The Trouble With The Curve: An Argument For The Abolishment Of Norm-Referenced Evaluation

Gregory Raymond*
*University of Windsor, Ontario.
Periodicity:January - March'2013
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.3.1.2144

Abstract

The norm-referenced evaluation system has been used to grade students, from elementary through to post-secondary, for decades. However, the system itself is inherently flawed. Looking at the history of the norm-referenced system and its most famous tool, the Bell Curve, and taking examples from the author’s own teaching experience, this paper examines the erroneous logic that makes the system, as a whole, invalid for grading at any level, particular for college or university. The paper goes on to propose alternatives to the norm-referenced system. Examining first a self-referenced system, and ultimately finding it, too, lacking, the paper turns to criterion-referenced evaluation. Criterion-referenced evaluation is shown to be not only the best choice for evaluation at a post-secondary level, but also proves to be the only viably fair system available to teachers in today’s, grade-emphasised education system.

Keywords

Evaluation, Norm-Referenced, Self-Referenced, Criterion-Referenced, Bell Curve Grading, English Composition

How to Cite this Article?

Raymond, G. (2013). The Trouble with the Curve: An Argument For The Abolishment Of Norm-Referenced Evaluation. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 3(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.3.1.2144

References

[1]. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, England:McGraw-Hill, 2003.
[2]. Fendler, L., & Muzaffar, I. (2008). The history of the bell curve: Sorting and the idea of normal. Educational Theory, 58(1), 63-82.
[3]. Fenwick, T., & Parsons, J. (2000). The art of evaluation: A handbook for educators and trainers. Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing.
[4]. Grading Policy – Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences. (2001). University of Windsor. Retrieved from h t t p : / / w e b 4 . Uwindsor.ca/units/fass/fassTop.nsf/831fc2c71873e462852 56d6e006c367a/828d04255c1494d08525778b00515d1 8/$FILE/GRADING%20POLICY.pdf
[5]. Policy F2: Provision of meaningful feedback to students on their in-course performance prior to the voluntary withdrawal deadline. (2004). University of Windsor. Retrieved from http: //web4.Uwindsor.Ca/units/ senate/main.nsf/SubCategoryFlyOut/2C5F23B2BDB061 FE8 525791100568767
[6]. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[7]. Potter, M. K. & Baker, N. (2011). A primer on authentic assessment. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor, Center for Teaching and Learning.
[8]. Sadler, R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation for academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 807-826.
[9]. Tobin, L. (1993). Writing relationships: What really happens in the composition class. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.