Paul Swanson, Lauren Fagel, Joseph Senese, and John Gorleski are members of the Action Research Laboratory (ARL) at Highland Park High School (HPHS) near Chicago, Illinois. This project provides a good example of a team approach to collaborative action research and the kinds of analysis and interpretations that can flow from various data sources.

Setting

The scene is a common one for teachers: papers are returned to students who immediately search for the grade, sigh, take out calculators, tabulate quarter grades and then compare grades with their neighbors! The students often ignore rich teacher comments and constructive feedback on the papers Instead they focus on the all important grade.

This study was conducted at Highland Park High School, one of two large, public high schools in Township District 113. Our student population consists of 1509 students with an ethnic makeup of 3% Asian, 2% African-American, 13% Hispanic, and 82% Caucasian. 92% of the student body is college-bound, and the parent community strongly encourages high student achievement. Many students enroll in Advanced Placement (AP) classes, strive to become members of the Highland Park Honor Society, and compete to become senior class valedictorian or salutatorian. We, a team of the Action Research Laboratory made up of an English teacher, a health teacher, and a history teacher, were concerned about the immense amount of pressure put on students to receive good grades. We questioned the number system teachers use to assign grades, and we wondered whether grades actually represent what students learn. We discussed the role of the teacher as assessor, questioning whether we act as true evaluators of student work or simply as sorters of students. We lamented the all-encompassing role grades play in the HPHS academic environment. We decided to conduct research in this area, investigating how a de-emphasis of grades could, in turn, emphasize learning in the classroom. The research questions were as follows:

1. How does an elimination of number and letter grades throughout the year (with the exception of quarter and semester grades) impact student attitudes toward learning and student stress levels.

2. How does an elimination of number and letter grades throughout the year (with the exception of quarter and semester grades) impact our teaching styles, use of assessments, and choice of curriculum materials?

3. How does an extensive use of student self-assessment impact student growth, improvement, and achievement over the course of a school year?

4. How does de-emphasizing grades allow us to enrich our teaching?

 We began the year by informing students of our involvement in the ARL and presenting a rationale for de-emphasizing grades and emphasizing learning. We were still required to assign a grade at the end of each quarter, and students were curious about how their final grade would be determined. We explained how the system would work and followed-up by asking students to write what they thought they would like about the system, what they thought they would not like, and what they did not understand. A letter was also sent home to parents explaining the system and encouraging them to contact us with any questions, concerns or comments.

Approximately once a month we met as a team for an entire day of reflection, discussion, brainstorming, and future planning. We quickly found out that certain aspects of our system were working, while others needed refining, and still others needed to be eliminated or replaced. We returned all student work without a number or letter grade. Instead, we used several different types of markings to indicate to students how well they performed on a particular assessment. On homework assignments, including journal entries, we wrote comments and then assigned a check-(minus), check, or check+ (plus). On long-term projects, we either assessed different aspects of the final product on a scale of 1 to 5 and wrote one or two sentences to the student, or we did not use any scale and instead wrote extensive comments. On tests and quizzes we marked objective items wrong when appropriate, assigned a check-(minus), check, or check+ (plus) to short answer and other types of subjective questions, and wrote general comments throughout the test or quiz. Most students were able to tell how well they performed on a particular assessment and only a very few students persisted by asking us how our comments would translate into a letter grade. In these cases, we found that students were less argumentative than our students had been in the previous years (prior to deemphasizing grades). This year we found ourselves more open to criticism about the way test questions were written and exams formatted because students seemed to be more genuine in their questioning. They were not arguing for points because there were no points! This process helped to create community in the classroom, with all of us aiming for the same goal: learning.

Self-Assessment

After some modification during the first semester, we adopted a self-assessment worksheet that encouraged students to reflect periodically on their progress periodically throughout the year. The worksheet included the following headings: Content Mastery, Skill Mastery, Completion of Work, and In-Class Activity. Finally, by the end of the school year we were using an end of quarter evaluation sheet that listed the student's mid-quarter grade range, the marks they received on specific homework assignments completed since the previous student-teacher conference, and a general comment for each major test, quiz, and project they had completed since mid-quarter.
Another important part of this project was that students accepted responsibility for their grades and created the criteria that would be used to assess the quality of work. The following criteria are an example of what evolved from involving students in the decision-making process:

A Criteria
Participates actively in class
Shows a great deal of effort
Does all homework
Does well on tests
Is on time for class
Shows respect and works well with others
Is always prepared

B Criteria
Shows good participation
Misses no more than 1-2 assignments
Has 1-2 tardies
Shows good knowledge of material
Has no unauthorized absences
Shows some effort
Demonstrates respect for others

C Criteria
Demonstrates some knowledge of material and passes all tests
Work is frequently late or not turned in
Rarely participates in class
Shows little effort
Has several tardies
Has unauthorized absences
Is frequently not prepared

D Criteria
Doesn't show knowledge of material and performs poorly on tests
Has large number of assignments not turned in
Shows no effort or participation
Shows little respect for others
Has several unauthorized absences
Is disruptive in class
Is often tardy

By using this rubric, students had a guideline they could use as a reference to accurately assess their performance. The onus on defending a grade now became the students' responsibility and not the teachers'. If students could justify their self-evaluation grade, based on the criteria we had agreed to, that was the grade they received. As a result of this ownership, there were few complaints from students regarding their grades.

Student-Teacher Conferences

Students at first appeared to have a difficult time assigning and defending their grades during student-teacher conferences. For many years students had been conditioned to accept the grades given to them by a teacher without question. They had rarely been asked to participate actively in assigning their own grade. The most valuable part of these conferences was the opportunity to speak with each student and to get a sense of how he/she was feeling about the class in general. Often the discussion of grade came at the end of the conference, and was the shortest part of the conversation as we tried to balance our expectations with those of individual students.

Data

The data collected from surveys, observations, and interviews with students suggest that the majority of them were either happy with the grading system or neutral about it. A majority of students indicated that the alternative grading system did affect their academic preparation and performance in class (in a positive way), and that they had a more positive attitude towards the class.

Grades

As we reflected on grade distributions comparing this year to the previous year there appeared to be a significant increase in the number of students whose grades fell in the A/A- range (55% this year compared to 27% last year). There is no way of knowing exactly what accounted for the increase of A's and A-'s, however, we believe that the fact that students were more involved in deciding their own grade, as well as the less objective nature of the way grades were assigned (that is, not entirely based on the percentages scored on tests) had something to do with the outcomes. We believe that the increased focus on personal learning, growth and improvement that evolved from deemphasizing grades made it less likely for students to fail and more likely for students to accept, and to provide evidence for their learning.

The end-of-year survey revealed that 71% of students agreed with the following statement: I feel that the grading practices used in this course helped me to focus more on my learning than on my grade. Another 74% agreed that they would recommend that this teacher continue using these grading practices because they help students learn better. We believe that these kinds of statements are indicative of student support for our grading practices and for an environment where the pressure to earn compete for grades is reduced. Students made supporting comments such as:

"I felt I could concentrate on education."
"It helped me concentrate on improving myself."
"It helps you focus more on information and less on what the teacher wants."
"It relieved a lot of stress and I was able to work at my ability without the competition of grades."
"In comparison to the traditional grading system, this system is the most effective way of assessing my level of performance."
"This method helps me perform best because it's personal to my needs."

It was very reassuring to us to see the pride that students showed and the importance they placed on giving accurate self-evaluation grades. The following two comments illustrate the integrity that the majority of students approached this responsibility with:

"I knew I had to be honest with myself."
"Integrity defines you and if you die tomorrow, people won't remember your grades or your statistics, they remember how true and real you were with yourself."

In addition, phone interviews conducted over two years with parents of students in these classes, 87% of the parents felt that these classes were better than or equal to courses their children had taken in the same subjects. 63% of the surveyed parents recommended that these teachers continue in these innovative practices.

We learned a tremendous amount through this action research, but like any research we were left with more questions than answers. For example:

1. Is the total elimination of letter and number grades (with the exception of quarter and semester grades) the best way to go about de-emphasizing grades?

2. Is there a way to de-emphasize grades that requires less paperwork on the teacher's part? (After all, one of the things we learned through the implementation of this method is that grades are expedient and convenient for a harried teacher!)

3. What is an appropriate roles for students to play in determining their own grades?

4. How can grades be de-emphasized while at the same time maintaining very specific criteria/outcomes for students?

By far the most rewarding part of working on an action research team was the opportunity to learn and grow with a small group of teacher colleagues. This experience of mutual commitment provided a wonderful staff development experience; by working with these colleagues on a consistent basis throughout the year, we were able to explore new ideas and take risks in the classroom with a type of safety net in place. For that reason as well as our desire to explore the new questions and challenges raised by our research, we will continue to conduct action research about the effectiveness of our teaching and grading practices.

Giving up grading practices and beliefs that we have held for years can be a frightening proposition. It is never easy to relinquish some of our control to others. Perhaps our first action research steps need to be baby steps. This action research project freed us from the grading merry-go-round and provided a new way to address assessment issues. By taking these steps we were able to devote less time to pencil-pushing and calculator-crunching and to spend more time doing our most important job: helping our students reach their full potential as we strive to reach our full potential as teachers.

This vignette from the Action Research Laboratory is included in Chapter 5 of Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher by Geoffrey E. Mills (Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2000).

 To read more about the work of this ARL Team, check out this website:

Chicago Sun-Times, December 7, 1998, page 3 This article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. Although it does not mention the Action Research Laboratory, the article describes the work of some of the ARL teachers at Highland Park High School.