roundtable on pedagogy: response: renounce grading?

8
Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading? Tina Pippin* OVER THE YEARS I have participated in faculty teaching workshops where I mock-graded papers with my fellow participants. The purpose of these exercises was to see whether there was any common ground or agreement about grades. We looked at various rubrics, discussed discipli- nary differences, and reached general agreement as we assessed a range of papers. We focused on what makes a successful paper given the level of the course and how to write useful comments (for revision or not). One key objective in these workshops was learning to give better feedback so that students had clear instructions and guidance for improvement in their writing. Another issue was fairness and transparency in grading, which rubrics ideally provide. The end goal was the Grade, that subjec- tive, slippery, quantitative measure of a students ability on an assign- ment. Students need it to track their successful completion of college and admittance into the next part of their journey. In this traditional model, grades serve as controls and separators: separate students receive their separate grades. Students are at the mercy of faculty in an imbalance of power. In any given course, a students grade is always at stake.Grades are what students get,as in the perennial question they ask each other, What did you get?”—not what did you learn?The whole process of grades and grading is too often stressful and painful for both student and teacher. Mountains of papers and tests, *Department of Religious Studies, Agnes Scott College, 141 E. College Ave., Decatur, GA 30030, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of the American Academy of Religion, June 2014, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 348355 doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfu002 Advance Access publication on February 17, 2014 © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] at University of California, San Francisco on September 9, 2014 http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from

Upload: t

Post on 03-Feb-2017

223 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

Roundtable on Pedagogy:Response: Renounce Grading?

Tina Pippin*

OVER THE YEARS I have participated in faculty teaching workshopswhere I mock-graded papers with my fellow participants. The purpose ofthese exercises was to see whether there was any common ground oragreement about grades. We looked at various rubrics, discussed discipli-nary differences, and reached general agreement as we assessed a range ofpapers. We focused on what makes a successful paper given the level ofthe course and how to write useful comments (for revision or not). Onekey objective in these workshops was learning to give better feedback sothat students had clear instructions and guidance for improvement intheir writing. Another issue was fairness and transparency in grading,which rubrics ideally provide. The end goal was the Grade, that subjec-tive, slippery, quantitative measure of a student’s ability on an assign-ment. Students need it to track their successful completion of college andadmittance into the next part of their journey. In this traditional model,grades serve as controls and separators: separate students receive theirseparate grades. Students are at the mercy of faculty in an imbalance ofpower. In any given course, a student’s grade is always “at stake.” Gradesare what students “get,” as in the perennial question they ask each other,“What did you get?”—not “what did you learn?”

The whole process of grades and grading is too often stressful andpainful for both student and teacher. Mountains of papers and tests,

*Department of Religious Studies, Agnes Scott College, 141 E. College Ave., Decatur, GA 30030,USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, June 2014, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 348–355doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfu002Advance Access publication on February 17, 2014© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy ofReligion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 2: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

disappearing students, and a multitude of learning and life contexts allbog down the process of teaching and learning. As Vanessa Sassonreminds us in her article “Renunciation as Pedagogy,” grades become the“end all” and there is the danger that they might supplant learning. In acourse on renunciation in Asian religions, it makes sense to renouncegrades (“the outcome of their actions”) as an exercise to lead to a deeperunderstanding of the course material. That students who participated inher experiment had to sign a legal document shows how embedded andmostly unquestioned the tradition of grades has become in higher education.

Sasson questions how students’ not knowing what the grade is on apaper leads them to deeper learning and curiosity. I remember when Iwas first teaching, I used to look at graded papers placed outside profes-sors’ offices in order to get a sense of what was normative at the differentcolleges where I was teaching, and how many comments and what kindof feedback was given. Of course, there was a range of interaction. I wasdisappointed when I found only a few grammatical corrections and a“Well done” or worse comment at the end of the paper, with no expandedcomments for ways to improve writing. Sasson notes the need for revisionin order to learn how to write and think about a topic. She points out thatby agreeing not to see their grades along the way, students focus insteadon the subject of the course. Although many students panic over the “notgraded,” Sasson notes “the fact that the odds are hugely in their favor,”since she gives expert guidance to them through unlimited revisions.

I am partially in agreement on this point. Students in her course getlots of good feedback from the professor and can revise multiple times.Yet I am also reminded of the creepy, apocalyptic pronouncement in TheHunger Games to the young soon-to-be survivalists selected by lottery forthe killing games in which there is only one victor: “May the odds be everin your favor.” Sasson claims that students can finally focus on their edu-cation and not be so outcome-oriented. She asks, “What is an educationfree of any outcome? Is it possible to teach and to learn in a systemstripped of its reward system?” But there is an outcome—of grades andthe end of the semester—for each paper and the final grade. And thesegrades are totally determined by the professor.

Sasson uncovers an important part of the main debates about grades.In educational studies, grades have been shown linked to self-esteem, per-formance, learning, retention of knowledge, and intellectual curiosity. Inhis introductory book on the craft of teaching, Christopher Jedrey consid-ers these themes and provides some of the basic framework for grading:“As students, most of us felt that a grade was in some sense an evaluationof our personal worth, not just our work” (1984: 103). The bottom line forJedrey is, “If a grade is to be intellectually useful to a student, then he or

Pippin: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Responses 349

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 3: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

she must understand the reasons for it” (104). He concludes, “Whateverkind of grade you give, every student deserves a review of your decision ifshe or he desires” (Jedrey: 113).

Barbara Walvoord and Virginia Anderson (2009) define grading interms of process, context, and dialog (1). Grading is always contextual asa source of class assessment. “Skillful teachers use grading as a richprocess for learning” for both students and teachers (Walvoord andAnderson 2009: xvi). They remind us “that grading is a socially con-structed, context-dependent process that serves many roles and that, ifmanaged, can be a powerful tool for teaching” (10). Teachers gradewithin institutional boundaries and constraints. There is usually agrading scale (at university or departmental levels), a series of check-points (e.g., teacher, registrar, academic advising, academic dean, honorcode, judicial review, etc.), and variations and an ever-changing terrainbetween and within disciplines, departments, and courses. Walvoord andAnderson see grading as collaboration between students and teachers andas assessment for the common good of learning together (13). DonaldFinkel agrees with this justification of grading (even though he does nar-rative evaluations) because “students can learn from being evaluated”(2000: 64). Grades are markers along the journey in a course, not onlysome end goal. As markers, grades can ideally motivate, reinforce, andsometimes celebrate the learning process.

Like many of us who teach in higher education, Sasson struggles withthe grading process but also with the larger grading system. She begins tocall the engrained assumptions about grading into question in this article.Maryellen Weimer (2002) echoes the fundamental view that grades areneither precise nor objective, nor do they on their own encourage learning(120). Weimer is critical of traditional grading practices: “Our policies andpractices exclude students from evaluation processes. They deny studentsopportunities to learn important self- and peer assessment strategies” (125).The learner-centered classroom can still use grades, “and the importantgatekeeping roles they play are upheld by continuing commitments to fair,equitable, and rigorous standards” (145). But Weimer’s main question—Should students have any involvement in the grading process?—is crucial(143). She argues for both self- and peer-assessment techniques. If the pur-pose is student learning, then the traditional grading strategies need recon-sideration. I would challenge Sasson to broaden her renunciation exercise toinclude students breaking out of their individualistic thinking—throughpeer grading, and through the traditional power structure of the professor asthe sole say over the grade (through peer- and self-grading). The subject sur-rounding grading is always power. The students are renouncing; how is theprofessor modeling renunciation?

Journal of the American Academy of Religion350

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 4: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

There is a growing list of colleges that are on a “non-traditionalgrading system” through either narrative evaluations or pass–fail (e.g.,Goddard College, Hampshire College, New College of Florida, andHarvey Mudd College) and those who do narrative evaluations and inaddition offer letter grades, often only on request (e.g., Bard College,Brown University, and Oxford University). These institutions argue thatthe no-grade policy leads to “learning for its own sake,” taking out thestress of grades and GPA. They are able with ample data to answer criticsthat such a system is laissez-faire and produces lazy students. For exam-ple, Donald Finkel taught at Evergreen State University, which does notgive grades; rather, narrative evaluations become part of the student’stranscript. He explains: “The absence of grades at the college encouragesthe spirit of collaboration necessary for group inquiry” (Finkel 2000: 64).Finkel’s goal is “fostering group inquiry,” which can be achieved with orwithout a traditional grading system as long as competition is minimized(65). He gives a reminder, “If I say to my students, ‘Let’s inquire together,’I had better mean it” (65). Thus, Finkel links a no-grade policy with col-laborative learning and a way of thinking about learning in a communalsense. Of course, critics rightly point out the workload in these methodsof evaluation—from meeting with students to writing the evaluations.

On the more radical end of the continuum on grading is Alfie Kohn.He summarizes, “Grades aren’t valid, reliable, or objective” (Kohn 2004:77). Kohn is talking specifically about K-12 education and its currentover-tested and assessed culture, but he also raises some important crit-ical issues that extend to higher education. Kohn considers grades (alongwith tests) to be “relics from a less enlightened age” (2011: 1). The researchfrom educational psychologists since the 1930s bears out that gradesreduce student interest, lead students to be risk-adverse, and reduce crit-ical thinking in favor of content regurgitation (Kohn 2011: 2). Grades aremotivation for success, not necessarily for real learning. Kohn’s concernis that we over-assess in a quantitative, not qualitative way (2011: 3). Heargues that there are many ways to the same end goal of grades. Kohncomments: “But grading for learning is, to paraphrase a 1960’s-eraslogan, rather like bombing for peace” (2011: 5). But the majority offaculty are at institutions where letter grading1 is the law of the land, andwhere there is no space for a critical discussion of this method of assess-ment, let alone critical engagement with Kohn and others. Using rubricsonly compartmentalizes and provides more control for the end goal of

1Letter grading began in the 1800s; the first reference was at Harvard in 1883; the first letter gradesystem was at Mt. Holyoke in 1887. For a brief history of grading, see Mark Durm (1993).

Pippin: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Responses 351

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 5: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

grading (see Tchudi 1997; Broad 2003; Wilson 2006). Students performto the rubric for the grade; rubrics are just another layer in the performa-tive process of how students succeed. What is measured is quantitative,not qualitative, success. In other words, students may be working hardfor a high grade and not for deeper learning. The interest is in the rewardof the grade, not the subject. Kohn realizes that grading is a requirementfor most faculty, so he advises student involvement in the assessmentprocess (2011: 8). He prefers the narrative assessment method, in whichstudents have an active voice in their own assessment. For Kohn, thismethod is more in line with democratic pedagogies, or constructivist andcontextualist models of teaching and learning, as opposed to more tech-nocratic models. At the very least, Kohn raises issues about degradingthat most faculties never consider.

The students in Sasson’s class are signing up for a temporary renunci-ation of grades, for in the end the professor gives the grades. There is nopeer grading or self-assessment. The power balance has shifted a bit withthis grading method, and students experience the process of improvingtheir writing of papers and essay questions. This shift increases studentmotivation for learning. But does this temporary “stay” of grading go farenough? I would like to see Sasson’s guidelines for revision and to knowwhat other resources (a campus writing center, for example) are availableto students.

Sasson notes that about half the class describes the experience intheir final papers with the word “liberation.” They are describing animportant internal process, one that has opened up the subject in newways for them. My question is how to move from personal liberation tosomething more communal or external to them. Paulo Freire pushesthis issue: “For me, education is always directive, always. The question isto know towards what and with whom is it directive” (Shor and Freire1987: 109). Fred Glennon also explores this question with his use oflearning covenant or contracts and also cooperative learning (1995: 32).Unlike Sasson, his students write their contracts through which they areeven more self-directed. With this freedom comes great responsibility.Students have to devise their “learning objectives (the knowledge, skills,attitudes, and values to be acquired by the learner); learning resourcesand strategies (the activities in which the learner will engage to accom-plish the objectives); the evidence of accomplishment (the completedactivities to demonstrate completion of the objectives)” (Glennon 1995:34). “Contract learning is not so much a system for encouraging stu-dents to choose among various levels of teacher-determined work;rather, it is a way of negotiating with the students, of drawing them intothe learning contracts” (Walvoord and Anderson 2009: 99). Students

Journal of the American Academy of Religion352

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 6: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

identify their learning styles and learning goals and make connectionsbetween the course material and a negotiated learning standard. Inother words, the learning contract process pushes students to learn on ametacognitive level, too, as they learn and explore and question the sub-jects in a specific course.

Students’ own abilities, needs, and creativity, along with mostlyworking in groups, provide the space for their semester’s work. Ratherthan being solely teacher-driven, learning contracts and communal learn-ing move toward more transparency and mutual accountability for thelearning process. I would like to see Sasson’s and Glennon’s methods inconversation; Sasson’s method is more teacher-directed and Glennon’s ismore communal. In the end, they both give the grades to students. Inmost contexts in higher education, grading is bound by institutionalguidelines that allow only so much flexibility.

As an educator committed to critical and feminist pedagogies, I con-tinue to struggle with the grading process and institutional requirements.The research for this response article only served to set my head spinningagain. I have not yet been able to find (with my students) a truly democraticspace within the traditional framework. I have to be realistic about my ownlearning style; I’m a big picture dreamer who gets easily bogged down intoo much minute detail. But what these ranges of grading theories andpractices show is that there are more relational and communal models thantraditional grading provides and that the research supports the deeperlearning and transformational possibilities—for learning and for teaching—that these models can offer. The traditional grading system is based on abanking model of teaching and learning from “the sage on the stage” and“from the chin up.” Changing the assumptions and practices of gradingopens possibilities for transforming the classroom space. I look to criticalpedagogy for answers, a sort of “what would Freire do?” search. bell hooks(1994) discusses some of the more controversial issues:

Many professors are afraid of allowing nondirected thought in the class-room for fear that deviation from set agenda will interfere with the grad-ing process. A more flexible grading process must go hand in hand witha transformed classroom. Standards must always be high. Excellencemust be valued, but standards cannot be absolute and fixed. . . . I try tocommunicate that the grade is something they can control by their laborin the classroom. (157)

hooks, and apparently Freire too, gives grades. And as uncomfortableas I often am about this system, I give grades too. I am required by myinstitution to give letter grades. With learning contracts in some (not all)

Pippin: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Responses 353

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 7: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

courses, peer- and self-grading in most courses, revision options in mostcourses, and in addition on-site practicum supervisory evaluations in afew other courses, the power of The Grade remains ultimately in myhands. My institution has given me a kind of omnipotence and omnis-cience in grading. The reality is my own subjectivity, weak math abilities,and discomfort with the whole hierarchical system. In a traditionalsystem, grades determine so much: from self-esteem to scholarships tograduate school admittance. How to bend toward justice and democracywith grading? The possibilities are before us, and Sasson has taken a stepin this direction that pushes me to continue to question and work with/inmy institution and with my students on the larger, systemic issues thatcontrol my own journey as a teacher.

REFERENCES

Broad, Bob2003

What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics inTeaching and Assessing Writing. Logan, UT:Utah State University.

Durm, Mark W.1993

“An A Is Not an A Is Not an A: A Historyof Grading.” The Educational Forum, 57(Spring). http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec6342/week_07/durm93.pdf, accessed onMay 1, 2013

Finkel, Donald L.2000

Teaching with Your Mouth Shut. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Glennon, Fred1995

“The Learning Covenant: Promoting Freedomand Responsibility in the Religious StudiesClassroom.” CSSR Bulletin 24/2:2–37.

hooks, bell1994

Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practiceof Freedom. New York, NY and London, UK:Routledge.

Jedrey, Christopher M.1984

“Grading and Evaluation.” In The Art and Craftof Teaching, ed. Margaret Morganroth Gullette,103–115. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Kohn, Alfie2004

What Does It Mean to Be Well Educated? AndOther Essays on Standards, Grading, and OtherFollies. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Journal of the American Academy of Religion354

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 8: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Response: Renounce Grading?

2011 “The Case Against Grades.” EducationalLeadership. http://www.alfiekohn.org/teachng/tcag.htm, accessed on May 13, 2013.

Shor, Ira and Paulo Freire1987

A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues onTransforming Education. New York, NY: Bergin& Garvey.

Tchudi, Steven, ed.1997

Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. Urbana,IL: NCTE.

Walvoord, Barbara E. andVirginia

Johnson Anderson2009

Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning andAssessment in College. 2nd ed. New York, NY:Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, Maryellen2002

Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes toPractice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, Maja2006

Rethinking Rubrics in Writing Assessment.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pippin: Roundtable on Pedagogy: Responses 355

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on September 9, 2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from