Andrew Miller posted a piece on Edutopia almost a year ago titled “When Grading Harms Student Learning,” which he ends with “an essential question to ponder: How can we grade and assess in a way that provides hope to all students?”
By the time Miller’s post showed up in my Twitter feed this week, it had drawn 31 responses.
Polar positions on grading
As you might guess, the comments on Miller’s post ranged from a recommending that grades be eliminated entirely saying indirectly that grades—or at least the standards they seem to represent—are an essential part of the school’s role in preparing students for life after school.
Mark Barnes takes the first position:
“Have you considered eliminating all number and letter grades? Is it possible that if a child does not complete an activity, there’s a problem with an activity? Number and letter grades lie about learning. Learning can never be measured.”
Mrs Hitchcock, an 8th grade science teacher from Eagar AZ leans, somewhat reluctantly, toward the tough love approach:
“On the one hand, our kids are more than just grades. On the other hand, we ARE still trying to teach kids to be responsible adults…Compliance is a HUGE part of being an adult, and public school is the only place a lot of kids will ever be held accountable for anything.”
Her sentiment was echoed by Kimberly Livaudais, who has taught 7-12 and at the college level.
“[college] students are so used to being able to turn work in late or re-test that many of them fail their first year when they have that rude awakening.”
Grades aren’t going away
I see no chance that schools will get rid of grading systems any time soon: They are too convenient.
(Convenience is one of the most desirable characteristics of 21st century products and services)
Nor do I see large employers abandoning grades as a hiring consideration, even while deploring the fact that grades are meaningless.
As an employer who also worked in human resources, I know employers who need staff ASAP are not going to look through electronic portfolios at least until they’ve narrowed the candidate pool to between three and five people: Portfolios aren’t convenient.
I also don’t see digital badges gaining traction among employers hiring for low-end, no-degree-needed jobs for the same reason: convenience. Employers hiring for those jobs aren’t going to click a half-dozen links to see what Josh’s badges mean.
And a surprising number of employers who ask applicants to email a letter of application don’t know those blue underlines in email messages indicate a clickable link.
My position on grading
My own position on grading sits somewhere between the two.
Don Doehla stated my position better than I can:
“We should have grading systems which honor growth, which empower, and which help support reflective practices.”
Such grading systems would accomplish Miller’s goal of providing students with hope that they aren’t doomed to a life of failure without encouraging students to think effort is the same as accomplishment.
Iteration is key to deep learning
I decided 40-some years ago that grading systems “which honor growth, empower, and support reflective practices” are incompatible with teaching content by units and with arbitrary marking periods. Even semester grades are a stretch for many subjects.
The most important concepts rarely can be mastered within a single unit: Important concepts are important because they apply to a great many specifics and have wide applicability.
Students need to be exposed to multiple examples of a concept and often need to be exposed to the concept in multiple ways. Squeezing a half-dozen examples shown via a half-dozen techniques into two class periods is not nearly as useful as spreading the material out in smaller doses over a period of weeks.
Teaching important skills requires even more iterations—which means a longer time frame—than teaching concepts.
The total amount of class time required for iterative teaching can be less than the time required for the concentrated focus, but is may very well need to extend over several marking periods.
Ditch the unit mindset
Shaking off the unit mindset allows teachers to work in environments employing procedures and processes such as:
- annual outcomes
- competency-based learning
- mastery learning
I suspect many teachers would have no trouble getting rid of units if they could figure out how to grade a student’s achievement on a particular annual outcome when learning activities aimed at helping students master the outcome extend over months.
I do a couple of things in first year college English classes that may offer some insights.
My practice for grading
I set as my writing goal getting every student to write nonfiction competently. I call that C-level.
All topics that need to be covered in the curriculum are evaluated by means of written (“essay”) tests done in class.
All of the formal writing and informal writing (ungraded) assignments are about communications topics in the curriculum.
I evaluate each week’s formal writing—one paper is required each week—in terms of a list of characteristics of C-level writing. I word each characteristic so a student’s work can be assessed as meeting or not meeting the standard.
I tell students that once they reach C-level, I will drop all their grades to that point, even if they had straight F’s to that time.
With students writing just three days a week, I know it’s probably going to take a full semester before most students get to C-level. That long slog is discouraging, so I provide a way for students to see measurable progress in one area that will contribute to their overall grade: writing mechanics.
Every student in the class has the same number of specific errors to master (usually three; never more than five), but each student has his or her own list of habitual, serious errors in their writing to master during the course.
One student’s individual mastery plan might look like this:
- put comma after introductory element
- separate clauses in a compound sentence with a comma
- distinguish between its and it’s
Each student gets a percentage of the paper’s total grade for having no more than X total errors of the types listed in their IMP.
I don’t grade informal writing, but I sometimes give bonus points—I call it an easy A—to students who do all the informal, in-class writing every day they don’t have an excused absence from class. For struggling students, the prospect of a few extra points may be enough to get them to engage with the informal writing, which will have more impact on their grade than the bonus points.
Hold students accountable
Students are responsible for mastering their own habitual errors. I have students graph their progress in eliminating their errors, and I keep track both of each student’s writing grade for the week and the part of the grade that is represented by the writing mechanics.
Once students see that their writing mechanics have improved enough that they could get higher than a C in the course, they are motivated to keep plugging away on the writing.
In my classes, no student ever fails just because of errors in writing mechanics, but no student gets higher than a C on a paper with more than the acceptable limit of errors from their own IMP.
When a student has performed at C-level or higher on three formal weekly papers in a row, I consider that student competent. I strike through all previous grades and let the C stand.
The C represents what the student learned in my class. All the earlier F’s were for what the student learned in other teachers’ classes.
If they are happy with a C, students can stop turning in formal writing and still have a C for their grade.
Nobody has ever stopped working after earning their C.
For the final grade, I average the last three weekly papers, which approximates their performance level at the end of the class.
What’s your grading practice?
Have you found some ways to assess and grade without falling into the twin traps of giving away grades or punishing students for their prior teachers’ failings?