The document summarizes a presentation given at the ICCTE Conference on May 24, 2012. The presentation examined current performance of graduate teacher education programs, the congruence between program exit expectations and course outcomes, and areas of concern regarding intervention and program redesign. It also discussed the relationship between performance on program exit requirements and grade point average.

1. ICCTE Conference
Catherine Wasson
Graduate Teacher Education
Belhaven University
Thursday – May 24, 2012

2. Aristotle

3.  CURRENT PERFORMANCE
 Exam & Portfolio
 CONGRUENCE
 Exitexpectations
 Course outcomes
 CONCERNS
 Intervention/Remediation
 Program redesign

4. What is the relationship
between performance on
program exit requirements
(exam & portfolio) and
program grade point average?

5. Program Effectiveness
 Teacher education programs
inadequately prepare graduates to meet
the realities of today’s standards-based,
accountability-driven classrooms . . . .
Levine, 2006
 Educating the highly skilled, creative
thinkers who can compete in the global
economy requires a change in the way
teachers are trained.
Tucker, 2011

6. CCSS implementation
 To improve teacher quality,
policymakers . . . must consider whether
teacher education programs are aligned
to these (CCSS) standards.
Perry, 2011, p. 2
 The Common Core State Standards
should influence every part of every
teacher preparation program . . . .
SMTI/TLC, 2011, p. 3

7. are current
grading practices
serving God,
serving others,
or serving self?

8. 2007-09 n = 114 r = .340 2010-11 n =81 r = .414

9. 2007-09 n =114 r = .385 2010-11 n = 81 r = .387

12.  Defined
 . . . “net” increase in grades resulting from changes to
grading practices and standards over time, independent
of other contributing factors. ASHE, 2005, p. 30
 Supported – just a few of MANY stats!!
 Only 10-20% of college students received grades lower
than B-. Farley (1995) as reported by Sooner, 2000
 1969 - 7% grade of A- or higher, 26% grade of C or less
1993 – 26% grade of A- or higher, 9%grade of C or less
Vanderslice, 2004
 NOT supported
 Most evidence is anecdotal or reported perceptions;
limited empirical evidence exists . ASHE, 2005

13.  Grade Increase
 Gross measure of the trend of college grades over
time without consideration of changes in other
related factors (p. 29).
 Data support a general upward trend.
 Grade Compression
 Inability of grades to differentiate student
performance; current empirical evidence does not
support.
 Grading Disparity
 Empirical evidence supports significant disparities
in grades among different courses and disciplines.
ASHE, 2005

14.  Place immediate self-interests over
long-term outcomes; equate good
grades to attaining high paying jobs
Martinson, 2004
 Value social learning more than
academic learning; select courses
with little reading, few
requirements, and ―easy‖
instructors and don‘t esteem courses
that promote academic learning or
professional preparation
Arum & Roksa, 2011

15.  Good grades = good evaluations =
tenure, promotion, and better pay
Germain & Scandura, 2005;
Lanning & Perkins, 1995
 ―Disengagement compact‖
I give minimal work and higher
grades; you accept limited
grading of assignments and
feedback.
Arum & Roksa, 2011; Cushman, 2003
 ―Other-directedness‖
Need for approval from students;
popularity takes precedence over
standards in grading.
Cushman, 2003

16.  Keeping the customer happy
sustains current tuition & future
contributions
Cushman, 2003
 Diversion of resources to
student services—fastest
growing employment category in
higher education
 Decline in full-time tenure track
faculty – from 78% in 1970 to
52% in 2005; adjuncts are more
cost effective
Arum & Roksa, 2011

17.  Themission of the AAUP ―is to . . . ensure
higher education‘s contribution to the
common good‖.
Cushman, 2003, p. 454
 Gradeintegrity – extent to which grade
equates to quality of performance.
Sadler, 2009
 Serving―common good‖ requires GPA‘s to
be a valid reflection of students‘ abilities
and talents.
Cushman, 2003

18.  Decision
Making
Rationale
 Graduate & Based on college
professional schools grades, employers
have difficulty in
applicants that can
distinguishing the
succeed or excel
most and least
 Employers competent
applicants with skills applicants.
and potential for Vanderslice, 2004
fulfilling job
responsibilities
Walhout1997

19.  Self-Understanding
Rationale Obscure
relationship
 Students
between grades and
progress, student learning;
improvement, and students have
potential for success difficulty correctly
 Faculty judging their own
competence.
evaluation and
Vanderslice, 2004
instructional practices
Walhout1997

20.  Ethical Considerations
 Work judged on its quality; not other
factors
 Basis of judgments known; no surprises
 Grades comparable across
 courses in program (no courses characterized as
―lenient‖ or ―tough‖)
 courses offered by institution
 institutions
Sadler, 2009

21.  Doing the Right Thing
 Resurrect and maintain high standards
Cushman, 2003
 Reclaim ―gate keeper‖ role; rightly
discriminate between the different
learning levels of students.
Lanning & Perkins, 1995; Walhout, 1997

22. Anyone who cares a
lot about something
is very critical in
making judgments
about it. Far from
the opposite of
caring, being
critical is the very
consequence of
caring.
Vanderslice, 2004, p. 25

23.  Grading disparity
 Correlated specific course grades to outcome
measures
 Grading patterns
 Compare grade distributions to faculty
perceptions of student performance
 Embedding outcomes
 Explicit performance outcomes
 Align course and exit outcomes
 Monitor and manage student progress

24. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
on College Campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cushman, T. (2003). Who best to tame grade inflation? Academic
Questions, 16(4), 48-56.
Germain, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). Grade inflation and student
individual differences as systematic bias in faculty evaluations.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 58-67.
Hu, S., Ed. (2005). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in
higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 30(6), 1-80.
Lanning, W., & Perkins, P. (1995). Grade inflation: A consideration of
additional causes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2),
163-168.
Levine, A. (2006). Taming the wild west of teacher education.
Scholastic. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/taming-
wild-west-teacher-education.
Martinson, D. L. (2004). A perhaps ―politically incorrect‖ solution to
the very real problem of grade inflation. College Teaching, 52(2),
47-51.

25. Perry, A. (2011). Teacher preparation programs: A critical vehicle to
drive student achievement. Re:VISION, 1, 1-8.
Sadler, B. R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of
academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 807-
826.
SMTI/TLC. Discussion Paper. The Common Core State Standards and
Teacher Preparation: The Role of Higher Education.
http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=3482.
Sonner, B. S. (2000). A is for ‗adjunct‘: Examining grade inflation in
higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1), 5-9.
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An
American Agenda for Educational Reform. Boston: Harvard
Education Press.
Vanderslice, R. (2004). When I was young, an A was an A: Grade
inflation in higher education. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84(4), 24-25.
Walhout, D. (1997). Grading across a career. College Teaching,
45(3), 83-91.