, M. (2018). A tool instead of a chore: Measuring student learning gains in
order to improve instruction. Communication Teacher, 32(3), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1372596
Campbell, C. M., & Cabrera, A. F. (2014). Making the mark: Are grades and deep learning
related?. Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9323-6
Canfield, M. L., Kivisalu, T. M., Van Der Karr, C., King, C., & Phillips, C. E. (2015). The use of
course grades in the assessment of student learning outcomes for general education. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015615921
Chametzky, B. (2014). Andragogy and engagement in online learning: Tenets and solutions.
Creative Education, 5, 813-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ ce.2014.510095
Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2015). Online graduate students’ preferences of discussion
modality: Does gender matter?. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 31-41.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn?
A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308324086
Cole, M. S., Feild, H. S., & Giles, W. F. (2003). Using recruiter assessments of applicants’
resume content to predict applicant mental ability and big five personality dimensions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00228
Cureton, L. W. (1971). The history of grading practices. Measurement in Education, 2(4), 1-8.
Dahlgren, L. O., Fejes, A., Abrandt-Dahlgren, M., & Trowald, N. (2009). Grading systems,
features of assessment and students’ approaches to learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902757260
de Kleijn, R. A., Mainhard, M. T., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2012). Master's
thesis supervision: Relations between perceptions of the supervisor–student relationship, final grade, perceived supervisor contribution to learning and student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 925-939. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.556717
Delucchi, M. (2014). Measuring student learning in social statistics: A pretest-posttest study of
knowledge gain. Teaching Sociology, 42(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X14527909
Farris, C., & Smith, R. (1992). Writing-intensive courses: Tools for curricular change. In S. H.
McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs (pp. 7186). Sage.
Good, J. M., Osborne, K., & Birchfield, K. (2012). Placing data in the hands of discipline-
specific decision makers: Campus-wide writing program assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(3), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.02.003
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Haswell, R. H. (2000). Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach.
Written Communication, 17(3), 307–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088300017003001
Imose, R., & Barber, L. K. (2015). Using undergraduate grade point average as a selection tool:
A synthesis of the literature. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 18(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000025
Jaschik, S. (2011, January 18). Academically adrift. In Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 30,
, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/academically-adrift.
Jewell, R. T., McPherson, M. A., & Tieslau, M. A. (2013). Whose fault is it? Assigning blame
for grade inflation in higher education. Applied Economics, 45(9), 1185-1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.621884
Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching
successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713
Kelly, S. (2008). What types of students' effort are rewarded with high marks?. Sociology of
Education, 81(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070808100102
Kleinman, S. B., Leidman, M. B., & Longcore, A. J. (2018). The changing landscape of grading
systems in US higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 22(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2017.1279692
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide. Routledge.
Limperos, A. M., Buckner, M. M., Kaufmann, R., & Frisby, B. N. (2015). Online teaching and
technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and clarity on perceived and actual learning. Computers & Education, 83, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.015
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2019). What constitutes the surface approach
to learning in the light of new empirical evidence?. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2183-2195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1482267
Lui, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. M. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher
education: Motivation matters. Educational Researcher, 41, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459679
Lynch, R., & Hennessy, J. (2017). Learning to earn? The role of performance grades in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1750-1763. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1124850
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online
teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001
Mata, J. R. (2021). How to Teach Online? Recommendations for the assessment of online exams
with university students in the USA in times of pandemic. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (15), 188-202. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5003
McMorran, C., Ragupathi, K., & Luo, S. (2017). Assessment and learning without grades?
Motivations and concerns with implementing gradeless learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 361-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1114584
Nicholson, L., Putwain, D., Connors, L., & Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2013). The key to successful
achievement as an undergraduate student: Confidence and realistic expectations?. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 285-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.585710
Nusche, D. (2008), "Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: a comparative
review of selected practices", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 15, OECD publishing, © OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/244257272573
Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and
methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098-1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009
Pynes, C. A. (2014). Seven arguments against extra credit. Teaching Philosophy, 37(2), 191-214.
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20144414
Rojstaczer, S., & Healy, C. (2012). Where A is ordinary: The evolution of American college and
university grading, 1940-2009. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211400707
Sadler, D. R. (2013). The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement
standards. Higher Education, 67(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9649-1
Schinske, J. & K. Tanner. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently).
CBE – Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054
Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A–F marking scheme.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.790480
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education:
A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 143(6), 565. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
Slomp, D. H. (2012). Challenges in assessing the development of writing ability: Theories,
constructs and methods. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.02.001
Spada, M. M., & Moneta, G. B. (2012). A metacognitive-motivational model of surface
approach to studying. Educational Psychology, 32(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.625610
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of
teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: On grade inflation
and other unintended consequences of student evaluations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650284
Stroebe, W. (2020). Student evaluations of teaching encourages poor teaching and contributes to
grade inflation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 276-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1756817
Swarat, S., Oliver, P. H., Tran, L., Childers, J. G., Tiwari, B., & Babcock, J. L. (2017). How
disciplinary differences shape student learning outcome assessment: A case study. AERA Open, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417690112
Tippin, G. K., Lafreniere, K. D., & Page, S. (2012). Student perception of academic grading:
Personality, academic orientation, and effort. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411429187
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching
effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Ascd.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2019). What has been assessed in writing and how? Empirical evidence
from assessing writing (2000–2018). Assessing Writing, 42, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100421