Introduction
Evaluating students’ performance is, perhaps, one of the most challenging tasks in teaching practice (Stevens & Levi, 2005). Because of the differences in students’ personal progress and their progress measured according to the existing system, grading sometimes turns into a complicated dilemma. By developing an elaborate grading approach, a teacher can possibly avoid ethical issues in evaluating students’ performance and provide an adequate assessment of students’ progress (Jones, 2008).
Grading System Description
The grading system that I have developed allows for evaluating students’ performance in practically any discipline. It includes five key aspects of a student’s performance, i.e., knowledge of the material, ability to use it for a practical task, the skill of analyzing information critically, the ability to work in team and the art of time management. Thus, I am going to check not only students’ ability to memorize theory blindly, but also their skill of applying their knowledge to practice (Barches, 2010). In addition, the given approach allows for checking students’ capability of working in a team, which is an essential skill that they will need to develop later in their career (Shriemann, 2008).
While the given approach is not quite common in Kuwait, I would like to reinforce it as a means to encourage students’ need for lifelong learning (O’Connor, 2009). While in Kuwait, a more elaborate grading system is adopted (KUWAIT, n. d.), I prefer to grade students in accordance with the following scale: “Excellent” (0-3 mistakes), “Good” (4–5 mistakes), “Average” (6–9 mistakes), “Poor” (10–12 mistakes), “Unacceptable” (more than 12 mistakes) (Stufflebeam, Madaus & Kellaghan, 2000).
Problems and Dilemmas
I would like the given grading system to help the student learn what skills (s)he has to work on. However, the system in question only checks the basic skills and does not help define why certain aspects of performance were graded negatively. Therefore, I would like to introduce more rubrics into the given system. For example, in problem solving, a student may create a completely new method of solving the task, yet have no idea of the traditional one (Morris, 2008). On the one hand, I should give him/her points for creativity; on the other hand, I should withdraw the points for not knowing the theory and grade the performance as “unacceptable”. Therefore, I will have to improve the given system a notch to have a better idea of the students’ abilities.
Grading Rubrics
Conclusion
While the grading approach described above is far from being perfect, it still offers a clear and cohesive system of students’ performance evaluation. I personally prefer the given system, since it allows for being objective and making an honest observation of students’ progress (Lothringer, 2008). Though some issues may occur, the approach developed in the given paper helps face the possible problems and solve them fast.
Reference List
Barches, S. (2010). Bright and brainy: 3rd grade practice. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Jones, C. J. (2008). Curriculum-based assessment: The easy way to determine response-to-intervention. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing, Ltd.
KUWAIT (n. d.). Kuwait University. Web.
Lothringer, L. B. (2008). Evaluation of the sue of academic integrity training course as a proactive measure encouraging academic honesty. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Morris, M. (2008). Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentaries. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O’Connor, A. B. (2009). Critical instruction and evaluation: A teaching resource. Mississauga, CA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Shriemann, M. (2008). Developing science writing skills, grades 5–8. Boston, MA: Mark Twain Media – Carson Dellosa Publishing Company.
Stevens, M. J. & Levi, A. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, T., & Kellaghan, T. (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.