1 Introduction
Teacher-assigned grades are ubiquitous in everyday school life, serving as the basis for important school career decisions, such as promotion to the next grade level (Westphal et al., 2020a), school track recommendation (Klapproth and Fischer, 2019), and university admission (Zwick, 2019). In addition, grades function as feedback from the teacher to the student and can affect the student’s academic self-concept, which is relevant to their further learning behavior (Marsh et al., 2017). When teachers assign grades, they are primarily required to assess the performance of their students. However, teachers also take other factors into account when assigning grades, such as the student’s conscientiousness (Westphal et al., 2020b,2021), academic motivation, and classroom behavior (Close, 2009; Hochweber et al., 2014; Westphal et al., 2016). Report card grades are therefore typically made up of assessments of more clearly structured situations, such as written performance on tests and project or presentation assessments (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013). However, various assessments of more informal performance situations, such as contributions to class discussions and the quality and quantity of general class participation, are also frequently included (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013).
Grades for informal performance situations are sometimes summarized as “grades for oral participation,” which can be understood as an umbrella term for various forms of active, mostly spontaneous, participation in class discussion, oral exams, or school project presentations (Krüll, 2023, p. 162–163). In the German school system, in which this study was conducted, grades for oral participation are supposed to account for around 50% of the report card grade, depending on the year level and domain (Falkenberg, 2020). These grades therefore contribute significantly to a student’s overall grade and school career; nevertheless, there are few rules or specifications governing how grades for oral participation are determined (Falkenberg, 2020). Research has shown that deviations between teacher-assigned grades and standardized indicators of achievement are particularly pronounced when teachers place more emphasis on informal assessments (Martínez et al., 2009), including class participation. The fact that grades do not exclusively reflect student achievement has sparked a debate over whether they should play a significant role in centralized school career decisions and university admissions (Buckley et al., 2018; Hübner et al., 2020; Trautwein and Baeriswyl, 2007). Some also argue against grades being used as the sole basis for these decisions, as is the case with university placement in some countries, such as Germany. Less focus has been placed on the student perspective, and thus, on the question of how students perceive their grades.
In the present paper, we assessed the extent to which students perceive grades for oral participation as being an accurate indicator of their school achievement and how transparent they perceive these grades to be. We also examined differences in these perceptions across various school subjects. Given that oral skills are particularly relevant in languages (Geva, 2006; Sandlund et al., 2016), but less necessary in mathematics (Pace and Ortiz, 2015), we investigated whether students perceive grades for oral participation as more accurately reflecting their achievement in languages compared to mathematics. In addition, we investigated what it takes for students to perceive grades for oral participation as accurate indicators of their achievement; in particular, the role that perceived transparency plays in this regard. We also tested the hypothesis of whether higher-achieving students regard grades for oral participation—which are based to a lesser extent on actual achievement, and thus, on meritocratic rules—as being less appropriate indicators of their achievement.
1.1 What’s in a school grade?
The question “What’s in a grade?” (Bowers, 2011) has occupied researchers and educational policy stakeholders for many decades. Teacher education textbooks train teachers to base their grades on the achievement students show in the classroom (Brookhart, 2004; Linn and Miller, 2005). Teachers report using many different indicators when grading student achievement (Brookhart, 1993; McMillan, 2001; Randall and Engelhard, 2009). In assigning grades, teachers not only consider whether students have achieved the learning objectives set in class but also take into account their work habits and degree of effort (Brookhart, 1993; McMillan, 2001; Randall and Engelhard, 2009). According to teachers, however, the achievement that students show in class is the most important aspect of assigning grades (McMillan, 2001; Randall and Engelhard, 2009). These results on the teachers’ perspective on grading are supported by large-scale educational studies that have investigated the interplay between teacher-assigned grades and student characteristics; for example, whether students who show more effort in class are awarded higher grades than those who show less effort (Hochweber et al., 2014).
Teacher-assigned grades reflect students’ personality, motivation, and behavior in class, as well as their demographic characteristics (e.g., Boman, 2023; Hochweber et al., 2014; Krejtz and Nezlek, 2016; Spengler et al., 2013; Westphal et al., 2016, 2020b). Nevertheless, studies have shown that students’ achievement on standardized tests largely explains teacher-assigned grades (Bowers, 2011). However, the extent to which grades reflect performance on standardized tests varies from teacher to teacher and is highly dependent on the form of assessment used (Martínez et al., 2009).
Another important finding of previous empirical research is that teachers differ in how appropriately they can evaluate their students’ performance (for meta-analytical evidence see Hoge and Coladarci, 1989; Südkamp et al., 2012). Thus, the appropriateness of school grades differs across teachers (e.g., Hochweber et al., 2014; Westphal et al., 2020b). This can be partially explained by class composition. For example, due to the in-class frame of reference, students in low-performing classes receive better grades for achievement than students in average-performing classes (Dompnier et al., 2006; Marsh, 1987). This big-fish-little-pond effect (Marsh, 1987) explains why teachers may overestimate or underestimate the performance of students in their class. Teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs can also influence their assessment practices (Lam, 2019; Yan et al., 2021), the accuracy of their assessments (Herppich et al., 2010; McElvany et al., 2012), and the appropriateness of the grades they assign (Brunner et al., 2013). Teachers have divergent opinions on the appropriateness of various assessment practices (Martínez et al., 2009). As they have some leeway in assigning grades, they employ a wide variety of assessment practices and base their grade assignments on more- or less-structured written tests, assessment worksheets, or homework assignments (Martínez et al., 2009). When teachers rely more heavily on informal assessments, e.g., class participation, in assigning grades, the grades are more likely to deviate from standardized achievement indicators (Martínez et al., 2009). Such deviations have sparked vigorous debates about whether the allocation of university and apprenticeship placements, or even assignments to school tracks in multi-tiered school systems, should be based on school grades at all (Buckley et al., 2018; Hübner et al., 2020; Trautwein and Baeriswyl, 2007). However, less attention has been given to the extent to which students perceive grades for oral participation and performance as accurately reflecting their achievement.
1.2 Grades for oral participation
Active oral participation in class is graded implicitly or explicitly in many OECD countries and, in some countries, it constitutes a relevant portion of the report card grade. In a review of student assessment practices in different OECD countries, teachers disclosed that their end-of-year grades were composed of grades assigned for different achievement indicators, such as homework completion, presentations, and class participation (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013). Active participation is graded for several reasons. First, the development of oral-communicative skills, such as the ability to explain, argue, or discuss, is an important teaching goal in all subjects. In addition, teaching thrives on the active participation of students. Teachers may also want to give students the opportunity to compensate for a poor grade on a written test by earning good grades for regular oral participation, which may better reflect their actual achievement.
Martínez et al. (2009) reported that teachers in the United States view class participation as a more important factor in evaluating students than the child’s achievement compared to the rest of the class and local or state-wide standards. In line with these findings, Bainbridge Frymier and Houser (2016) pointed out that “oral participation is generally highly valued in American classrooms and is often thought to be a good indicator of students’ engagement in learning” (p. 83). In the United Kingdom, in 1990, a framework for oral assessment across different school levels was introduced into the National Curriculum for English (Department of Education and Science [DES], 1990). This framework was aimed at improving oracy, i.e., students’ speaking and listening skills (Thompson, 2006; see also Voice 21, 2022), but Thompson (2006) critically noted that teachers’ oral assessment practices seem to be based more on students’ oral participation than on the quality of their language. In Germany, grades for oral participation constitute a relevant portion of the report card grade and their weighting in final year grades is 40–60% for most subjects (Krüll, 2023). Some federal states in Germany allow their teachers to determine final grades in some subjects almost entirely based on oral participation, e.g., 100% in the case of history in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state (Langhammer, 1998). Unlike the grading of written tests and exams, however, teachers are given little guidance or direction on how to assign oral participation grades. The core curriculum for secondary education in North Rhine-Westphalia stipulates only that “grading must take into account the quality, quantity, and continuity of contributions” (Ministry for School and Education of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, 2019, p. 39). Thus, teachers can decide how to define oral participation, what criteria to use in grading it, and how to record performance (Krüll, 2023).
In empirical research, few studies have explicitly focused on grades for oral participation. A recently published interview study of N = 232 teachers from North Rhine-Westphalia showed that in grading oral participation, the teachers primarily focused on the students’ thinking, continuous performance, and technical correctness, weighting these criteria more or less equally for all students (Krüll, 2023); nevertheless, 77% of the teachers said they occasionally made exceptions to the use of these criteria. For example, in the case of high-achieving but introverted students, the teachers gave more weight to the quality of oral contributions than to their frequency. A substantial number of teachers also reported that they gave less weight to the oral participation of introverted students in determining their overall grades.
These findings are in line with criteria reported as relevant by 50 teachers in another German study by Mangold (2016). These teachers partially agreed that grades for oral participation were objective, meaning that another teacher would assign the same oral grade during the same evaluation process (Mangold, 2016). Teachers also partially agreed that grades for oral participation were reliable (meaning that repeating the assessment would yield the same oral grade) and valid (meaning that the oral grade actually reflected oral participation). In addition, teachers expressed partial agreement with the assertion that their students concur with the grades assigned for oral participation. Despite this, another teacher stated: “It is impossible to objectively and reliably evaluate oral participation” (Schöneberg, 2015, p. 1). Hence, to what extent is the teacher’s view that students agree with their oral grades, as reported by Mangold (2016), true?
1.3 Students’ perception of grades
According to Resh and Sabbagh (2016) “a sizeable portion of students seem to experience injustice in reward distribution in schools, both in grade allocations and in teacher–student relations, suggesting that schools are a meaningful source of injustice experiences for students” (p. 360). Yet, few studies have considered students’ perspectives on performance assessment, teacher judgments, or teacher-assigned grades. In a series of studies, Resh and colleagues examined whether high school students perceived their grades as just by forming the quotient of the actual grade and their “seen” grade (the grade thought they should have earned) (Jasso and Resh, 2002; Resh, 2010, 2013; Resh and Dalbert, 2007). The authors showed that most students felt “under-rewarded,” i.e., they felt they deserved better grades than they received.
In addition, few existing scales capture how students perceive performance assessments, teacher judgments, or teacher-assigned grades (Dorman and Knightley, 2006; Gerritsen-van Leeuwenkamp et al., 2018; Ibarra-Sáiz et al., 2021). The Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory (PATI) (Dorman and Knightley, 2006) has been used most frequently. It comprises subscales that measure congruency with planned learning (i.e., whether teachers’ assessments are congruent with the learning goals set in class), authenticity (i.e., whether teachers’ assessments include real-life situations), student consultation (i.e., whether students know in advance which form of assessment will be used), transparency (i.e., whether students know the requirements of different assessment methods), and diversity (i.e., whether all students have an equal chance of successfully completing the assessment). The subscales of the PATI and instruments developed by Gerritsen-van Leeuwenkamp et al. (2018) and Ibarra-Sáiz et al. (2021) refer to the practice of performance assessment by a teacher in their aggregate. They do not focus on how students perceive informal assessment practices. Overall, research on how students perceive informal assessment or grades for oral participation is particularly scarce. As a case in point, a literature search conducted for the present manuscript yielded 120 hits on the Web of Science database, of which 67 could be classified as educational research.1 However, none of these studies focused on students’ perceptions of informal classroom assessments or grades for oral participation.
In addition, grades based on informal assessment or oral participation in class may deviate more from standardized achievement indicators (Martínez et al., 2009). As a result, meritocratic rules are less strictly applied, which students—especially those with higher overall achievement—may perceive as being less fair (Baniasadi et al., 2023). Findings from Israel suggest that male students perceive their grades as being lower than those given to female students (Resh, 2013). In this context, the present study aimed to provide a deeper understanding of how students perceive oral participation grades and the factors that contribute to their perceptions.
1.4 The present study
Although students often orient their learning activities to what they need to accomplish in a course (Biggs et al., 2023; Close, 2009), very few studies have considered students’ perspectives on performance assessment, teacher judgments, or teacher-assigned grades. Therefore, the first aim of the present study was to analyze the extent to which students perceive grades for oral participation as being an accurate indicator of their achievement. Since it is particularly important in informal forms of assessment, such as grades for oral participation, that students be informed in advance which achievement-related behaviors will be assessed, we also investigated how students perceive the transparency of oral participation grades:
RQ1a: To which extent do students perceive grades for oral participation as being an accurate indicator of their achievement?
RQ1b: How do students perceive the transparency of oral participation grades?
The second aim of this study was to examine whether these perceptions differ between different school subjects:
RQ2: Do students’ perceptions differ between different school subjects?
H2: We hypothesize that students perceive grades for oral participation as being a more accurate indicator of their achievement in languages than in mathematics.
Thirdly, we investigated the factors that may affect students’ perceptions regarding the validity of oral participation grades as indicators of their achievement. Specifically, we studied how perceived transparency and student achievement were associated with the extent to which students perceived grades for oral participation as accurate indicators of their achievement. We controlled for gender, which is associated with students’ perception of grades (Resh, 2013; Vogt, 2017). It has been argued that students’ perception of grades depends on both the quality and transparency of assessment practices (Annerstedt and Larsson, 2010) and students’ achievement in class (Baniasadi et al., 2023). As such, higher-achieving students may value grades less if the assignment of grades is less dependent on overall achievement in class (Baniasadi et al., 2023).
RQ3a: Do students perceive grades as better indicator of their achievement when they perceive greater transparency in the assignment of oral participation grades?
H3a: We hypothesize that students perceive grades for oral participation as being more accurate indicators of their achievement if they see greater transparency in the assignment of grades for oral participation.
RQ3b: Do students perceive grades as better indicator of their achievement when they achieve lower overall grades?
H3b: We hypothesize that students perceive grades for oral participation as being more accurate indicators of their achievement if they achieve lower overall grades.
4 Discussion
Students receive grades almost daily in school. Teachers assign grades based on a wide range of practices, from standardized tests to informal assessments (Martínez et al., 2009), and the evaluation of active and oral participation in class plays an important role in the process of grading. In Germany, for example, teachers are required to assess only around half of their report card grades based on written performance (e.g., tests) and the other half based on oral participation. In addition, informal assessments play an important role in progressive teaching formats, which focus more on self-regulated learning and in which students pursue different learning objectives (Sliwka and Klopsch, 2022). Generally, grades are associated with numerous consequences for students, some of which are highly significant (e.g., Westphal et al., 2020a). However, little is known about how students perceive the assignment of grades. In particular, perceptions of informal assessments, such as grades for oral participation, have rarely been studied. In the present study, we addressed this research gap by measuring how students perceive grades for oral participation. We also examined variations in these perceptions between different school subjects. Moreover, this study investigated the factors that contribute to the perception of grades for oral participation as being an accurate indicator of achievement.
4.1 Do students perceive grades for oral participation as being valid indicators of their achievement?
The students in our study only partially agreed that grades for oral participation are valid indicators of their achievement. However, the perceptions that oral participation grades are a more or less valid indicator of achievement varied for different school subjects. Students perceived grades for oral participation in EFL as being a more valid indicator of achievement, while they perceived them as being a less valid indicator of achievement in mathematics. This can be explained by the fact that learning foreign languages is particularly concerned with oral skills (Geva, 2006; Sandlund et al., 2016), whereas these are also necessary in mathematics (Pace and Ortiz, 2015), but to a much lesser extent.
4.2 What contributes to students’ perceptions that grades for oral participation are a valid indicator of achievement?
When examining the factors that contribute to students’ perception that grades for oral participation are a valid indicator of their achievement, our findings showed that transparency, i.e., the perception that grades for oral participation are assigned transparently, was particularly crucial. This finding is consistent with the notion that the perception of grades and their legitimacy largely depends on the quality and transparency of assessment practices (Annerstedt and Larsson, 2010). Whereas students’ perception of grades as being a valid indicator of achievement has been framed as reflecting distributive justice (Resh and Sabbagh, 2017), students’ perception of grading transparency could be seen as reflecting procedural justice. Procedural justice—defined as “evaluations regarding the justness of the processes (or means) by which these resources are distributed” (Resh and Sabbagh, 2017, p. 390)—is relevant for students’ school engagement and community volunteering (see Resh and Sabbagh, 2017), although these authors operationalized it differently than we did in our study. In addition, greater distributive justice of grade allocation is linked to lower levels of academic dishonesty and violence (Resh and Sabbagh, 2017). While our findings indicate that these two aspects of justice are closely intertwined, each may be of distinctive value for transmitting civic norms that are crucial in a democratic society (Resh and Sabbagh, 2017).
In mathematics, students with lower end-of-semester grades perceived grades for oral participation as being more valid indicators of their achievement. This finding may reflect the notion that higher-achieving students value grading practices that are closely aligned with meritocratic rules (Baniasadi et al., 2023). In mathematics, grades for oral participation may diverge to a greater extent from more standardized forms of classroom assessment, which could explain our finding that higher-achieving students consider grades for oral participation as being less valid. In contrast, lower-achieving students—i.e., those who score lower on more standardized and written test formats in mathematics—may value the chance to improve their grades in mathematics by contributing to class discussions or generally participating actively in class. In German and EFL, end-of-semester grades were not associated with students’ perception that grades for oral participation are an accurate indicator of their achievement. It is possible that—in these subjects, at least—grades for oral participation that reflect the quality and quantity of general active participation in class are more closely aligned with scores based on standardized tests. Students who show better overall achievement in languages may therefore not consider grades for oral participation in these subjects as diverging from meritocratic principles.
Finally, female students perceived grades for oral participation as being less valid indicators of their achievement. This finding contradicts previous research indicating that if gender differences in perception of grades exist, it is male students who feel that grades are more unjust (Correia and Dalbert, 2007; Jasso and Resh, 2002; Resh and Dalbert, 2007). Jasso and Resh (2002) interpreted these feelings as reflecting (somewhat inconsistent) findings indicating that female students receive more favorable grades (e.g., Heyder et al., 2017; but see also Westphal et al., 2016). These studies on male students’ greater perceptions of injustice in their grades focused on overall grades and did not control for actual end-of-term grades, which may explain the differential findings of the present study. Our finding that female students perceive grades for oral participation as being a less valid indicator of their achievement than male students seems more straightforward for mathematics than for languages. In mathematics, female students have lower expectations for success (Parker et al., 2020) and may therefore feel less confident about active class participation even when they show similar levels of achievement as male students. In languages, however, female students have higher expectations for success than male students (Parker et al., 2020). In addition, previous findings indicate that extraversion—associated with greater class participation—is beneficial for female students’ overall grades in languages, but not for male students (Spinath et al., 2010). Therefore, it is surprising that female students perceived grades for oral participation as being less valid indicators of their achievement not only in mathematics but also in languages. Qualitative interviews could be informative in explaining why female students perceive grades for oral participation as less adequately representing their achievement.
4.3 Limitations and implications for future research
Our study exhibits some limitations. First, we only assessed students’ perceptions retrospectively, which may introduce a recall bias. Future studies should apply our instruments in an active school context, taking into account the shared perceptions of all students in the classroom, information about the grading practices of the teacher (e.g., frequency of giving grades for oral participation), and ideally, external ratings of the transparency of informal assessments. In addition, our findings are based on informal assessment practices that are common in the German school system. Informal assessment practices in primary school and other school systems may differ from those in higher secondary schools in Germany. Therefore, our findings are not easily generalizable to the assessment of younger students and other countries. Finally, our study does not consider the extent to which aspects of the teacher–student relationship or perceived instructional quality affect perceptions of informal assessments.
5 Conclusion and educational implications
The validity of grades has often been studied from an educational measurement perspective (Martínez et al., 2009). Based on this research, the incremental validity of grades above and beyond standardized test scoring has been a matter of controversy (Zwick, 2019). The present study sheds light on the student’s perspective on this issue. This study focused on perceptions of grades for oral participation, where teachers rely more heavily on informal assessments, the validity of which has been particularly questioned in educational measurement studies. We found that in mathematics in particular, higher-achieving students perceived grades for oral participation as being less valid indicators of their achievement. In languages, students—regardless of their level of achievement—perceived grades for oral participation as being more accurate indicators of their achievement. The transparency with which grades for oral participation are assigned is closely related to students’ perceptions of how valid they are. Our findings have important implications for questions on the distributive justice of school grades.
The predictive power of high school grades for college success is higher than that of admission tests, in part because grades do not exclusively reflect achievement (Galla et al., 2019). At the same time, this aspect raises the question of distributive justice when important decisions, such as admission to university, are based on grades assigned by teachers. To increase procedural and distributive justice, instructors should be mindful of transparency, especially when using informal assessments to assign grades, such as when assigning grades for oral participation. By increasing the transparency of their grading, for instance, by telling students in advance what aspects they factor into their grading, teachers can help students view grades for oral participation as valid indicators of their achievement. Another aspect that needs to be considered is that performance grading can reduce intrinsic motivation, as it can undermine the basic needs for autonomy, competence, and connectedness (Krijgsman et al., 2017), which, according to self-determination theory, are fundamental for intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Yet, “the motivational impact of grading is likely to depend on its functional significance” (Krijgsman et al., 2017, p. 202; Vansteenkiste et al., 2008). If students perceive grades less as information about their learning and more as a performance evaluation, this may have greater affective and motivational consequences (e.g., Ryan and Brown, 2005). As such, students may feel pressured to perform well (autonomy frustration), might feel like a failure when receiving or anticipating low grades (competence frustration), or may feel rejected when anticipating their peers’ reactions to a bad grade (relatedness frustration; Krijgsman et al., 2017). Accordingly, it may be particularly important that teachers “induce feelings of choice or freedom, feelings of connection to others, and opportunities to reach criteria (i.e., need satisfaction), while also reducing feelings of pressure to perform well, feelings of rejection by others, and feelings of failure (i.e., need frustration) in order to stimulate positive motivational and affective experiences” (Krijgsman et al., 2017). If the legal regulations in the school system and the circumstances at the individual school allow it, it may be in the best interest of learners to use alternative forms of performance feedback, such as competency grids, grading rubrics, narrative assessments, and student self-assessment techniques. These approaches could better meet basic needs according to self-determination theory and could also be beneficial in the context of civic education. If performance grading is indispensable because grades are needed, e.g., for selection and allocation decisions (Westphal, 2024), it is essential that grades are assigned transparently. This is crucial because the perception by students that grades are assigned in a fair and just manner can be conducive to students’ civic behavior (Resh and Sabbagh, 2017). Most of all, however, the transparency of the assignment of grades—in terms of perceived distributive justice—has a value of its own.