Separate Product, Process, and Progress Criteria¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 mixed) · 3 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q3 · 2 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Rather than collapsing achievement, effort, behavior, and growth into a single grade, this strategy grades each criterion separately: product (what students know and can do against standards), process (learning behaviors such as practice quality, revision, and collaboration), and progress (improvement over time). Each criterion is reported separately with its own rubric, so the achievement grade remains a clear signal of mastery while behaviors and growth are still acknowledged and incentivized.

Design Implications¶

Blending non-achievement factors into achievement grades distorts the grade's meaning as a communication of learning, and grading practices such as averaging early failures with later mastery reduce the validity of grades as measures of achievement Grades that mix behavior with achievement lose validity as indicators of learning. [~M]. Separating the criteria preserves the motivational value of recognizing effort and growth without contaminating the mastery signal, and supports Assessment for Learning by making each grade actionable — students know what to improve academically versus how to improve their learning behaviors.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Separate, detailed rubrics for each criterion, with descriptors students can understand (Rubrics)
• A reporting structure (gradebook categories, report card fields, or two-grade systems) that keeps criteria visibly distinct
• Clear communication with students and families about what each grade means
• Evidence collection for process and progress: practice records, revision artifacts, baseline and later work samples (Assessment)

Constraints¶

• Significantly more grading and record-keeping effort than a single blended grade; teachers without protected planning time often revert to blending [-W]
• Process and progress criteria are more subjective and prone to bias (e.g., grading "effort" differently across students) unless anchored in observable behaviors and artifact evidence [~M]
• Progress grades can disadvantage students who start strong and plateau, or advantage low baselines, if improvement is measured naively rather than against grade-level expectations [~M]
• In systems that permit only one reported grade, separation requires institutional change and may create confusion if families expect a single number [-W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Two-grade model (e.g., academic grade + citizenship/work-habits grade), common in standards-based grading systems
• Three-category gradebook with weighted but separate product/process/progress categories
• Report-card separation: one transcript grade (product) with narrative or indicator-scale reporting for process and progress
• Progress can be measured against the student's own baseline or against grade-level mastery trajectories; the latter is more defensible for equity

Target Learners¶

• Struggling students and those with low initial performance, who benefit when early low scores do not permanently depress their achievement grade Grades that average early failure with later mastery underrepresent final learning. [+M]
• High-achievers who plateau, for whom a progress grade removes pressure to inflate growth artificially
• Students developing self-regulation, since separate process grades make learning behaviors an explicit object of feedback Separate process feedback supports self-regulated learning behaviors. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Mastery of content standards (product) — the primary achievement signal
• Development of learning behaviors and work habits (process): revision, practice quality, collaboration
• Growth orientation and long-term improvement (progress), supporting a mastery rather than performance orientation

Instructions¶

1. Define the product criteria: unpack standards into clear, mastery-focused rubrics and grade only evidence of achievement against them.
2. Define process criteria as observable behaviors (completing practice, using feedback, contributing to collaborative work) with their own rubric; grade them from artifacts, not impressions.
3. Define progress criteria: collect baseline work samples and compare later work against grade-level expectations, not just the baseline.
4. Set up separate gradebook categories or reporting fields so criteria are never averaged together.
5. Deliver feedback aligned to each criterion using feedback that names which criterion it addresses.
6. Assess performance periodically and communicate to students and families what each grade means and how to act on it.

Related Strategies¶

• Standards-Based Grading — the broader grading reform this strategy typically operates within; product criteria are the standards-based grade
• Revision and Resubmission — the mechanism through which progress becomes visible and gradable
• Mastery Learning — product grades aligned to mastery rather than averaging
• Clarify assessment purpose, define skill expectations with rubrics and progressions, and calibrate on student work
• Implement peer assessment in absorbable steps with clarified criteria and quality training

Related Elements¶

• Rubrics — the instrument that makes each criterion explicit and gradable
• Feedback — feedback must be tagged to the relevant criterion to be actionable
• Assessment — the evidence-gathering activity underlying all three criteria
• Check-In — a lightweight way to monitor process behaviors between graded checkpoints

Patterns That Use This Strategy¶

• Competency-Based Learning — product criteria define competency; process and progress are reported alongside rather than folded in
• Assessment for Learning — separated criteria make each grade a usable signal for next steps

Examples¶

• A middle school using standards-based report cards (e.g., many districts implementing Marzano's model) reports a 1–4 academic grade per standard plus separate 1–4 indicators for work completion and growth.
• A writing course grades the final research paper on a product rubric, grades the draft–feedback–revision cycle on a process rubric, and compares the final paper to the student's first-week writing sample for a progress rating.
• ActiveGrade and JumpRope — standards-based gradebook platforms whose category structure enforces separation between achievement and behavior indicators.

Key Sources¶

• Guskey, T. R. (2015). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Solution Tree.
• Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2016). What we know about grading: What research says and what it means for practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(2), 8–16.
• Guskey, T. R. (2004). Zero alternatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 335–340.
• Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. ASCD.
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.