Article citationsMore >>

Bloom, B. S.,&Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educationalgoals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I, Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.

has been cited by the following article:

Article

Student Self Grading: Perception vs. Reality

1Public Health, Stockton University, Galloway, NJ, USA


American Journal of Educational Research. 2015, Vol. 3 No. 4, 450-455
DOI: 10.12691/education-3-4-10
Copyright © 2015 Science and Education Publishing

Cite this paper:
Tara L. Crowell. Student Self Grading: Perception vs. Reality. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(4):450-455. doi: 10.12691/education-3-4-10.

Correspondence to: Tara  L. Crowell, Public Health, Stockton University, Galloway, NJ, USA. Email: tara.crowell@stockton.edu

Abstract

The purpose of student self-grading is explored to discover not only students’ perception of grades but their experience with self-grading in college. Before student self-grading may be deemed a valid practice of accessing student learning, it is important for researchers to define how students perceive letter grades. Data was collected via a brief email survey from 144 undergraduate Public Health majors at a mid-size liberal arts college. Results indicate that students used three major categories in defining their perceptions of what each letter grade represent – Knowledge, Effort and Assignment, along with three minor categories – Learning, Critical Thinking and Success. Results also indicate that only about a third of participants actually engaged in self-grading in college and out of those who, do about 65% indicate that they graded themselves harder than their professors. These findings have implications for the discrepancies that may exist between professors vs. students’ perception of grade representation and ultimately the effectiveness of student self-grading in the classroom.

Keywords