Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature and Present System Analysis

In any research endeavors, an analysis is made to ensure the itinerary of the program

and the quality of the design to be employed. Without proper analysis of the system, some

important details about the research might be discounted from study and problems to be met

along the way might be overlooked. Analysis includes reviewing literatures and scholarly works

related to this research parallel to the features of the introduced system and presenting an

overview of the processes and documents concerning the existing system utilized by the school.

This chapter hereby contains comparative literatures associated with this paper and the

necessary elements such as diagrams representing data flow processes observed on the

present manual grading system.

2.1. Literature Review of Related Papers

The related and previous studies presented on this paper would give the readers and

future researchers an idea of the presented system of the proponents. Through this chapter,

the readers can acquaint themselves with the insights contained in the study of this project.

The proponents selected and reviewed these studies and previous works to provide

background information to the readers. Some comparisons have been made with the previous

20

works to provide parallel assessment between the established, current, and introduced

systems.

2.1.1. The K-12 Grading Program

The Department of Education launched a new basic education program which included

two additional compulsory years to the curriculum and the encouragement of Kindergarten

enrolment to pre-elementary children. The curriculum also includes a new learning assessment

scale which replaces the traditional numerical value in report cards for elementary and high

school students. This grading scheme summarizes academic and co-curricular performance into

letter-based scales equivalent to the standard percentage shares of grades.

Effective this school year, DepEd said parents and students will no longer see numbers

in report cards of students from Grades 1 to 10. Based on DepEd Order No. 31, S. 2012, or the

“Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC)

Effective School Year 2012-2013”, public schools were ordered to implement the K to 12 BEC,

particularly on Grades 1 to 7 which will be most affected by the new curriculum, and challenged

schools “to implement the guidelines in creative and innovative ways for the curriculum can be

localized without compromising the philosophy of total learner development.”

“The new grading system seeks to measure the students’ level of proficiency at the end

of each quarter”, Education Secretary Armin Luistro said. “The assessment process is holistic

and aims to ensure the quality of student learning with emphasis on formation and

development”, he added.

21

In the new rating scheme, letter A reflects will reflect as the highest grade, letter P as

the second highest, and letter B as the lowest. Equivalence scores were assigned to each letter

grades corresponding to its numeric counterpart, where grade A has a 90 percent and above

rating equivalent, grade P for scores 85 to 89 percent rating, grade AP for scores 80 to 84

percent rating, grade D for scores 75 to 79 percent rating, and grade B for numerical values of

74 percent and below rating.

At the end of the quarter, performance of students shall be described in report cards

based on the level of proficiency. Rating A (Advanced) are given to students who “exceeds the

core requirements in terms of knowledge, skills, and understandings and can transfer them

automatically and flexible through authentic performance tasks.” Rating P (Proficient) reflects

those who exhibit “developed fundamental knowledge and skills and core understandings and

can transfer them independently through authentic performance tasks.” Rating AP

(Approaching Proficiency) means that students have “developed the fundamental knowledge

and skills and core understandings and with little guidance from teachers and/or with some

assistance from peers, can transfer these understandings through authentic performance

tasks.” Rating D (Developing) suggests those who “possess the minimum knowledge and skills

and core understandings but needs the help throughout the performance of authentic tasks”

while those given with B (Beginning) means that the student “struggles with his/her

understanding; prerequisite and fundamental knowledge and/or skills have not been acquired

or developed adequately to aid understanding.”

22

2.1.2. Subject Rubrics

The term rubric derives from the Latin rubrica, or “red”, and relates to red prints used to

direct or redirect readers’ attention to text of special importance. Today’s grading rubric is

essentially a set of scoring guidelines enumerating the percentage shares of performance

indicators in a particular subject course. Performance indicators are the categories in a subject

that measures the students’ progress in certain areas of learning and proficiency and includes

quizzes, periodical examinations, homework, projects, and other performance scales. A good

subject rubric identifies the criteria by which work will be judged and to what area of learning

the teacher should attend to and also describes the difference between excellent and weaker

performance of student learning.

The table below enumerates the rubric for Grades 1 to 6 in San Isidro Elementary School

and reflects the breakdown of percentage shares to each areas of learning.

Measure of Achievement English Filipino Science Math HEKASI E.P.P. Music Arts P.E.

Periodical Test 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Quizzes 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%Class

Interaction/Recitation20% 20% 20% 25% 30% 15% 15%

Homework 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 15% 15%

Projects 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 25% 10% 5% 5%Informal/Formal Themes

(Literary Writing) 10% 10% 20% 10%

Experiments 15%

Other Performance 15% 15% 10% 15% 15% 15% 30% 20% 30%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 2.1 Measure of Achievement Matrix for each subject showing the corresponding rates and percentage breakdown

23

2.1.3. Academic Grading in the Philippines

The Philippines has varied educational grading standards adapted by learning

institutions. Most institutions, particularly public schools, follow the percentage point system of

100% - 65%, in which 100% is the highest grade and 65% is the lowest possible grade; the

passing rate for both subject and final average grades is 75%. Some satellite schools of

elementary and secondary level to public and private institutions adapt the grade point system

of 1.00 to 5.00 of most universities, where 1.00 is the highest points and 5.00 is the lowest; this

scale differs with every school, same with the passing rate. An example is provided for the

convenience of the readers.

University of Santo Tomas Grade Point SystemUniversity of Santo Tomas Grade Point System International School Manila Letter Grade SystemInternational School Manila Letter Grade SystemGrade Point Equivalence Equivalence Description Grade Point

EquivalenceLetter Grade Point

Equivalence%

Equivalence1.00 96% - 100& Excellent 4.0 A 94% - 100%1.25 94% - <95% Very Good 3.7 A- 90% - 93%1.50 92% - <93% 3.3 B+ 87% - 89%1.75 89% - <91%

Good3.0 B 83% - 86%

2.00 87% - <88% 2.7 B- 80% - 82%2.25 84% - <86% 2.3 C+ 77% - 79%2.50 82% - <83% Fair 2.0 C 73% - 76%2.75 79% - <81% 1.7 C- 70% - 72%3.00 75% - <78% Pass 1.3 D+ 67% - 69%5.00 Below 75% Failure 1.0 D 63% - 66%

Nothing follows 0.7 D- 60% - 62%0.0 F Below 60%

Table 2.2 Point System Scale of the University of Santo Tomas and International School Manila

Since the implementation of the K-12 program of the Department of Education, a

number of schools still keep to the old percentage grading method and their report cards do

not reflect the letter-oriented scheme proposed by the government agency. San Isidro

24

Elementary School is expected to adapt to the new practice with the introduction of the

computerized grading school in their grading process.

Scores were identified as raw or transmuted depending on the nature of the subject

rubric. Mostly quizzes are assigned with raw scores, but there are some instances where

instructors give raw scores to other areas depending on their discretion ( i.e. Homework);

periodical tests and other performance measurements such as projects and recitations were

typically allotted with transmuted ratings. Equivalence ratings were provided to instructors for

their expediency in the conversion process of raw scores for every total score item.

% N=20 N=25 N=30 N=35 N=40 N=45 N=50 N=55 N=60 N=65 N=70 N=75 N=80 N=85 N=90 N=95 N=100 %95 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 9594 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 88-89 93-94 98-99 9493 19 24 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 82-83 86-87 91-92 96-97 9392 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 77 80-81 84-85 89-90 94-95 9290 17 23 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 75-77 78-79 82-83 87-88 92-93 9090 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 73-74 76-77 80-81 85-86 90-91 9089 16 22 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 71-72 74-75 78-79 83-84 88-89 8988 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 67-68 69-70 72-73 76-77 81-82 86-87 8887 15 21 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 65-66 67-68 70-71 74-75 79-80 84-85 8786 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 58-60 63-64 65-66 68-69 72-73 77-78 82-83 8685 14 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 57 61-62 63-64 66-67 70-71 75-76 80-81 8584 19 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 55-56 59-60 61-62 64-65 68-69 73-74 78-79 8483 13 18 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 53-54 57-58 59-60 62-63 66-67 70-72 76-77 8382 17 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 51-52 51-52 55-56 57-58 60-61 64-65 67-69 74-75 8281 12 16 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 49-50 49-50 53-54 55-56 58-59 61-63 64-66 71-73 8180 15 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 47-48 47-48 51-52 53-54 56-57 58-60 61-63 68-70 8079 11 14 14 19 24 29 34 39 42-44 44-46 45-46 49-50 51-52 54-55 55-57 58-60 65-67 7978 13 13 18 23 28 33 38 39-41 41-43 43-44 47-48 48-50 51-23 52-54 55-57 62-64 7877 10 12 12 17 22 26-27 32 35-37 36-38 38-40 41-42 45-46 46-47 48-50 49-51 52-54 58-61 7776 11 11 16 21 24-25 31 23-34 33-35 35-37 38-40 42-44 43-45 45-47 46-48 49-51 54-57 7675 9 10 10 15 20 22-23 29-30 29-31 30-32 33-34 35-37 39-41 40-42 52-44 45-47 46-58 50-53 7574 9 9 14 18-19 20-21 26-28 26-28 27-29 30-32 32-34 35-38 37-39 38-41 41-44 42-45 46-49 7473 8 8 8 13 16-17 18-19 23-25 23-25 24-26 27-29 29-31 31-34 33-36 34-37 37-40 38-41 41-45 7372 7 7 7 12 14-15 16-17 20-22 20-22 21-23 24-26 26-28 27-30 29-32 30-33 33-36 34-37 36-40 7271 6 6 6 11 12-13 14-15 17-19 17-19 18-20 20-23 23-25 23-26 25-28 26-29 29-32 31-33 31-35 7170 5 5 5 9-10 10-11 12-13 14-16 14-16 15-17 16-19 20-22 20-23 21-24 22-25 26-29 27-30 28-32 7069 4 4 4 7-8 8-9 10-11 11-13 11-13 12-14 12-15 16-19 16-19 17-20 18-21 21-25 22-26 23-27 69

25

68 3 3 3 5-6 6-7 8-9 8-10 8-10 9-11 9-11 12-15 12-15 13-16 14-17 16-20 17-21 18-22 6867 2 2 2 3-4 4-5 5-7 5-7 5-7 6-8 6-8 8-11 8-11 9-12 10-13 11-15 12-16 13-17 6766 1 1 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 3-5 3-5 4-7 4-7 4-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 6-12 6665 0 0 0 0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-5 65

Table 2.3 Transmutation Table of Raw Score Points and their Equivalent Percentage Ratings (50% cutoff)

To assist the instructors in the computation of transmuted scores, the computed value

for converted scores were provided for every percentage shares. For example, the transmuted

rating of 92% is computed as 13.80 points under the 15% share of Projects in Mathematics

subject.

Transmuted Ratings (%) Computed Value Transmuted

Ratings (%) Computed Value5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

100 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 77 3.85 7.70 11.55 15.40 19.25 23.10 26.95 30.80

99 4.95 9.90 14.85 19.80 24.75 29.70 34.65 39.60 76 3.80 7.60 11.40 15.20 19.00 22.80 26.60 30.40

98 4.90 9.80 14.70 19.60 24.50 29.40 34.30 39.20 75 3.75 7.50 11.25 15.00 18.75 22.50 26.25 30.00

97 4.85 9.70 14.55 19.40 24.25 29.10 33.95 38.80 74 3.70 7.40 11.10 14.80 18.50 22.20 25.90 29.60

96 4.80 9.60 14.40 19.20 24.00 28.80 33.60 38.40 73 3.65 7.30 10.95 14.60 18.25 21.90 25.55 29.20

95 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 28.50 33.25 38.00 72 3.60 7.20 10.80 14.40 18.00 21.60 25.20 28.80

94 4.70 9.40 14.10 18.80 23.50 28.20 32.90 37.60 71 3.55 7.10 10.65 14.20 17.75 21.30 24.85 28.40

93 4.65 9.30 13.95 18.60 23.25 27.90 32.55 37.20 70 3.50 7.00 10.50 14.00 17.50 21.00 24.50 28.00

92 4.60 9.20 13.80 18.40 23.00 27.60 32.20 36.80 69 3.45 6.90 10.35 13.80 17.25 20.70 24.15 27.60

91 4.55 9.10 13.65 18.20 22.75 27.30 31.85 36.40 68 3.40 6.80 10.20 13.60 17.00 20.40 23.80 27.20

90 4.60 9.00 13.50 18.00 22.50 27.00 31.50 36.00 67 3.35 6.70 10.05 13.40 16.75 20.10 23.45 26.80

89 4.45 8.90 13.35 17.80 22.25 26.70 31.15 35.60 66 3.30 6.60 9.90 13.20 16.50 19.80 23.10 26.40

88 4.40 8.80 13.20 17.60 22.00 26.40 30.80 35.20 65 3.25 6.50 9.75 13.00 16.25 19.50 22.75 26.00

87 4.35 8.70 13.05 17.40 21.75 26.10 30.45 34.80 64 3.20 6.40 9.60 12.80 16.00 19.20 22.40 25.60

86 4.30 8.60 12.90 17.20 21.50 25.80 30.10 34.40 63 3.15 6.30 9.45 12.60 15.75 18.90 22.05 25.20

85 4.25 8.50 12.75 17.00 21.25 25.50 29.75 34.00 62 3.10 6.20 9.30 12.40 15.50 18.60 21.70 24.80

84 4.20 8.40 12.60 16.80 21.00 25.20 29.40 33.60 61 3.05 6.10 9.15 12.20 15.25 18.30 21.35 24.40

83 4.15 8.30 12.45 16.60 20.75 24.90 29.05 33.20 60 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00

82 4.10 8.20 12.30 16.40 20.50 24.60 28.70 32.80 59 2.95 5.90 8.85 11.80 14.75 17.70 20.65 23.60

81 4.05 8.10 12.15 16.20 20.25 24.30 28.35 32.40 58 2.90 5.80 8.70 11.60 14.50 17.40 20.30 23.20

80 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 57 2.85 5.70 8.55 11.40 14.25 17.10 19.95 22.80

79 3.95 7.90 11.85 15.80 19.75 23.70 24.65 31.60 56 2.80 5.60 8.40 11.20 14.00 16.80 19.60 22.40

78 3.90 7.80 11.70 15.60 19.50 23.40 27.30 31.20 55 2.75 5.50 8.25 11.00 13.75 16.50 19.25 22.00

Table 2.4 Computations Table of computed % share values for transmuted scores

26

2.1.4. The Grading Process

Grades in the realm of education are standardized measurements of varying levels of

comprehension within a subject area. Grades can be assigned in letters (i.e., A, B, C, D, or E, or

F), as a range (i.e., 5.0 – 1.0), as a number out of a possible total ( i.e., a score of 20 out 100), as

descriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement), in percentages, or as is

common in some post-secondary institutions in some countries, as a Grade Point Average.

Grading Point Average (GPA) is calculated by taking the number of grade points a student

earned in a given period of time divided by the total number of credits taken. The GPA can be

used by potential employers or further post-secondary institutions to assess and compare

applicants. A Cumulative Grade Point Average is a calculation of the average of all of a student's

grades for all semesters and courses completed up to a given academic term, whereas the GPA

may only refer to one term.

History of Grading

Keith Hoskin argues that the concept of grading students' work quantitatively was

developed by a tutor named William Farish and first implemented by the University of

Cambridge in 1792. Hoskin's assertion has been questioned by Christopher Stray, who finds the

evidence for Farish as the inventor of the numerical mark to be unpersuasive. Stray's article

elucidates the complex relationship between the mode of examination (testing), in this case

oral or written, and the varying philosophies of education these modes imply, both to teacher

and student. As a technology, grading both shapes and reflects many fundamental areas of

educational theory and practice.

27

2.1.5. Scholarly Works

An A is not an A is not an A: A History of Grading by Mark W. Durm

(1) “Is that information going to be on the test?” This question is one teachers often hear from

students. When instructors hear this, they should realize those particular students probably

consider grades a higher priority than learning. It seems, for some, that securing a higher

grade point average takes precedence over knowledge, learning career-related skills, and

other aspects needed to compete in today’s world. This fact, coupled with the realization

that many college students will, if given a choice, opt for the “easy teacher” rather than one

from whom they may learn more, should make teachers reexamine the current system of

grading.

(2) Measuring Progress. Why do most schools use the A, B, C, D and F marking system? What

happened to E? Why divisions of grades? Why not three, four, seven, or eight for that

matter? I.E. Finkelstein (1913), concerned with these questions, offered the following:

When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a

system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment

of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very

great stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real

measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith

that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators

have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument…. What

faults appear in the marking systems that we are now using, and how can these

be avoided or minimized?”

28

Finkelstein wrote this in 1913! Can we better answer these questions today? Is our grading

system still uncalibrated? Finkelstein further wrote:

. . . [V]ariability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils

by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to the

students… Nor may anyone seek refuge in the assertion that the marks of the

students are of little real importance. The evidence is clear that marks constitute

a very real and very strong inducement to work, that they are accepted as real

and fairly exact measurements of ability or of performance. Moreover, they not

infrequently are determiners of the student’s career.

In addition, there was apparently no standard process for the selection of the valedictorian.

Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale in the late 18 th century, had an interesting valedictory

oration in his diary concerning the valedictory oration in Latin for July of 1871. The

valedictorian was elected by the class. Stiles wrote: “The Seniors presented me their

Election of Gridly for Valedictory Orator, whom I approved…” (Stiles, 1901).

(3) Yale Beginnings. The history of grading in American colleges was eloquently detailed by

Mary Lovett Smallwood (1935). She related that marking, or grading, to differentiate

students was first used at Yale. The scale was made up of descriptive adjectives and was

included as a footnote to Stile’s 1785 diary.

2.1.6. Related Computerized Systems

Two systems were derived from established computer-generated information systems

and are included in this paper to provide comparisons with this project’s grading software.

29

The Comprehensive Information Management for Schools G/T (CIMS® G/T)

This system is package system developed by the National Computer Systems, Inc. in

1997 to help manage and control student information in school districts and administrate data

pertinent to student achievement performance and academic standing. The following is a direct

citation from Student Grading System (SGS) User’s Guide Manual (*Copied without permission.

No copyright infringement intended):

(1) The CIMS G/T student applications provide an integrated student record system

designed to meet the challenges of student administration. The flexibility of CIMS G/T

applications can help you meet your information requirements.

The integrated CIMS G/T student applications are:

Student Management System (SMS™)

Student Scheduling System (SCH®)

Student Attendance System (SAS™)

Student Grading System (SGS™)

(2) Overview of the SGS Application

The Student Grading System offers a flexible and automatic method to record student

achievement. The SGS application helps you process and track specific academic

achievement throughout the school year, as well as maintain permanent student

transcripts, both current and post graduation.

30

The SGS application exchanges information with the Student Management System. The

following figure shows how the SGS application works with the other CIMS G/T

applications.

Through the Student Grading System, you can perform the following tasks:

Select grading system options

Format worksheets to record and edit student grades

Maintain student grades

Format and print report cards

Calculate and report grade point averages

Track graduation requirements

31

Maintain and report honor roll information

Maintain and report transcript information

Print standard and custom grading reports

Personalized Grading System Software

This system provides an individual and exclusive experience to users who would

want to know right away the status of their grades by providing a simple interface where

users type in their grades and get instant general weighted average grade (GWA). The

system is developed free of charge with Open-System copyright (*needs

citation/acknowledgment of developer) and is available for download at

http://www.brothersoft.com. The following is a screenshot image of this software:

Figure 2.1 Screenshot of Personalized Grading System v.4.6

32

2.2. Literature on Present Grading System of San Isidro Elementary School

San Isidro Elementary School has been implementing their manual grades computation

and recording for years. In this scheme, the advisers of different class sections first draft their

grades computation for a particular subject course they were assigned to. They then pass this

to another fellow adviser which needs that grade to compute for the final average (weighted)

of students. The floating teachers (those with no assigned class section but holds subject

load/s) in turn also submit their grades to the appropriate adviser. This cycle continues to flow

from teachers to advisers to teachers until a final processed grade list (general average of

students for all subject courses) has been produced and students were ranked according to the

highest average grade earner. Grades were disseminated from teachers (subject course’s

grade) to advisers (general average of students in a class section) to students and the principal.

To picture how the grades were pooled and generated, a cycle diagram is presented exhibiting

the flow of grades.

The hyphenated curve arrow lines shown in Figure 2.2 indicate that grades may not be

relayed to the next teacher/adviser as these grades may be restricted only to a particular

advisory class section. This means that all subject courses are handled alone by a teacher for

his/her advisory class and that the grades are generated, disseminated and are exclusive only to

that class section. Unbroken lines mean that processed grades are passed on directly to the

appropriate people. Venn diagram shows the relative connection of different people; i.e.,

teachers 1-3 may not be needed by adviser 1 in the computation of grades in that adviser 1

solely generates grades for all subject courses for his/her specific advisory class section. Such is

33

the case in Grades 1-4. Conversely, Grades 5-7 have shared subject courses in each advisory

class section for the computation of final general weighted average grade, which is why arc

lines are drawn to represent the flow of grades to different teachers and advisers.

Figure 2.2 Cyclic Diagram of the Flow of Grades in San Isidro Elementary School

2.2.1. Materials, Methods, and Processes Used in Existing Grading System

Materials

Like every schools in the country, teachers in San Isidro Elementary use the usual Class

Record book in recording the grades of students. They compute for the grades using standard

calculators. Corrections were made using correction fluid in case an error in recording was

made. Standard pens were made for recording; some may prefer to use red pens to emphasize

34

grades that need to be attended. The final grades of the students are produced in Form 137

report card.

Figure 2.3 Official Class Record and Form 137 employed by San Isidro Elementary School

Computation of Grades

Scores were computed according to their nature. Raw scores follow a different

computation as well as the transmuted scores. To compute the raw scores, the following

equation is complied with:

35

Scoresraw=(( Score1+Score2+Score3+…

∑ of All Score Items ) x100)x rubric% share

For example, a student scores 7 out of 10 score items in Quiz 1, 10 out of 15 points in

Quiz 2, and 16 out of 20 points in Quiz 3. To compute his raw scores for his quizzes in English

which has a 15% share in the subject rubric (percent takes a decimal form in the computation),

the following calculations were made:

Quizzesraw=(( 7+10+1510+15+20 ) x100) x0.15=11points

For transmuted scores, the ratings are just multiplied to their equivalent rubric

percentage share. In cases where one subject rubric (i.e. Recitations) contains multiple score

entries, the following formula is followed:

Scorestransmuted=( Rating1+Rating2+Rating3+…Number of Entries ) x rubric% share

For example, a student scores 95% in Periodical Exam in Filipino. This equals to 95%

multiplied to 0.25 (percentage assumes a decimal form in computation) which results to 23.75

points. If a student is rated 89% for his first recitation and gets a 91% and 88% in his succeeding

recitations in Filipino, this will be computed following the formula for multiple entries of

transmuted scores:

Recitationstransmuted=( 89+91+883 ) x0.20=17.87 points

36

All the points in each subject rubric are totaled to compute for the periodical grade of a

subject. There are four grading periods or quarters in a school year, so the process is repeated

four times for each subject rubric or subject category (like Quizzes, Periodical Tests, etc.). The

four periodical grades are then processed to compute for each rubric’s arithmetic mean or

periodical average grade. These periodical average grades were totaled rubric by rubric to

compute for the final subject grade. After the subject grades are computed, they will be

computed to get the final average grade of a student.

FinalGradeaverage=SubjectGrade1+Subject Grade2+Subject Grade3+…

Number of Subjects

37