The close of the semester - and the accompanying grading - always makes me ponder the nature of our current educational evaluative system and all its flaws, variants, and benefits. My husband frequently objects to the idea of "grades" as "meaningless" or "false" indicators of ability. And in some ways, he's right.
First, what any particular grade means is somewhat arbitrary from system to system - an A at one institution might be a B at another, and a third institution might not even have an A. Growing up, my grade school did not use standard grades; we had O (Outstanding), V (Very good), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), and N (Not acceptable). As far as we were concerned, it was the same system. It translated when we moved to high school into "normal" letters. The difference between an O and an A was simply the form of the mark on the paper. My high school used the standard system, but an A in an AP class was a 5.0 instead of a 4.0. My undergraduate university didn't use pluses or minuses, but slash grades: A, A/B, B, and so on, which meant that I might have a lower GPA with an A/B than a student who earned an A- at another institution, even though I might have been doing better work objectively speaking. These are problems with non-standardized grades.
And then there are the objections to an evaluative system altogether. The idea that we should simply "appreciate" the efforts of our students without giving them a grade. On one hand, I understand and, yes, "appreciate" this impulse. But on the other hand, shouldn't there be a distinction between outstanding quality of work and simply adequate quality? Shouldn't we recognize that a complete assignment can be done with more and less effort, and that those levels of effort should produce different results?
This leads to another "problem" with grading: sometimes you have a student who puts in a lot of effort and does "worse" than another student who puts in less effort. Some people are naturally talented. Does this mean they should do "better" with less work? Does this mean we are "punishing" people who put in much more work but can't produce the same quality end-product? I tend to say "yes, we can reward the better product, regardless of the amount of work put into it." Because one of these two things is objectively better. If given a choice of the final product without knowledge of the effort put into it, most people will choose the better product - in business, in art, in any field. And it is a fact - an often frustrating fact - that some people just aren't capable of producing work at the same level as others (at least in a given area).
And, finally, there is the current hot-button issue of grade inflation. The idea that students have come to expect As in all their classes for doing the bare minimum of work. An A is the new C. This bothers me, most particularly because it means that the people who DO produce better work (whether through effort or talent) are told that their superior product is the same as a much inferior product. It just isn't fair.
And that's what, I believe, grading all boils down to. One camp that wants people to feel good about their work and one that wants an objective system of evaluation. Personally, I want people to feel good about work they've done well. I want grades to mean something, whether a reward for hard work or an acknowledgment of innate talent. But we also need to recognize that there are average students, and that those students should not feel bad for getting an "average" grade.
I want my students to earn their grades. I want them to produce work worthy of the mark I give it. But I also want them not to feel inadequate for not being "the best" at something. I want them to be happy that they can improve their skills without needing to be "the best." Yes, striving for improvement is good and competition can sometimes foster that, but accepting the grade you've earned is a mark of maturity and understanding, and graciously doing so is a sign that you have learned an even more profound lesson: that you have done your best and accepted your strengths... and your limitations.
4 comments:
So much to say, but not going to say it right now... i'll get back to you.
The professor that ran the intro stats courses I taught at OSU was definitely against grade inflation. Students had to basically have perfect attendance and at least 93% collectively on homework, quizzes and exams to earn their A. On the other hand, it was very difficult not to earn a C if a student had perfect attendance and did all of the homework (which could be worked on in a stat teaching lab with T.A. assistance to ensure correct answers given enough time). If a student absolutely worked their butt off, they needed only a rudimentary understanding of the material for quizzes and exams to earn a C and fulfill their GenEd.
I did, and still do, oppose attendance requirements for class. If this person knows the material, why should they be forced to sit through a class going over the material? It never made sense to me.
My thing with attendance is that in SOME classes, the discussion element is important (language, literature, etc.). I've had classes where that's not the case and hated attendance, but in some it is important for students to physically be there.
Thoughts here below... :-p
My husband frequently objects to the idea of "grades" as "meaningless" or "false" indicators of ability. And in some ways, he's right.
As indicators of ability, he's probably right. I think of grades as indicators of past performance. Obviously past performance has a certain predictive value but there's all sorts of times when I give a student a worse grade than I think they might have earned. Maybe people just aren't motivated, have other things going on academically or personally, or whatever.
I think certainly grades aren't equivalent across institutions, let alone departments within an institution, or between TAs or profs. Where I do think grades have some value comparing among, say, all my students.
On one hand, I understand and, yes, "appreciate" this impulse. But on the other hand, shouldn't there be a distinction between outstanding quality of work and simply adequate quality? Shouldn't we recognize that a complete assignment can be done with more and less effort, and that those levels of effort should produce different results?
I certainly think so. I am a big fan of some things being graded on a check/zero basis. But I think in other arenas, it's valuable for the student to know "this is barely acceptable" vs. "this is exceptional"
The idea that we should simply "appreciate" the efforts of our students without giving them a grade
I try to emphasize to my students that I CANNOT grade their effort (because I have no way to judge that). And I WILL NOT because my job is not to pass judgement on people, but on people's work.
One of the consequences (and I don't say this) is that some people simply won't be able to earn an A. But that's okay, I think. Not everyone can be above average, let alone exceptional. I'd like to think that my standards would allow even the most disadvantaged/slow/ill-prepared but hardworking student to get a B.
I think, like you, that the real problem with grade inflation is that it means you can't really recognize outstanding work. In addition though, and this is something that I definitely try to get across to the students: I hold them to a high standard, so they should be proud of the A's and even the B's that they earn.
Post a Comment