Overview
Biography
Publications
Conferences and Workshops
Links
Ask the Grade Doctor
Contact Me
Links
  

 
Ask The Grade Doctor

Full Question Detail

Return to All Questions

Question

I had a question regarding your 15 fixes. Let's take P.E. for an example. Some students, for a variety of reasons, naturally have a propensity to do better in some areas. This is evident to some degree in core courses, but in P.E. it really comes out. If we use a fixed standard for performance in those areas which is clear (e.g. the president's fitness standards, consistent with your fix number 8), how would you recommend adjusting for students who improve a drastic amount but do not meet the standard for advanced, in a world where we still are forced to assign letter grades? Should we even consider growth as a measure for grading, or should we just focus on the summative assessments of fitness testing? Thanks...

2011-02-14
Matt Slocomb
 

The
Grade
Doctor
says:

Matt, I agree with you that basically phys ed (and other performance subjects) are the
same as core courses but they do present some unique challenges. I think that the answer
to your question is that it depends how the learning goals/standards are written. In the
core courses they are almost always written in fixed terms but, for the reason you
identified, in phys ed they are sometimes fixed and sometimes relative, i.e., improvement.
So the answer to your question - "Should we even consider growth as a measure for
grading, or should we just focus on the summative assessments of fitness testing?" - is
that it depends on how the public, published standards are written. A really excellent
article on grading in phys ed that may help you was in JOPERD in August 2007 written by
Vince Melograno from Cleveland State University.

 

 

Top