Chapter 2              Review of Related Literature and Present System Analysis       In any research endeavors, an analys...
works to provide parallel assessment between the established, current, and introducedsystems.2.1.1. The K-12 Grading Progr...
In the new rating scheme, letter A reflects will reflect as the highest grade, letter P asthe second highest, and letter B...
2.1.2. Subject Rubrics         The term rubric derives from the Latin rubrica, or “red”, and relates to red prints used to...
2.1.3. Academic Grading in the Philippines         The Philippines has varied educational grading standards adapted by lea...
Elementary School is expected to adapt to the new practice with the introduction of the     computerized grading school in...
68          3          3           3           5-6       6-7       8-9      8-10      8-10      9-11      9-11       12-15...
2.1.4. The Grading Process       Grades in the realm of education are standardized measurements of varying levels ofcompre...
2.1.5. Scholarly WorksAn A is not an A is not an A: A History of Grading by Mark W. Durm(1)      “Is that information goin...
Finkelstein wrote this in 1913! Can we better answer these questions today? Is our grading      system still uncalibrated?...
The Comprehensive Information Management for Schools G/T (CIMS® G/T)          This system is package system developed by t...
The SGS application exchanges information with the Student Management System. Thefollowing figure shows how the SGS applic...
    Maintain and report honor roll information        Maintain and report transcript information        Print standard ...
2.2.   Literature on Present Grading System of San Isidro Elementary School       San Isidro Elementary School has been im...
the case in Grades 1-4. Conversely, Grades 5-7 have shared subject courses in each advisoryclass section for the computati...
grades that need to be attended. The final grades of the students are produced in Form 137report card.Figure 2.3 Official ...
For example, a student scores 7 out of 10 score items in Quiz 1, 10 out of 15 points inQuiz 2, and 16 out of 20 points in ...
four periodical grades are then processed to compute for each rubric’s arithmetic mean orperiodical average grade. These p...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Two-Scheme Grading Management and Student Profiling System

6,090

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
6,090
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
103
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Two-Scheme Grading Management and Student Profiling System"

  1. 1. Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature and Present System Analysis In any research endeavors, an analysis is made to ensure the itinerary of the programand the quality of the design to be employed. Without proper analysis of the system, someimportant details about the research might be discounted from study and problems to be metalong the way might be overlooked. Analysis includes reviewing literatures and scholarly worksrelated to this research parallel to the features of the introduced system and presenting anoverview of the processes and documents concerning the existing system utilized by the school.This chapter hereby contains comparative literatures associated with this paper and thenecessary elements such as diagrams representing data flow processes observed on thepresent manual grading system.2.1. Literature Review of Related Papers The related and previous studies presented on this paper would give the readers andfuture researchers an idea of the presented system of the proponents. Through this chapter,the readers can acquaint themselves with the insights contained in the study of this project.The proponents selected and reviewed these studies and previous works to providebackground information to the readers. Some comparisons have been made with the previous 20
  2. 2. works to provide parallel assessment between the established, current, and introducedsystems.2.1.1. The K-12 Grading Program The Department of Education launched a new basic education program which includedtwo additional compulsory years to the curriculum and the encouragement of Kindergartenenrolment to pre-elementary children. The curriculum also includes a new learning assessmentscale which replaces the traditional numerical value in report cards for elementary and highschool students. This grading scheme summarizes academic and co-curricular performance intoletter-based scales equivalent to the standard percentage shares of grades. Effective this school year, DepEd said parents and students will no longer see numbersin report cards of students from Grades 1 to 10. Based on DepEd Order No. 31, S. 2012, or the“Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC)Effective School Year 2012-2013”, public schools were ordered to implement the K to 12 BEC,particularly on Grades 1 to 7 which will be most affected by the new curriculum, and challengedschools “to implement the guidelines in creative and innovative ways for the curriculum can belocalized without compromising the philosophy of total learner development.” “The new grading system seeks to measure the students’ level of proficiency at the endof each quarter”, Education Secretary Armin Luistro said. “The assessment process is holisticand aims to ensure the quality of student learning with emphasis on formation anddevelopment”, he added. 21
  3. 3. In the new rating scheme, letter A reflects will reflect as the highest grade, letter P asthe second highest, and letter B as the lowest. Equivalence scores were assigned to each lettergrades corresponding to its numeric counterpart, where grade A has a 90 percent and aboverating equivalent, grade P for scores 85 to 89 percent rating, grade AP for scores 80 to 84percent rating, grade D for scores 75 to 79 percent rating, and grade B for numerical values of74 percent and below rating. At the end of the quarter, performance of students shall be described in report cardsbased on the level of proficiency. Rating A (Advanced) are given to students who “exceeds thecore requirements in terms of knowledge, skills, and understandings and can transfer themautomatically and flexible through authentic performance tasks.” Rating P (Proficient) reflectsthose who exhibit “developed fundamental knowledge and skills and core understandings andcan transfer them independently through authentic performance tasks.” Rating AP(Approaching Proficiency) means that students have “developed the fundamental knowledgeand skills and core understandings and with little guidance from teachers and/or with someassistance from peers, can transfer these understandings through authentic performancetasks.” Rating D (Developing) suggests those who “possess the minimum knowledge and skillsand core understandings but needs the help throughout the performance of authentic tasks”while those given with B (Beginning) means that the student “struggles with his/herunderstanding; prerequisite and fundamental knowledge and/or skills have not been acquiredor developed adequately to aid understanding.” 22
  4. 4. 2.1.2. Subject Rubrics The term rubric derives from the Latin rubrica, or “red”, and relates to red prints used todirect or redirect readers’ attention to text of special importance. Today’s grading rubric isessentially a set of scoring guidelines enumerating the percentage shares of performanceindicators in a particular subject course. Performance indicators are the categories in a subjectthat measures the students’ progress in certain areas of learning and proficiency and includesquizzes, periodical examinations, homework, projects, and other performance scales. A goodsubject rubric identifies the criteria by which work will be judged and to what area of learningthe teacher should attend to and also describes the difference between excellent and weakerperformance of student learning. The table below enumerates the rubric for Grades 1 to 6 in San Isidro Elementary Schooland reflects the breakdown of percentage shares to each areas of learning. Measure of Achievement English Filipino Science Math HEKASI E.P.P. Music Arts P.E. Periodical Test 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Quizzes 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Class 20% 20% 20% 25% 30% 15% 15% Interaction/Recitation Homework 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 15% 15% Projects 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 25% 10% 5% 5% Informal/Formal Themes (Literary Writing) 10% 10% 20% 10% Experiments 15% Other Performance 15% 15% 10% 15% 15% 15% 30% 20% 30% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Table 2.1 Measure of Achievement Matrix for each subject showing the corresponding rates and percentage breakdown 23
  5. 5. 2.1.3. Academic Grading in the Philippines The Philippines has varied educational grading standards adapted by learninginstitutions. Most institutions, particularly public schools, follow the percentage point system of100% - 65%, in which 100% is the highest grade and 65% is the lowest possible grade; thepassing rate for both subject and final average grades is 75%. Some satellite schools ofelementary and secondary level to public and private institutions adapt the grade point systemof 1.00 to 5.00 of most universities, where 1.00 is the highest points and 5.00 is the lowest; thisscale differs with every school, same with the passing rate. An example is provided for theconvenience of the readers. Uniiverrsiitty off Santto Tomas Grrade Poiintt Systtem Un ve s y o San o Tomas G ade Po n Sys em IIntterrnattiionall Schooll Maniilla Letttterr Grrade Systtem n e na ona Schoo Man a Le e G ade Sys em Grade Point Grade Point Letter Grade Point % Equivalence Description Equivalence Equivalence Equivalence Equivalence 1.00 96% - 100& Excellent 4.0 A 94% - 100% 1.25 94% - <95% 3.7 A- 90% - 93% Very Good 1.50 92% - <93% 3.3 B+ 87% - 89% 1.75 89% - <91% 3.0 B 83% - 86% 2.00 87% - <88% Good 2.7 B- 80% - 82% 2.25 84% - <86% 2.3 C+ 77% - 79% 2.50 82% - <83% 2.0 C 73% - 76% Fair 2.75 79% - <81% 1.7 C- 70% - 72% 3.00 75% - <78% Pass 1.3 D+ 67% - 69% 5.00 Below 75% Failure 1.0 D 63% - 66% 0.7 D- 60% - 62%Nothing follows 0.0 F Below 60%Table 2.2 Point System Scale of the University of Santo Tomas and International School Manila Since the implementation of the K-12 program of the Department of Education, anumber of schools still keep to the old percentage grading method and their report cards donot reflect the letter-oriented scheme proposed by the government agency. San Isidro 24
  6. 6. Elementary School is expected to adapt to the new practice with the introduction of the computerized grading school in their grading process. Scores were identified as raw or transmuted depending on the nature of the subject rubric. Mostly quizzes are assigned with raw scores, but there are some instances where instructors give raw scores to other areas depending on their discretion (i.e. Homework); periodical tests and other performance measurements such as projects and recitations were typically allotted with transmuted ratings. Equivalence ratings were provided to instructors for their expediency in the conversion process of raw scores for every total score item.% N=20 N=25 N=30 N=35 N=40 N=45 N=50 N=55 N=60 N=65 N=70 N=75 N=80 N=85 N=90 N=95 N=100 %95 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 9594 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 88-89 93-94 98-99 9493 19 24 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 82-83 86-87 91-92 96-97 9392 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 77 80-81 84-85 89-90 94-95 9290 17 23 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 75-77 78-79 82-83 87-88 92-93 9090 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 73-74 76-77 80-81 85-86 90-91 9089 16 22 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 71-72 74-75 78-79 83-84 88-89 8988 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 67-68 69-70 72-73 76-77 81-82 86-87 8887 15 21 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 65-66 67-68 70-71 74-75 79-80 84-85 8786 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 58-60 63-64 65-66 68-69 72-73 77-78 82-83 8685 14 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 57 61-62 63-64 66-67 70-71 75-76 80-81 8584 19 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 55-56 59-60 61-62 64-65 68-69 73-74 78-79 8483 13 18 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 53-54 57-58 59-60 62-63 66-67 70-72 76-77 8382 17 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 51-52 51-52 55-56 57-58 60-61 64-65 67-69 74-75 8281 12 16 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 49-50 49-50 53-54 55-56 58-59 61-63 64-66 71-73 8180 15 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 47-48 47-48 51-52 53-54 56-57 58-60 61-63 68-70 8079 11 14 14 19 24 29 34 39 42-44 44-46 45-46 49-50 51-52 54-55 55-57 58-60 65-67 7978 13 13 18 23 28 33 38 39-41 41-43 43-44 47-48 48-50 51-23 52-54 55-57 62-64 7877 10 12 12 17 22 26-27 32 35-37 36-38 38-40 41-42 45-46 46-47 48-50 49-51 52-54 58-61 7776 11 11 16 21 24-25 31 23-34 33-35 35-37 38-40 42-44 43-45 45-47 46-48 49-51 54-57 7675 9 10 10 15 20 22-23 29-30 29-31 30-32 33-34 35-37 39-41 40-42 52-44 45-47 46-58 50-53 7574 9 9 14 18-19 20-21 26-28 26-28 27-29 30-32 32-34 35-38 37-39 38-41 41-44 42-45 46-49 7473 8 8 8 13 16-17 18-19 23-25 23-25 24-26 27-29 29-31 31-34 33-36 34-37 37-40 38-41 41-45 7372 7 7 7 12 14-15 16-17 20-22 20-22 21-23 24-26 26-28 27-30 29-32 30-33 33-36 34-37 36-40 7271 6 6 6 11 12-13 14-15 17-19 17-19 18-20 20-23 23-25 23-26 25-28 26-29 29-32 31-33 31-35 7170 5 5 5 9-10 10-11 12-13 14-16 14-16 15-17 16-19 20-22 20-23 21-24 22-25 26-29 27-30 28-32 7069 4 4 4 7-8 8-9 10-11 11-13 11-13 12-14 12-15 16-19 16-19 17-20 18-21 21-25 22-26 23-27 69 25
  7. 7. 68 3 3 3 5-6 6-7 8-9 8-10 8-10 9-11 9-11 12-15 12-15 13-16 14-17 16-20 17-21 18-22 68 67 2 2 2 3-4 4-5 5-7 5-7 5-7 6-8 6-8 8-11 8-11 9-12 10-13 11-15 12-16 13-17 67 66 1 1 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 3-5 3-5 4-7 4-7 4-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 6-12 66 65 0 0 0 0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-5 65 Table 2.3 Transmutation Table of Raw Score Points and their Equivalent Percentage Ratings (50% cutoff) To assist the instructors in the computation of transmuted scores, the computed value for converted scores were provided for every percentage shares. For example, the transmuted rating of 92% is computed as 13.80 points under the 15% share of Projects in Mathematics subject.Transmuted TransmutedRatings (%) Computed Value Ratings (%) Computed Value 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 100 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 77 3.85 7.70 11.55 15.40 19.25 23.10 26.95 30.80 99 4.95 9.90 14.85 19.80 24.75 29.70 34.65 39.60 76 3.80 7.60 11.40 15.20 19.00 22.80 26.60 30.40 98 4.90 9.80 14.70 19.60 24.50 29.40 34.30 39.20 75 3.75 7.50 11.25 15.00 18.75 22.50 26.25 30.00 97 4.85 9.70 14.55 19.40 24.25 29.10 33.95 38.80 74 3.70 7.40 11.10 14.80 18.50 22.20 25.90 29.60 96 4.80 9.60 14.40 19.20 24.00 28.80 33.60 38.40 73 3.65 7.30 10.95 14.60 18.25 21.90 25.55 29.20 95 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 28.50 33.25 38.00 72 3.60 7.20 10.80 14.40 18.00 21.60 25.20 28.80 94 4.70 9.40 14.10 18.80 23.50 28.20 32.90 37.60 71 3.55 7.10 10.65 14.20 17.75 21.30 24.85 28.40 93 4.65 9.30 13.95 18.60 23.25 27.90 32.55 37.20 70 3.50 7.00 10.50 14.00 17.50 21.00 24.50 28.00 92 4.60 9.20 13.80 18.40 23.00 27.60 32.20 36.80 69 3.45 6.90 10.35 13.80 17.25 20.70 24.15 27.60 91 4.55 9.10 13.65 18.20 22.75 27.30 31.85 36.40 68 3.40 6.80 10.20 13.60 17.00 20.40 23.80 27.20 90 4.60 9.00 13.50 18.00 22.50 27.00 31.50 36.00 67 3.35 6.70 10.05 13.40 16.75 20.10 23.45 26.80 89 4.45 8.90 13.35 17.80 22.25 26.70 31.15 35.60 66 3.30 6.60 9.90 13.20 16.50 19.80 23.10 26.40 88 4.40 8.80 13.20 17.60 22.00 26.40 30.80 35.20 65 3.25 6.50 9.75 13.00 16.25 19.50 22.75 26.00 87 4.35 8.70 13.05 17.40 21.75 26.10 30.45 34.80 64 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 16.00 19.20 22.40 25.60 86 4.30 8.60 12.90 17.20 21.50 25.80 30.10 34.40 63 3.15 6.30 9.45 12.60 15.75 18.90 22.05 25.20 85 4.25 8.50 12.75 17.00 21.25 25.50 29.75 34.00 62 3.10 6.20 9.30 12.40 15.50 18.60 21.70 24.80 84 4.20 8.40 12.60 16.80 21.00 25.20 29.40 33.60 61 3.05 6.10 9.15 12.20 15.25 18.30 21.35 24.40 83 4.15 8.30 12.45 16.60 20.75 24.90 29.05 33.20 60 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 82 4.10 8.20 12.30 16.40 20.50 24.60 28.70 32.80 59 2.95 5.90 8.85 11.80 14.75 17.70 20.65 23.60 81 4.05 8.10 12.15 16.20 20.25 24.30 28.35 32.40 58 2.90 5.80 8.70 11.60 14.50 17.40 20.30 23.20 80 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 57 2.85 5.70 8.55 11.40 14.25 17.10 19.95 22.80 79 3.95 7.90 11.85 15.80 19.75 23.70 24.65 31.60 56 2.80 5.60 8.40 11.20 14.00 16.80 19.60 22.40 78 3.90 7.80 11.70 15.60 19.50 23.40 27.30 31.20 55 2.75 5.50 8.25 11.00 13.75 16.50 19.25 22.00 Table 2.4 Computations Table of computed % share values for transmuted scores 26
  8. 8. 2.1.4. The Grading Process Grades in the realm of education are standardized measurements of varying levels ofcomprehension within a subject area. Grades can be assigned in letters (i.e., A, B, C, D, or E, orF), as a range (i.e., 5.0 – 1.0), as a number out of a possible total (i.e., a score of 20 out 100), asdescriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement), in percentages, or as iscommon in some post-secondary institutions in some countries, as a Grade Point Average.Grading Point Average (GPA) is calculated by taking the number of grade points a studentearned in a given period of time divided by the total number of credits taken. The GPA can beused by potential employers or further post-secondary institutions to assess and compareapplicants. A Cumulative Grade Point Average is a calculation of the average of all of a studentsgrades for all semesters and courses completed up to a given academic term, whereas the GPAmay only refer to one term.History of Grading Keith Hoskin argues that the concept of grading students work quantitatively wasdeveloped by a tutor named William Farish and first implemented by the University ofCambridge in 1792. Hoskins assertion has been questioned by Christopher Stray, who finds theevidence for Farish as the inventor of the numerical mark to be unpersuasive. Strays articleelucidates the complex relationship between the mode of examination (testing), in this caseoral or written, and the varying philosophies of education these modes imply, both to teacherand student. As a technology, grading both shapes and reflects many fundamental areas ofeducational theory and practice. 27
  9. 9. 2.1.5. Scholarly WorksAn A is not an A is not an A: A History of Grading by Mark W. Durm(1) “Is that information going to be on the test?” This question is one teachers often hear from students. When instructors hear this, they should realize those particular students probably consider grades a higher priority than learning. It seems, for some, that securing a higher grade point average takes precedence over knowledge, learning career-related skills, and other aspects needed to compete in today’s world. This fact, coupled with the realization that many college students will, if given a choice, opt for the “easy teacher” rather than one from whom they may learn more, should make teachers reexamine the current system of grading.(2) Measuring Progress. Why do most schools use the A, B, C, D and F marking system? What happened to E? Why divisions of grades? Why not three, four, seven, or eight for that matter? I.E. Finkelstein (1913), concerned with these questions, offered the following: When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very great stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument…. What faults appear in the marking systems that we are now using, and how can these be avoided or minimized?” 28
  10. 10. Finkelstein wrote this in 1913! Can we better answer these questions today? Is our grading system still uncalibrated? Finkelstein further wrote: . . . [V]ariability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to the students… Nor may anyone seek refuge in the assertion that the marks of the students are of little real importance. The evidence is clear that marks constitute a very real and very strong inducement to work, that they are accepted as real and fairly exact measurements of ability or of performance. Moreover, they not infrequently are determiners of the student’s career. In addition, there was apparently no standard process for the selection of the valedictorian. Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale in the late 18th century, had an interesting valedictory oration in his diary concerning the valedictory oration in Latin for July of 1871. The valedictorian was elected by the class. Stiles wrote: “The Seniors presented me their Election of Gridly for Valedictory Orator, whom I approved…” (Stiles, 1901).(3) Yale Beginnings. The history of grading in American colleges was eloquently detailed by Mary Lovett Smallwood (1935). She related that marking, or grading, to differentiate students was first used at Yale. The scale was made up of descriptive adjectives and was included as a footnote to Stile’s 1785 diary.2.1.6. Related Computerized Systems Two systems were derived from established computer-generated information systemsand are included in this paper to provide comparisons with this project’s grading software. 29
  11. 11. The Comprehensive Information Management for Schools G/T (CIMS® G/T) This system is package system developed by the National Computer Systems, Inc. in1997 to help manage and control student information in school districts and administrate datapertinent to student achievement performance and academic standing. The following is a directcitation from Student Grading System (SGS) User’s Guide Manual (*Copied without permission.No copyright infringement intended):(1) The CIMS G/T student applications provide an integrated student record system designed to meet the challenges of student administration. The flexibility of CIMS G/T applications can help you meet your information requirements. The integrated CIMS G/T student applications are:  Student Management System (SMS™)  Student Scheduling System (SCH®)  Student Attendance System (SAS™)  Student Grading System (SGS™)(2) Overview of the SGS Application The Student Grading System offers a flexible and automatic method to record student achievement. The SGS application helps you process and track specific academic achievement throughout the school year, as well as maintain permanent student transcripts, both current and post graduation. 30
  12. 12. The SGS application exchanges information with the Student Management System. Thefollowing figure shows how the SGS application works with the other CIMS G/Tapplications.Through the Student Grading System, you can perform the following tasks: Select grading system options Format worksheets to record and edit student grades Maintain student grades Format and print report cards Calculate and report grade point averages Track graduation requirements 31
  13. 13.  Maintain and report honor roll information  Maintain and report transcript information  Print standard and custom grading reportsPersonalized Grading System Software This system provides an individual and exclusive experience to users who wouldwant to know right away the status of their grades by providing a simple interface whereusers type in their grades and get instant general weighted average grade (GWA). Thesystem is developed free of charge with Open-System copyright (*needscitation/acknowledgment of developer) and is available for download athttp://www.brothersoft.com. The following is a screenshot image of this software:Figure 2.1 Screenshot of Personalized Grading System v.4.6 32
  14. 14. 2.2. Literature on Present Grading System of San Isidro Elementary School San Isidro Elementary School has been implementing their manual grades computationand recording for years. In this scheme, the advisers of different class sections first draft theirgrades computation for a particular subject course they were assigned to. They then pass thisto another fellow adviser which needs that grade to compute for the final average (weighted)of students. The floating teachers (those with no assigned class section but holds subjectload/s) in turn also submit their grades to the appropriate adviser. This cycle continues to flowfrom teachers to advisers to teachers until a final processed grade list (general average ofstudents for all subject courses) has been produced and students were ranked according to thehighest average grade earner. Grades were disseminated from teachers (subject course’sgrade) to advisers (general average of students in a class section) to students and the principal.To picture how the grades were pooled and generated, a cycle diagram is presented exhibitingthe flow of grades. The hyphenated curve arrow lines shown in Figure 2.2 indicate that grades may not berelayed to the next teacher/adviser as these grades may be restricted only to a particularadvisory class section. This means that all subject courses are handled alone by a teacher forhis/her advisory class and that the grades are generated, disseminated and are exclusive only tothat class section. Unbroken lines mean that processed grades are passed on directly to theappropriate people. Venn diagram shows the relative connection of different people; i.e.,teachers 1-3 may not be needed by adviser 1 in the computation of grades in that adviser 1solely generates grades for all subject courses for his/her specific advisory class section. Such is 33
  15. 15. the case in Grades 1-4. Conversely, Grades 5-7 have shared subject courses in each advisoryclass section for the computation of final general weighted average grade, which is why arclines are drawn to represent the flow of grades to different teachers and advisers.Figure 2.2 Cyclic Diagram of the Flow of Grades in San Isidro Elementary School2.2.1. Materials, Methods, and Processes Used in Existing Grading SystemMaterials Like every schools in the country, teachers in San Isidro Elementary use the usual ClassRecord book in recording the grades of students. They compute for the grades using standardcalculators. Corrections were made using correction fluid in case an error in recording wasmade. Standard pens were made for recording; some may prefer to use red pens to emphasize 34
  16. 16. grades that need to be attended. The final grades of the students are produced in Form 137report card.Figure 2.3 Official Class Record and Form 137 employed by San Isidro Elementary SchoolComputation of Grades Scores were computed according to their nature. Raw scores follow a differentcomputation as well as the transmuted scores. To compute the raw scores, the followingequation is complied with: 35
  17. 17. For example, a student scores 7 out of 10 score items in Quiz 1, 10 out of 15 points inQuiz 2, and 16 out of 20 points in Quiz 3. To compute his raw scores for his quizzes in Englishwhich has a 15% share in the subject rubric (percent takes a decimal form in the computation),the following calculations were made: For transmuted scores, the ratings are just multiplied to their equivalent rubricpercentage share. In cases where one subject rubric (i.e. Recitations) contains multiple scoreentries, the following formula is followed: For example, a student scores 95% in Periodical Exam in Filipino. This equals to 95%multiplied to 0.25 (percentage assumes a decimal form in computation) which results to 23.75points. If a student is rated 89% for his first recitation and gets a 91% and 88% in his succeedingrecitations in Filipino, this will be computed following the formula for multiple entries oftransmuted scores: All the points in each subject rubric are totaled to compute for the periodical grade of asubject. There are four grading periods or quarters in a school year, so the process is repeatedfour times for each subject rubric or subject category (like Quizzes, Periodical Tests, etc.). The 36
  18. 18. four periodical grades are then processed to compute for each rubric’s arithmetic mean orperiodical average grade. These periodical average grades were totaled rubric by rubric tocompute for the final subject grade. After the subject grades are computed, they will becomputed to get the final average grade of a student. 37

×