Entrance Slip: The Dilemma of Grades
I don't think anyone would be shocked by the amount of school stress that can be attributed to grades. In fact, out of all the stress caused by 'academic' school (i.e. not including social aspects), grades are probably the number one cause of stress. Not because students are concerned for their learning, but because they are concerned how they will be judged. Students don't care about learning objectives: they care about final grades. Not because they have any disrespect for learning as a concept or for necessarily for the subject itself, but because, at the end of the day, the letters or percentages written on a sheet of paper will have immense consequences for their lives. There are many a story of people who 'made it' even when they failed high school, but for the majority of people, your grades open and close many doors for you in life, not due to any truth, ability, or potential represented in grades, but because of a social conceptualization of what grades say about a person.
My biggest problem with grades is not necessarily with grades themselves, but the way our society has decided to react to them. When originally formatted, the letter grade/percentage system was not supposed to show the top ideal, but to show the full spectrum. "Exceeds", "Meets", "Satisfactory", "Not Meeting", and other terms like this were meant to mean exactly that. Getting a 'B' on a test/assignment/class was meant to signify that this student is fully capable in all the ways they're 'meant' to be. It was supposed to mean that the student understood the material and was succeeding. An 'A' was supposed to mean that this student was going above and beyond, making connections between ideas and areas, and was showing a heightened grasp of the material. Or something along those lines. But our meritocratic society has shifted it's interpretation of these things. Suddenly an 'A' is "good enough", a 'B' is "you're getting too much wrong", a 'C' is "oh my god, why do you even bother", and an 'F' is "get out of this classroom". Instead of helping students understand what they're missing or where they're struggling, grades have become a system of judging and comparing students and placing them in a strict hierarchy. This, obviously, doesn't just exist in a social vacuum out in 'society'. It permeates into the classroom environment. This can be clearly seen on any 'give-back' day for tests. There's an immediate stresser, students' heart-rates go up, tests are handed back upside down so no one else can see for fear of judging/bullying, students are immediately shouting "what did you get?!?!" and showing each other their marks, they're frantically begging the teacher for an extra half mark on question 7, or, if they're the kid who's been conditioned to think so lowly of their abilities that they're aiming for the 50% or are laughing when they fail. Any environment of equality, acceptance, and safe space that a teacher tries to create in a classroom gets ripped apart the second grades and marks get introduced.
Obviously it doesn't have to be like this. Many teachers grade with consideration for effort, progress, and development, and vary assessment so that students have a chance to display their learning in many ways. This is all a great idea, but it comes up to a dilemma: at the end of the day, almost all schools and districts require a letter/percentage grade to be inputted for the final course grade. As much formative and varied assessment that you do, at the end of the course, the teacher has to try to translate all that work, effort, and progress into a final letter which will get compared, judged, and stressed about. I think if the efforts towards more open and broad assessment are going to be realised, they have to be implemented at all levels so that there is no 'switching between' systems.
All that being said, even if your school/district demands a final letter/percentage grade, I would absolutely still advocate for using varied and broad grading strategies. For one, I would move toward more frequent formative assessment rather than a few large summative assessments. This way, students can see what they're doing, how their teacher is seeing it, what they're missing, and how to improve. With formative assessments, students can see what parts of material aren't clicking for them early in the unit, rather then finding out on the final unit test. I also believe in formative assessment being a constant thing. I don't just want frequent small quizzes or assignments, I want formative assessment in the form of discussions, activities, and comments. If, during a class activity, a student works out a problem on the board, that should be included in their formative assessment. I'm not advocating for an environment of constant grading. In that, I mean that students can't ever 'lose' marks in formative assessment. It's not a time for the teacher to say "show me what you know NOW" and the students need to perform. Instead, it's a chance for a student's random doings and learning to be noticed and accredited. Students show their learning every day, and yet we only seem to count it when they do it on command. By utilizing consistent formative assessment, we open up the space for students to show their learning at a time and in a manner that they can perform their best. If you're having a hard week and you can't answer the questions today? That's fine, rest over the weekend and show me what you know next week. By stepping away from 'do-or-die' summative assessment, we can potentially alleviate some of the intense test-stress and open up the floor for students to get creative and comfortable with their learning and assessment.
By using these formative assessments, and specifically, by using a rubric 'grading' style, we can move focus away from grades and toward learning. If we have rubrics and comments where teachers note down the connections and learning students are displaying, students can have tangible connections between the 'random' formative assessments and how they're being 'graded'. What I mean is, if a students displays understanding of a theory verbally in a class discussion, the teacher can mark it down on their rubric, showing that they're "meeting" or "exceeding" or whatever in a specific area. Then, when students get this feedback, they're not just seeing a random "you understand!" or a "you need to work on your abstract understanding of ratios", but are seeing a concrete "that question you solved with the sail boat really showed me that you understand how these ratios connect to each other and the mutability of the measurements" or whatever. They're able to fully connect what they're doing with the comments you're making, and are thus able to better understand their own learning, where they stand, and to gain an appreciation that it's really that simple to show your learning. Students often don't realize the vast number of ways to show their learning. They often think only in tests and projects. With these consistent formative assessments, students can open their eyes to all the ways the knowledge and content has seeped into their thinking and the way they approach problems.
As a sign-of: if any of this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. I am very sick. And my brain is very confused.
My biggest problem with grades is not necessarily with grades themselves, but the way our society has decided to react to them. When originally formatted, the letter grade/percentage system was not supposed to show the top ideal, but to show the full spectrum. "Exceeds", "Meets", "Satisfactory", "Not Meeting", and other terms like this were meant to mean exactly that. Getting a 'B' on a test/assignment/class was meant to signify that this student is fully capable in all the ways they're 'meant' to be. It was supposed to mean that the student understood the material and was succeeding. An 'A' was supposed to mean that this student was going above and beyond, making connections between ideas and areas, and was showing a heightened grasp of the material. Or something along those lines. But our meritocratic society has shifted it's interpretation of these things. Suddenly an 'A' is "good enough", a 'B' is "you're getting too much wrong", a 'C' is "oh my god, why do you even bother", and an 'F' is "get out of this classroom". Instead of helping students understand what they're missing or where they're struggling, grades have become a system of judging and comparing students and placing them in a strict hierarchy. This, obviously, doesn't just exist in a social vacuum out in 'society'. It permeates into the classroom environment. This can be clearly seen on any 'give-back' day for tests. There's an immediate stresser, students' heart-rates go up, tests are handed back upside down so no one else can see for fear of judging/bullying, students are immediately shouting "what did you get?!?!" and showing each other their marks, they're frantically begging the teacher for an extra half mark on question 7, or, if they're the kid who's been conditioned to think so lowly of their abilities that they're aiming for the 50% or are laughing when they fail. Any environment of equality, acceptance, and safe space that a teacher tries to create in a classroom gets ripped apart the second grades and marks get introduced.
Obviously it doesn't have to be like this. Many teachers grade with consideration for effort, progress, and development, and vary assessment so that students have a chance to display their learning in many ways. This is all a great idea, but it comes up to a dilemma: at the end of the day, almost all schools and districts require a letter/percentage grade to be inputted for the final course grade. As much formative and varied assessment that you do, at the end of the course, the teacher has to try to translate all that work, effort, and progress into a final letter which will get compared, judged, and stressed about. I think if the efforts towards more open and broad assessment are going to be realised, they have to be implemented at all levels so that there is no 'switching between' systems.
All that being said, even if your school/district demands a final letter/percentage grade, I would absolutely still advocate for using varied and broad grading strategies. For one, I would move toward more frequent formative assessment rather than a few large summative assessments. This way, students can see what they're doing, how their teacher is seeing it, what they're missing, and how to improve. With formative assessments, students can see what parts of material aren't clicking for them early in the unit, rather then finding out on the final unit test. I also believe in formative assessment being a constant thing. I don't just want frequent small quizzes or assignments, I want formative assessment in the form of discussions, activities, and comments. If, during a class activity, a student works out a problem on the board, that should be included in their formative assessment. I'm not advocating for an environment of constant grading. In that, I mean that students can't ever 'lose' marks in formative assessment. It's not a time for the teacher to say "show me what you know NOW" and the students need to perform. Instead, it's a chance for a student's random doings and learning to be noticed and accredited. Students show their learning every day, and yet we only seem to count it when they do it on command. By utilizing consistent formative assessment, we open up the space for students to show their learning at a time and in a manner that they can perform their best. If you're having a hard week and you can't answer the questions today? That's fine, rest over the weekend and show me what you know next week. By stepping away from 'do-or-die' summative assessment, we can potentially alleviate some of the intense test-stress and open up the floor for students to get creative and comfortable with their learning and assessment.
By using these formative assessments, and specifically, by using a rubric 'grading' style, we can move focus away from grades and toward learning. If we have rubrics and comments where teachers note down the connections and learning students are displaying, students can have tangible connections between the 'random' formative assessments and how they're being 'graded'. What I mean is, if a students displays understanding of a theory verbally in a class discussion, the teacher can mark it down on their rubric, showing that they're "meeting" or "exceeding" or whatever in a specific area. Then, when students get this feedback, they're not just seeing a random "you understand!" or a "you need to work on your abstract understanding of ratios", but are seeing a concrete "that question you solved with the sail boat really showed me that you understand how these ratios connect to each other and the mutability of the measurements" or whatever. They're able to fully connect what they're doing with the comments you're making, and are thus able to better understand their own learning, where they stand, and to gain an appreciation that it's really that simple to show your learning. Students often don't realize the vast number of ways to show their learning. They often think only in tests and projects. With these consistent formative assessments, students can open their eyes to all the ways the knowledge and content has seeped into their thinking and the way they approach problems.
As a sign-of: if any of this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. I am very sick. And my brain is very confused.
This is beautifully written and makes great sense, Danielle! I’m sorry you’re feeling so ill— get well soon!
ReplyDelete