When asked about their grades, students often respond, “I don’t know!”—not out of dishonesty, but due to a lack of clarity in grading. When you ask teachers what their biggest grading challenge is, they are likely to reply, “not enough time” or “I have so much to grade!”
Too often, grades are seen as final judgments rather than reflections of learning progress. To shift this perception, teachers must clearly define learning outcomes and guide students through their learning progressions.
With this clarity, teachers can select effective assessments that accurately reflect student understanding and task rigor. Collaborative development of high-quality, rigorous tasks aligned with success criteria is essential. By sharing mastery criteria upfront, teachers help students understand expectations, evaluate their progress, and make informed decisions about next steps.
To develop visible learners and improve grading practices, schools should focus on four core actions:
- Teacher collaboration to ensure consistency in expectations and assessments
- Clarity of scoring to make grading transparent and purposeful
- Collaborative scoring and feedback to improve accuracy and reliability
- Multiple opportunities for success through structured second chances
Clarity of Scoring
In this blog we focus on point 2, Clarity of scoring. Clarity is essential for grading to be meaningful. Guskey (2021) emphasizes that grading must start with a clear purpose, defining what, why, and how student work is evaluated. When grading criteria are transparent, students better understand expectations, reducing ambiguity and increasing engagement with learning targets.
Clear scoring enhances feedback, allowing students to recognize strengths, address challenges, and connect their work to learning objectives. It also helps teachers plan instruction, differentiate learning, and communicate progress effectively with parents and administrators. Without clarity, students struggle to take ownership of their learning, and grades lose their value as a tool for growth.
A Model for Clarity in Grading
Fendick (1990) and Titsworth et al. (2015) define teacher clarity as four key components: organization, explanation, examples with guided practice, and assessment of student learning. To fully embrace this model, we introduce Clarity of Scoring—a framework that ensures grading aligns with mastery learning.
Our Clarity of Grading Scoring Guide (CGSG) helps teachers and PLC teams design assessments that truly measure student learning. It provides a structured approach to scoring, emphasizing cognitive rigor and qualitative evaluation. Key benefits of the CGSG include:
- Strengthened teacher collaboration on grading practices
- A shift from merely collecting student work to evaluating meaningful learning evidence
- Increased collaborative scoring for greater consistency
- A focus on visible learner traits within instructional assessments
- Alignment of instructional actions with effective learning mindsets
- Reduction of busywork by prioritizing generative learning experiences
- Improved accuracy in weighing evidence based on cognitive rigor
- Elimination of grade averaging for fairer evaluations
- Greater alignment between classroom grades and standardized assessments
By implementing clear grading practices, we bridge the gap between students’ perceptions of learning, their engagement, and their final evaluations.
As Guskey and Brookhart (2019) stress, effective evaluation depends on clarity—without it, grading decisions become unreliable and misleading. Through clarity of scoring, we ensure that grades reflect true learning progress, fostering student motivation and deeper engagement.
How Students Learn
Learning occurs in three phases—surface, deep, and transfer—each requiring aligned instructional experiences.
- Surface learning introduces new concepts and skills, forming a foundation through practice
- Deep learning builds on this foundation, fostering insights and requiring extended engagement
- Transfer learning happens when students apply their knowledge to new contexts and reflect metacognitively
Link to Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy
As learning progresses, complexity increases. The SOLO Taxonomy Categorizes this growth:
- Unistructural – Understanding single elements
- Multi-structural – Recognizing multiple, unconnected parts
- Relational – Integrating knowledge into a cohesive whole
- Extended Abstract – Applying understanding to new situations
The Heatly School in Green Island, NY has made clarity of scoring a focus and integrated the CGSG into unit planning (Figure 1). Faculty clearly define learning objectives, their importance, and assessment criteria from the start. Students track progress through a scaffolded approach, building confidence as they achieve each level and advance toward mastery. As experiences grow in cognitive complexity, the “value” or weight of the score corresponds. The CGSG applies a weighted scoring model (WS) where teachers adapt scoring related to the task being at the surface, deep or transfer levels based on the cognitive rigor of the task with .5X, X, 1.5, 2X as general guidance.
Heatly teachers have shifted from simply “collecting grades” to offering relevant experiences aligned with success criteria. The CGSG provides a sample “weight” system to guide scoring for generative learning experiences, clarifying the grading process and enhancing student motivation. Jenny Starr, a Middle School Science Teacher and PLC Activator, shares the impact on her students: “Clarity in expectations and scoring is vital. I’ve seen a significant boost in student engagement since implementing the grading guide. Students no longer ask if assignments will be graded or what we’re doing in class. They clearly understand the learning intentions and success criteria displayed in the classroom, making the content relevant to their lives. Learning is scaffolded from surface-level tasks to deeper exploration and, ultimately, to knowledge transfer. Starting with clarity ensures students can engage meaningfully in discussions about what learning looks like and how they can measure their progress. The CGSG allows me to grade less while providing more valuable feedback and enriching student experiences. Clarity in learning makes the process visible, while clarity in scoring empowers students to self-assess their progress. These elements are interconnected; you can’t have one without the other.”
Figure 1
UNIT: Thermal Energy Transfer
Standard(s) MS-PS3-4: Plan an investigation to determine the relationships among the energy transferred, the type of matter, the mass, and the change in temperature of the sample when heating or cooling.
Learning Intention (What): I am learning to investigate how energy transfer relates to material type, mass, and temperature changes.
Rationale (Why): Understanding energy transfer informs choices for insulation and temperature regulation, enhancing problem-solving skills vital for science and engineering.
Success Criteria (How):
- I can explain the relationship between energy transfer, material type, mass, and temperature changes.
- I can create a testable question and plan an investigation on these relationships.
- I can collect and analyze data to determine patterns in energy transfer and temperature change.
- I can explain my findings using scientific reasoning and apply them to real-world examples.
In our new book Grading Visible Learners: Learning with Fluidity Not Finality (Corwin, 2025) we describe the CGSG. This instrument incorporates elements of this framework to help teachers align instruction with students’ learning stage and to allow more honest and efficacious feedback in the form of the student’s grade related to a progression of tasks that increase in cognitive complexity.
References
Fendick, F. (1990). The correlation between teacher clarity of communication and student achieve- ment gain: A meta-analysis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Guskey, T. R., & Brookhart, S. M. (Eds.). (2019). What we know about grading: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s next? Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Titsworth, S., Mazer, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Myers, S. A. (2015). Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learn- ing. Communication Education, 64(4), 385–418. http://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-state .edu/docview/1773220800?accountid=11789
