Quantitative Study 1: Midterm-Final Grades
Purpose
This study compared how students, who took the same course, performed under a traditional grading structure versus a competency-based grading structure during two points during the semester: midterm grade and final grade. It attempted to compare the midterm and final pass rates under each grading system. It also compared to which degree students demonstrated competency on all of a course's student learning outcomes. Finally, it sought to elicit three separate data points: (a) how many students' final grades increased from their reported midterm grade, (b) the drop rate, and (c) "success stories", or the number of students who were failing at midterm, yet improved their grade to C- or higher to, ultimately, pass the class.
​
In the end, the purpose of the study was to determine which grading system may most likely positively impact student learning.
​
Process
Midterm and final grades were collected across several courses that used the competency-based grading structure. The courses were: one low intermediate and two low advanced conversational/speaking courses, four high intermediate grammar courses, and four high intermediate presentation/speaking courses. These courses were taught by the same instructor and used a revised version of competency-based grading, which required students to demonstrate competency on all (or possibly all minus one) course outcomes before passing the class. Midterm and final grades were then collected from the same courses that were taught using, not a competency-based grading structure, but a traditional grading structure of total points earned over total points possible or weighted categories. These courses were selected at random and were taught by mostly other instructors.
The data was then interpreted and reported on the document's "Summary" tab, below.
​​
​
Chart Key
-
T = Traditional grading structure (points and weighted categories)
-
R = Competency-based grading structure, revised version (students must demonstrate competency all outcomes before passing the class)
-
MT = Midterm
-
F = Final
-
Excl = Excluding
-
Sts = Students
​
​
Results
Although there are many variables at play, the compiled data suggests the following:
Courses taught with a competency-based grading structure, compared to a traditional grading structure...
-
Have 21% less students passing at midterm (62% average compared to 83%)
-
Have 12% less students who pass the course (74% average compared to 86%)
-
Have 26% more students whose grades increase from midterm to final (56% average compared to 30%)
-
Have 15% more "success stories", or students who are failing at midterm, yet pass the class (18% average compared to 3%)
-
Have an equal number of students who drop the class (10% average compared to 10%)
-
Produce students who have demonstrated competency in 91.5%-99.9% of the student learning outcomes (compared to: data unknown)
​
Conclusions
While it is not desirable to see a lower percentage of students who do not ultimately pass a class, it is plausible that students who complete a course that uses competency-based grading may have a higher likelhood of being successful in subsequent coursework, since they are competent in all, or all minus one, of the course defined student learning outcomes. Competency-based grading seems to be a classic example of, if one tightens up assessment requirements, then less students, but perhaps more capable students, continue to the subsequent course.
​
The question Are students more capable? leads us to the origins of the next study involving how students across both grading systems perform in their subsequent course.