Page 1302

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

Zero-Based Grading System and Academic Performance among

Quezon City University Students

John Benedict S. Salangsang

, Harold R. Lucero

, Gerald R. Cabrera

, John Patrict D. Mahumsar

Dexter B. Ducay

College of Computer Studies, Quezon City University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150500101

Received: 06 May 2026; Accepted: 11 May 2026; Published: 4 June 2026

ABSTRACT

The researchers analysed the student attitudes towards the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBGS) at Quezon City

University and its effect on student academic performance. A descriptive quantitative approach was selected for

the study. A total of 407 student participants completed a survey containing items regarding demographic profile,

awareness of grading policies, understanding of criteria for academic outputs, perception of fairness in

assessment, and impact on academic discipline. Data gathered revealed that the majority of participants were

third-year students, from the College of Computer Studies and College of Engineering, with GWA values being

in the range of either very good to good range, and a majority of the respondents had experienced ZBGS for one

or two semesters. The study found that the majority of the respondents were aware of the grading policies which

yielded the highest weighted mean. Moreover, the results of the analyses indicated that statistically significant

differences in ZBGS assessments occurred based on year level and GWA of the respondents but not according

to College/Department or length of time exposure in ZBGS. Furthermore, the correlation analysis revealed a

significant relationship between ZBGS assessment and academic performance, indicating that more favorable

perceptions of ZBGS were associated with better GWA. Overall, the results of this study provided evidence that

students generally accepted ZBGS as a reasonable grading practice and that more favorable perceptions of the

system were associated with better academic performance, supporting the clear and consistent implementation

of grading policies.

Keywords: academic performance, general weighted average, higher education institution, zero-based grading

system, student perception

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of students is an important component of higher education, acting both as a method of measuring

a student's academic progress and motivating a student to succeed within a given institution (Chamberlin et al.,

2023). As universities modernize their digital assessments and grading systems, creating a grading policy

becomes increasingly important in providing the level of transparency needed for high academic standards

(McCabe, 2024). In response to the need for increased student mastery, many college-level institutions have

embraced a Zero-Based Grading (ZBG) approach (Sharlene et al., 2026). Zero-Based Grading (ZBG) is an

innovative academic evaluation method that focuses solely on students’ raw scores without grade transmutation

(Smith, 2023).

Implementation of ZBG is intended to create accountability and time management within the student population,

students must perform consistently during the semester to receive favorable final grades (Sharlene et al., 2026).

The impact of ZBG on student performance is complicated, several studies report that higher performance

expectations motivate students to achieve more than they thought they could, however, others have identified

that some students are more focused on the results-oriented aspect of the ZBG and are therefore less likely to

engage in authentic fundamental learning (Muenks & Veronica Yan, 2023). Furthermore, systematic reviews

suggest that grading policies significantly shape motivational processes, especially when learning in challenging

or high-pressure contexts (Muenks & Veronica Yan, 2023). For this reason, there continues to be considerable

debate surrounding whether or not ZBG creates additional student stress and/or discouragement for students to

Page 1303

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

engage in challenging programs of study, thereby creating significant barriers to long term learning motivation

(Chamberlin et al., 2023; Muenks & Veronica Yan, 2023).

Despite these findings there remain significant gaps in the relevant studies with respect to the relationship

between student perceptions, well-being, and academic performance in the context ZBG (Sharlene et al., 2026).

Although prior studies have looked into how grading policies affect student’s academic outcomes, there is little

empirical evidence that has looked specifically at the unique setting of Quezon City University where student

coping strategies and psychological reactions to demanding grading practices have not been examined.

Additionally, much of the existing literature has alternated between treating grading as a mechanical and

objective metric and as a psychological stressor, which does not sufficiently describe how, for the average

student at a university, these perspectives relate to each other ((Chamberlin et al., 2023; Panadero & Sánchez-

Iglesias, 2025).

The primary focus of this research is to clarify how ZBG influences student academic performance and perceived

well-being at Quezon City University. This research will attempt to determine whether or not the perceived

accuracy of the ZBG will enhance learning, or produce an atmosphere that reduces students’ motivation and

performance.

In order for an effective system to be put in place at the university, this study will provide a complete and

complete analysis of the ZBG system of evaluating students and students’ perceptions of their levels of

engagement in assessing their own academic performance. The analysis will focus on the relationships between

how the students perceive their environment, measure their psychological engagement, and their actual academic

performance. The analysis will be tied directly to the student population's physical engagement in assessing their

academic performance and the university’s goal of providing quality education.

This research is significant for two reasons: (a) it provides the university administration with valuable

information to utilise and improve the university's assessment policies, and (b) it is significant to the overall field

of educational research in its contribution of localized data to grading systems. This study ultimately provides

evidence to support a university’s grading system can help promote student success and the development of

students academically (Sharlene et al., 2026)

Statement of the Problem

The objective of this study is to assess students’ perceptions of the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBGS) in

relation to their experiences as students in Quezon City University. Under ZBGS, all attempts (quizzes, tests,

projects) at fulfilling an assessment are combined to make up a grade and count from a base of 0 points. After

gathering data on how students react to this new form of assessment and their grades as a result of using it, the

investigator has identified 3 variables of interest regarding how students view their grading experience: how

accurately they perceive their grades based on actual performance, how well they demonstrate academic success,

and how the ZBGS affects them psychologically.

Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1.year level;

1.2.department; and

1.3.GWA for the last two semesters under ZBGS?

2. How do the respondents assess the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBGS) in Quezon City University in terms

of:

2.1. awareness of grading policies;

Page 1304

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

2.2. understanding of criteria for academic outputs;

2.3. perception of fairness in assessment; and

2.4. view on the system's impact on academic discipline?

3. Is there a significant difference in the respondents’ overall assessment of the Zero-Based Grading System

(ZBGS) in Quezon City University when grouped according to their profile variables?

4. What is the academic performance of the respondents based on their General Weighted Average (GWA)

under the Zero-Based Grading System?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the assessment of the respondents on the Zero-Based Grading

System (ZBGS) and their academic performance?

Related Studies

The characteristics of grading systems are linked with the motivation of students to perform well academically,

student perceptions of fairness in assessments, and the privacy of students when being assessed. Clarity in

grading standards enhances student involvement and reduces misunderstanding compared to ambiguity (Cain et

al., 2022; Dela Cruz et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2024; Victor, 2022).

Research conducted in the Philippines regarding Zero-Based Grading (ZBG) indicates that ZBG has a dual

impact for students. While ZBG offers students greater transparency and discipline, it also produces an increase

in workload and stress, as third-year engineering students at Bulacan State University provided higher ratings of

negative attributes than positive attributes while simultaneously placing a high value on fairness (Sharlene et al.,

2026; Victor, 2022). Global research on non-conventional grading systems (such as specifications-based grading

and standards-based grading) reveals a comparable trend, although initial anxiety is experienced regarding non-

traditional grading systems, students develop a higher sense of motivation, ownership, and experience lower

levels of competitive stress once students have an understanding of what are clear and manageable expectations

for success (Buckmiller et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2024; Streifer et al., 2024).

Theoretical foundations suggest that mastery-based grading, such as the ZBG, should emphasize learning

outcomes rather than the mere accumulation of points, as this approach helps self-regulation. At the same time,

institutional support is essential in reducing inconsistencies and minimizing student distress. (Brookhart, 2017;

Chamberlin et al., 2023; Guskey. Thomas & Link, 2019) .

While these findings provide insight into the potential for ZBG, there are no local studies conducted at Quezon

City University (QCU) that examine student perspectives of ZBG, only studies within the engineering or high

school domains or research conducted in countries other than the Philippines that do not share the same ZBG

structural elements (Sharlene et al., 2026; Victor, 2022).Therefore, this research study will provide quantitative

data regarding QCU’s students’ perspectives regarding ZBG, and their academic performance will provide data-

driven recommendations for improvements in the educational.

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Quantitative descriptive-correlational was the selected research method of this study on the implementation of

the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBG) and how it relates to academic achievement at Quezon City University

(QCU). The descriptive-correlational research method of study supported the collection of data in order to

describe, explain, and identify relationships with respect to the perception of how the ZBG is being implemented

and how it impacts upon student performance.

Page 1305

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

Following the guidelines for reliable research methods through descriptive-correlational research, this method

utilized observational methods of data collection together with careful planning to develop a viable data analysis

and interpretation plan using statistical analysis as part of the research conclusion.

A description of the characteristic profile of perception toward the ZBG is determined by utilizing five distinct

assessment dimensions (awareness of grading policies, understanding of criteria, perception of fairness, impact

on academic discipline, and transparency). The strength and direction of the relationship between these five

perception dimensions and GPA is examined through correlational analysis without manipulation of either the

perception dimensions or GPA measures. The non-experimental nature of this approach to research, which allows

for the measurement of naturally occurring outcomes within the context of the university environment, makes it

the best choice for this study

Data Gathering

Data Gathering Tools

The study will utilize a researcher-made questionnaire titled “Zero-Based Grading System and Academic

Performance Questionnaire.” It is composed of two parts: Part I gathers the demographic profile of the

respondents (year level, college, GWA range, and number of semesters under the Zero-Based Grading System),

while Part II consists of a 4-point Likert scale measuring their perceptions of the Zero-Based Grading System in

terms of awareness of grading policies, understanding of criteria for academic outputs, perception of fairness in

assessment, and impact on academic discipline. The questionnaire will be administered through Google Forms

using the university’s institutional account.

Population and Sample Size

The target population of the study consists of approximately 12,000 students currently enrolled at Quezon City

University who have experienced the Zero-Based Grading System across all year levels and colleges. The sample

size will be computed using Slovin’s formula for a finite population at a 95% confidence level and 5% margin

of error, yielding a required sample of 387 respondents. A stratified proportional random sampling technique

will be employed to ensure that the sample is representative of each college (College of Computer Studies,

College of Engineering, College of Education, and College of Business and Accountancy) according to their

proportion in the overall student population.

Data Gathering Procedure

First, the researchers will seek approval from their research adviser to administer the questionnaire to Quezon

City University students. After the adviser’s permission is granted, the finalized questionnaire will be encoded

into a Google Form using the university’s institutional account. The survey link and QR code will then be shared

with qualified students during class breaks and through online class groups to reach different year levels and

colleges. Students who voluntarily participate will complete the questionnaire online, the form settings will

prevent multiple submissions and will not record names to maintain anonymity. Once the data collection period

ends, the responses will be downloaded, checked for completeness, and organized in a spreadsheet for statistical

analysis.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered from the Google Forms survey will be treated statistically. To further analyze the gathered

data, the following statistical treatments are used by the researchers:

Weighted Mean

𝑥 =

∑(𝑓 ⋅ 𝑋)

∑𝑓

Page 1306

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

whereas:

𝑥ˉ = weighted mean, 𝑓 = frequency, 𝑋 = Likert scale value (1-4), 𝑛 = number of data

This study uses weighted mean to determine the level of students' understanding of ZBGS across four

dimensions (awareness of grading policies, understanding of criteria for academic outputs, perception of fairness

in assessment, and view on the system's impact on academic discipline).

Table 1. 4-Point Likert Scale Used

Table 2. Verbal Interpretation

Range

Verbal Interpretation

3.26 – 4.00

Strongly Agree (SA)

2.51 – 3.25

Agree (A)

1.76 – 2.50

Disagree (D)

1.00 - 1.75

Strongly Disagree (SD)

One-Way ANOVA

𝐹 =

MSB

𝑀𝑆𝑊

F = Computed ANOVA F-ratio

MSB = Mean Square Between Groups (variation between group means)

MSW = Mean Square Within Groups (variation within each group means)

This study uses One-Way ANOVA to determine whether there is a significant difference in the respondents’

overall assessment of the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBGS) when grouped according to their profile variables

such as year level, department, and GWA. The ANOVA test compares the mean scores of different groups to

identify if observed differences are statistically significant or due to chance. The resulting F-value is then

compared to the p-value or F-critical value at a 0.05 level of significance to determine whether to accept or reject

the null hypothesis. A p-value less than or equal to 0.05 indicates a significant difference among group means,

while a p-value greater than 0.05 indicates no significant difference.

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson-r)

𝑟 =

𝑛(∑𝑋𝑌) − (∑𝑋)(∑𝑌)

√

[𝑛∑𝑋2 − (∑𝑋)2][𝑛∑𝑌2 − (∑𝑌)2]

whereas:

𝑟 = correlation coefficient

𝑋 = perception scores

𝑌 = self-reported GPA range

𝑛 = number of respondents

Response

Score (X)

Verbal Equivalent

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Page 1307

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

This study uses Pearson-r to identify the significant relationship between students' perceptions of ZBGS and

their self-reported academic performance (GWA range). Correlation strength is interpreted as: 0.00-0.19 (very

low), 0.20-0.39 (low), 0.40-0.59 (moderate), 0.60-0.79 (high), 0.80-1.00 (very high).

Table 3. Correlation Strength

r-value

Interpretation

0.00 - 0.19

Very Low

0.20 - 0.39

Low

0.40 - 0.59

Moderate

0.60 - 0.79

High

0.80 - 1.00

Very High

Frequency and Percentage

% =

𝑓

𝑁

× 100

whereas:

% = percentage

𝑓 = frequency

𝑁 = total respondents

These profile respondents' demographic characteristics and self-reported GPA ranges. Self-reported GWA

validity. Research confirms high reliability (r = 0.82-0.97) of student GPA self-reports for group-level analysis.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 4. Demographic Profile (n = 407)

Variable

Category

Year Level

First Year

17.2

Second Year

24.3

Third Year

195

47.9

Fourth Year

10.6

College/Department

Computer Studies

138

33.9

Education

23.1

Engineering

115

28.3

Business and Accountancy

14.7

GWA

1.00 - 1.25

15.

1.26 - 1.75

198

48.6

1.76 - 2.25

114

2.26 - 2.75

2.76 - 3.00

2.2

I don’t know

0.8

Semesters under ZBGS

1 semester

16.5

2 semesters

324

79.6

3 semesters

4 semesters

Page 1308

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

Table 4 presents the demographic profile of the 407 student-respondents. Of the total number of respondents,

47.9% are third year students; 24.3% are second years; 17.2% are first years; and 10.6% of respondents are in

fourth year. Thus, the student sample is primarily comprised of upper-middle year students who have had several

semesters in which to utilize the Zero-Based Grading System and give them a more informed basis with which

to evaluate its use and impact on their academic programs.

Analysing the demographic data by college/department, it can be determined that the largest portion of

respondents (33.9%) was from the College of Computer Studies; 28.3% were from the College of Engineering,

23.1% from the College of Education; and 14.7% from the College of Business and Accountancy. Overall, the

distribution of the respondents demonstrates that the majority of the findings will provide an accurate

representation of students whose degree programmes support the use of structured approaches to assessment and

grading systems.

The majority of respondents for both semesters report GWA in 1.26-1.75, at 48.6% of the total. This indicates a

"Very Good" performance level (1.00-1.25) - 15.7% were very high achievers, 28% achieved between 1.76-2.25,

which is also considered a strong performance level. Only a minority of respondent’s report GWA between 2.26-

3.00 (a total of 6.6%, combining both ranges), thus, most students under ZBGS maintain satisfactory academic

standing. The number of respondents not reporting a GWA (0.8%) was limited, which may be attributed to

limited access to official grades or lack of attention to grades. Most respondents (79.6%) have only experienced

the Zero-Based Grading System for two semesters; approximately 16.5% only been subjected to one semester

of the ZBGS, and a very small number of respondents (4.0% combined) have been exposed to three or four

semesters of ZBGS. Therefore, the majority of individuals completing the research are relatively new to ZBGS,

with most having only experienced either one or two semesters, and thus such a relatively small sample may

result in diminished confidence in their knowledge of academic policies, grading policies, and evaluation criteria.

Assessment of ZBGS (Awareness, Understanding, Fairness, Discipline)

Table 5. Mean Perceptions of ZBGS (Scale: 1=SD to 4=SA; n=407)

Variable

Mean

Interpretation

A. Awareness of Policies

3.45

0.73

Strongly Agree

B. Understanding of Criteria

3.40

0.74

Strongly Agree

C. Fairness

3.34

0.79

Strongly Agree

D. Impact on Discipline

3.38

0.75

Strongly Agree

Overall Mean

3.39

0.75

Strongly Agree

The overall strong agreement

(

𝑀 = 3.39

)

indicates broad acceptance of ZBGS among Quezon City University

students, particularly in awareness

(

𝑀 = 3.45

)

, likely reflecting effective communication of grading

expectations (Brookhart, 2017; Liu et al., 2024).

Slightly lower fairness perceptions

(

𝑀 = 3.34

)

align with documented concerns about equitable grading

practices, especially given demographic patterns such as high-GWA students (Table 4), where top performers

often favor relative systems (Buckmiller et al., 2017; McCabe, 2024).

Uniformly low SDs across dimensions suggest minimal controversy, unlike more divisive curve-based

approaches elsewhere (Chamberlin et al., 2023), supporting ZBGS's potential to foster

discipline

(

𝑀 = 3.38

)

and motivation through clearer standards ((Muenks & Veronica Yan, 2023; Streifer et

al., 2024)). Targeted interventions addressing fairness for lower-year or Business students could further enhance

equity (Victor, 2022).

Page 1309

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

Significant Differences by Profile

Table 6. One-Way ANOVA Results on Respondents’ Overall Assessment of ZBGS by Profile Variables

Profile Variable

Group

Count

Mean

p-value

Interpretation

Year Level

First Year

3.2824

3.0626

Significant

Second Year

3.3153

Third Year

195

3.4217

Fourth Year

3.6134

College/Department

Computer Studies

138

3.3257

1.6991

0.1666

Not significant

Education

3.5116

Engineering

115

3.3973

Business and Accountancy

3.3475

GWA

a. - 1.25

3.8521

28.8945

<0.001

Significant

1.26 - 1.75

198

3.5103

1.76 - 2.25

114

3.0304

2.26 - 2.75

3.1456

2.76 - 3.00

2.6905

Semesters under ZBGS

1 semester

3.3427

0.3018

0.8241

Not significant

2 semesters

324

3.4031

3 semesters

3.2740

4 semesters or more

3.4771

Significant Differences in Respondents’ Overall Assessment of ZBGS by Profile Variables

Table 6 presents the one-way ANOVA results on the respondents’ overall assessment of the Zero-Based Grading

System (ZBGS) when grouped according to their profile variables. The findings show that GWA and year

level have significant differences in assessment, while semesters under ZBGS and college/department do not.

This means that students’ academic standing and year level are associated with how they view ZBGS, but the

length of exposure to the system and their department are not.

Differences in ZBGS assessment according to semesters under ZBGS

Respondents with 1 semester of ZBGS exposure scored a mean of 3.3427, 2 semesters at 3.4031, 3 semesters at

3.2740, and 4 or more semesters at 3.4771. The non-significant ANOVA result indicates consistent overall

assessments regardless of exposure length (Buckmiller et al., 2017). Though longer exposure showed a slightly

higher mean, it lacked statistical meaningfulness, aligning with literature on stable perceptions in standards-

based systems over time (Streifer et al., 2024).

Differences in ZBGS assessment according to GWA

Higher GWA groups rated ZBGS more favorably: 1.00–1.25 (M=3.8521), 1.26–1.75 (M=3.5103), 1.76–2.25

(M=3.0304), 2.26–2.75 (M=3.1456), and 2.76–3.00 (M=2.6905). The significant ANOVA difference supports

that top performers view relative grading as equitable and motivating, while lower performers perceive greater

challenges (Chamberlin et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024). This pattern implies better-aligned habits among high

achievers (Cain et al., 2022).

Differences in ZBGS assessment according to college/department

Education students led with M=3.5116, followed by Engineering (3.3973), Business and Accountancy (3.3475),

and Computer Studies (3.3257). Non-significant ANOVA results indicate uniform perceptions across disciplines,

suggesting ZBGS applicability beyond program-specific demands (Sharlene et al., 2026).

Page 1310

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

Differences in ZBGS assessment according to year level

Means increased with progression: First Year (3.2824), Second Year (3.3153), Third Year (3.4217), and Fourth

Year (3.6134). Significant ANOVA differences highlight advanced students' more positive views, likely from

accumulated experience and adaptation (Brookhart, 2017; Muenks & Veronica Yan, 2023). Lower years may

still face adjustment pressures (Dela Cruz et al., 2025).

Academic performance of the respondents based on GWA

Table 7. Academic Performance of the Respondents Based on GWA under ZBGS (n = 407)

GWA Range

Interpretation

1.00 – 1.25

15.7

Excellent

1.26 – 1.75

199

48.9

Very Good

1.76 – 2.25

116

28.5

Good

2.26–2.75

4.7

Fair

2.76–3.00

2.2

Passing/Low

I don’t know

0.1

Not reported

Table 7 shows the academic performance distribution of respondents under the Zero-Based Grading System

(ZBGS) based on General Weighted Average (GWA). The largest group falls within the 1.26–1.75 range (very

good), comprising 199 students or 48.9%, followed by the 1.76–2.25 range (good) with 116 students or 28.5%,

indicating that most respondents achieved favorable academic standing ((Buckmiller et al., 2017).

Meanwhile, 64 respondents (15.7%) reached excellent levels of 1.00–1.25, while lower brackets of 2.26–3.00

included few students, suggesting limited weaker performance under ZBGS (Brookhart, 2017; Streifer et al.,

2024). The four "I don't know" responses likely reflect incomplete grade access rather than broader issues (Liu

et al., 2024).

Significant relationship between ZBGS assessment and academic performance

Table 8. Pearson Correlation between Respondents’ Assessment of ZBGS and Academic Performance

ZBGS Assessment Variable

Pearson r

p-value

Interpretation

Awareness of grading policies

407

-0.400

p < 0.001

Significant, Moderate Negative

Understanding of criteria

407

-0.419

p < 0.001

Significant, Moderate Negative

Fairness in assessment

407

-0.441

p < 0.001

Significant, Moderate Negative

Impact on academic discipline

407

-0.420

p < 0.001

Significant, Moderate Negative

The Pearson correlation results indicate that all four ZBGS assessment variables awareness of grading policies,

understanding of criteria, fairness in assessment, and impact on academic discipline are significantly related to

academic performance (all p < 0.001), with moderate negative correlations observed across each (Brookhart,

2017; Chamberlin et al., 2023).

This means students who rated ZBGS more positively tended to have better academic performance, as lower

GWA values (e.g., 1.00–1.75) represent higher achievement in the Philippine grading scale (Buckmiller et al.,

2017). Among these, fairness in assessment showed the strongest relationship, suggesting that perceptions of

equitable evaluation play a key role in academic outcomes under relative grading systems like ZBGS (Cain et

al., 2022; McCabe, 2024).

Page 1311

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

CONCLUSION

This study examined the students’ perceptions of the Zero-Based Grading System (ZBGS) in Quezon City

University and its relationship with their academic performance. Overall, the findings show that the respondents

generally have a positive assessment of ZBGS, indicating that the system is understood, accepted, and seen as

supportive of academic discipline.

The demographic profile of the respondents showed that most were third-year students, came largely from the

College of Computer Studies and Engineering, had GWA values mostly in the very good to good range, and had

experienced ZBGS for only one to two semesters. This suggests that the respondents were mostly upper-middle

year students with limited exposure to the system, yet already had enough experience to evaluate it meaningfully.

In terms of perception, the respondents strongly agreed with the statements describing ZBGS in relation to

awareness of grading policies, understanding of assessment criteria, fairness, and academic discipline. This

indicates that the grading system is generally viewed positively by the students and that it may help promote

clearer expectations, responsibility, and consistent performance.

The analysis of differences by profile variables showed that students’ overall assessment of ZBGS differed

significantly according to year level and GWA, but not according to college/department or length of exposure

to the system. This means that students’ academic standing and year level influence how they view ZBGS, while

their department and number of semesters under the system do not appear to create meaningful differences in

perception.

The academic performance results further showed that most respondents fall within the very good to good GWA

range, which reflects satisfactory academic standing under ZBGS. In addition, the correlation analysis revealed

a significant relationship between students’ assessment of ZBGS and their academic performance. Students who

viewed the system more favorably tended to have better academic performance, showing that positive

perceptions of grading policies, criteria, fairness, and discipline are associated with stronger academic outcomes.

Overall, the study confirms that the Zero-Based Grading System is generally acceptable to the respondents and

is linked with positive academic performance outcomes. It also highlights that students’ perceptions of the

system are shaped more by their academic level and performance than by their department or length of exposure.

This implies that continuous clarification of grading policies, fair implementation of assessment criteria, and

support for student discipline may strengthen the effectiveness of ZBGS in Quezon City University.

REFERENCES

1. Brookhart, S. (2017). How to use grading to improve learning. ASCD.

https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/HowToUseGradingToImpr

oveLearning.pdf

2. Buckmiller, T., Peters, R., & Kruse, J. (2017). Questioning Points and Percentages: Standards-Based

Grading (SBG) in Higher Education. College Teaching, 65(4), 151–157.

https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1302919

3. Cain, J., Medina, M., Romanelli, F., & Persky, A. (2022). Deficiencies of Traditional Grading

Systems and Recommendations for the Future. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,

86(7), 8850. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8850

4. Chamberlin, K., Yasué, M., & Chiang, I.-C. A. (2023). The impact of grades on student motivation.

Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418819728

5. Dela Cruz, R. J. P. Dela, Jose, J. L. C., Paraon, R. J. R., & Arcinas, M. M. (2025). Academic

Excellence Paradox: Self-Imposed Academic Pressure and Well-Being Among Gen-Z Students in

a HyFlex Learning Environment. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and

Education Research, 6(4), 2003–2014. https://doi.org/10.11594/IJMABER.06.04.29

6. Guskey. Thomas, & Link, L. (2019). The Forgotten Element of Instructional Leadership: Grading.

ASCD Learning Services and Resources, 76(6).

Page 1312

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026

7. Liu, J., Wong, M., & Hard, B. (2024). The Impact of Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Grading

Systems on Students’ Course-Related Expectations. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v24i4.35434

8. McCabe, C. (2024, May 7). The Time is Now for Equitable Grading in Higher Education. Academic

Leadership & Governance (ACAD).

9. Muenks, K., & Veronica Yan, S. (2023). A systematic review of the motivational effects of course

grade policies. https://doi.org/10.26153/TSW/51494

10. Panadero, E., & Sánchez-Iglesias, I. (2025). Impact of Displaying Grades Vs. Not Displaying

Grades on Academic Performance and Emotional Outcomes While Delivering Feedback Comments:

A Longitudinal Study. Educational Assessment, 30(1), 21–40.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2025.2455128

11. Sharlene, C., Leobert, J., John, R., Emmanuel, W., Santos, M., Jezreel, A., Aileen, D., & Cruz, C.

(2026). Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of the Zero-Based Grading System of Third-Year

Computer Engineering Students. IJRISS Vol 10 Issue 3, 10(3), 2130–2136.

https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100300150

12. Smith, J. (2023, October 7). Zero-based grading system. Https://Edutinker.Com/Glossary/Zero-

Based-Grading-System/.

13. Streifer, A., Palmer, M., & Taggart, J. (2024). From Expectations to Experiences: Students’

Perceptions of Specifications Grading in Higher Education. International Journal for the Scholarship

of Teaching and Learning, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2024.180205

14. Victor, V. (2022). Performance Concerns and Challenges of the Selected Students of Doña Salud

National High School: Basis for Contextualized Performance Transparency System. Psychology

and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(7), 1–6.