International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Perceptions of Teachers Concerning the New Grading System at Secondary Level School: A Qualitative Approach

This paper presents the teachers’ perceptions of the Letter Grading System (LGS) at secondary-level schools in the Tarakeshwor Municipality of Kathmandu district. The main objective is to study teachers’ perceptions of LGS and identify how to address its foremost challenges. This research is based on phenomenological design and prefers citizen constructivism. Data is collected using decisive sampling methods and a semi-structured interview tool. The teachers’ practices with the LGS are significant, appropriate, motivated, and suitable for stimulating the Nepali education system. Similarly, undergraduates’ and their parents’ perceptions are simply ensuing generous promotion strategy with advancement to their child without difficulties. As a result, there is a mismatch between the evaluation technique’s practices and teachers’ perceptions of the LGS for tracking students’ progress. Furthermore, as discussed in this article, the LGS has assessed the student’s proficiency and rational domain using nine reformist scales based on the performance opportunity provided. Finally, an experienced teacher believes that LGS has biased, liable, productive, and merit-based assessment tools in education without incorporating non-standardised tests into the school assessment system. Currently, LGS has a far better assessment method in the school appraisal system if it is possible to integrate non-testing devices, such as project work, classroom assignments, homework, group work, practical work, etc., as an assignment.

Challenges, Evaluation Literacy, Letter Grading, Teachers’ Perception, Teachers

APA Style

Amrit Dhakal, Anup Bhurtel. (2023). Perceptions of Teachers Concerning the New Grading System at Secondary Level School: A Qualitative Approach. International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20230901.11

ACS Style

Amrit Dhakal; Anup Bhurtel. Perceptions of Teachers Concerning the New Grading System at Secondary Level School: A Qualitative Approach. Int. J. Sci. Qual. Anal. 2023, 9(1), 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20230901.11

AMA Style

Amrit Dhakal, Anup Bhurtel. Perceptions of Teachers Concerning the New Grading System at Secondary Level School: A Qualitative Approach. Int J Sci Qual Anal. 2023;9(1):1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20230901.11

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Appl. Meas. Educ., 15 (3), 309-333.
2. Elikai, F., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2010). An examination of the impact of grading policies on students’ achievement. Issues Account. Educ., 25 (4), 677-693.
3. Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: a history of the A-F marking schemes. J. Curric. Stud., 46 (2), 201-224.
4. Guskey, T. R., & Thomas, R. (2001). Perception of Teachers’ about Grading. J. Curric. Stud., 4 (7), 2.
5. CERID. (2016, February). A Narrative Report of Proceeding of the National Seminar on Letter Grading System: Implication and its Impacts in Higher Education. 2016 (22).
6. Kohn. (1999). A History of Grading. J. Curric. Stud., 3 (6).
7. Malouff, J. (2008). Bias in Grading. Coll. Teach., 56 (3), 191-192.
8. Kohn, A. (2012, January). The Case Against Grades. Educ. Leadersh. Educ., 8-16.
9. Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Feature Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently). CBE-Life Sci. Educ., 13, 159-166.
10. Wagle, M. P. (2016). New SLC grading system reflects students’ capability better. Retrieved from Kathmandupost.com.
11. Kafle, B. (2020). Teachers’ Perception of Letter Grading System and Its Challenges a Qualitative Study in Vyas Municipality of Tanahun. American Journal of Educational Research, 622-632. doi:10.12691/education-8-9-3
12. Sawyer, R. (2013). Beyond Correlations: Usefulness of High School GPA and Test Scores in Making College Admissions Decisions. 26 (2), 89-112.
13. CERID. (2002, July). School Effectiveness in Nepal: A Synthesis of Indicators.
14. Krawczyk, R. M. (2017, May). Effects of Grading on Student Learning and Alternative Assessment Strategies. 45. Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/223
15. Reddy, C. (2016). Grading System in Education: Advantages and Disadvantages. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3.
16. Isaacs, T. (2012). Assessment in Education in England. 9 (1).
17. Yesbeck, D. M. (2011). Grading practices: Teachers’ considerations of academic and non-academic factors. ProQuest Diss. Theses, 31-164.
18. Turner, J. S. (2008). The relationship between secondary school teacher perception of student motivation and the effects of teacher professional development on student motivation. 68 (10-A), 42-48.
19. Guskey, T. R., & Link, L. J. (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract., 26 (3), 303-320.
20. Guskey, T. R., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). What We Know about Grading. In The Science News-Letter (Vol. 11, p. 115).
21. Simon, M; Schusternd, A. (2004). Nora Rowley, 5th graders view of grades in Clements. 72-73.
22. Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F.,... Welsh, M. E. (2016). A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure. Rev. Educ. Res., 86 (4), 803-848. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069
23. Starch. (1913). Reliability of grading high school work in english, maths and science. J. Educ. Educ. Dev., 21 (3).
24. Starch, D. (1915). Can the variability of marks be reduced? Sch. Soc., 2, 242-243.
25. Government of Nepal. (2016). LGS Nerdeshika. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education.
26. Cox, K. B. (2011). Putting Classroom Grading on the Table: A Reform in Progress. Am. Second. Educ, 40 (1), 67-87.
27. Connor, K. O. (2009). Part 1: How to Grade for Learning Presented by. 156.
28. Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ Grading: Practice and Theory. Appl. Meas. Educ., 7 (2009), 279-301.
29. Sun, Y., & Cheng, L. (2014). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and Values assigned. 21 (3), 326-343.
30. Swan, G. M., Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2014). Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and Traditional Report Cards. 26, 289-299.
31. Guskey, T. R. (2004). Grading-5-0-Alternatives. 49-53.
32. Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making High School Grades Meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), 670-675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700910
33. McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary Teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. 20 (1), 20-32.
34. Simon, M., Tierney, R. D., Forgette-Giroux, R. C., Noonan, B., & Duncan, R. (2010). A secondary school teacher’s description of the process of determining report card grades. McGill J. Educ., 45 (3), 535-554. doi:https://doi.org/10.7202/1003576ar
35. Cigdemoglu, C., Arslan, H. O., & Akay, H. (2011). A phenomenological study of instructors’ experiences on an open source learning management system,. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 790-795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.144.
36. Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (3).
37. Boyd, C. O. (2001). Phenomenology the Method. 93-122.
38. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
39. Marriam, B. S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
40. Clarke, V. (2010). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research” (Vol. 9). (P. L. Teaching, Ed.) SAGE.
41. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House New York.
42. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. 280. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003115700
43. Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. 12 (1), 53-72.
44. Iamarino, D. (2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern grading practices. 17 (2), 1-9.
45. Munzur, Z. (2014). Reflections on the Impact of Absence of Summative Assessment on Students’ Motivation and Learning. 5 (2).
46. Davies, S., & Mehta, J. (2013, June 28). Sociology of Education: An A-to-Z Guide. (J. Ainsworth, Ed.) SAGE Publication Inc. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276151
47. Guskey, T, R. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students? 52, 14-20.
48. Khanal, J. (2015). Corporal Punishment in Nepalese Private Schools: Perception of Teachers. 3 (7), 1-9.