Nuggets of Wisdom from (and for!) a Variety of Pedagogies

Despite the varied range of teaching and evaluating philosophies they present, each of the articles we read seems to hinge on two questions which no instructor can afford to leave unanswered: “How do I help my students become better writers?” and “How do I grade their work?”

Throughout these articles, the authors remind us that grading (especially grading writing) is a subjective process which tends to, at best, provide inconclusive feedback concerning the quality of a given text and, at worst, to stifle both students’ ability and their desire to write. Holding in mind their goal of producing better writers, the authors of these articles question traditional classroom approaches and propose alternative ones which, though also problematic in several ways, seem to offer us some valuable insights as we begin to map out our own teaching strategies.

Inoue’s article on community-based assessment, for instance, offers some wisdom that I believe can be helpful even if one does not (as I don’t) completely buy into the idea that teachers should never/almost never present themselves as the authority figure in their classrooms. Instructors who choose a more traditional system of grading and arranging their syllabi can still create (and even encourage their students to create) grading rubrics which are more “complex and explicit” and, thus, more helpful. The incorporation of multiple revisions and peer reviews as part of a course portfolio could also work well in a differently-structured class, and I think giving students the chance to analyze and challenge their course grades could generate some genuine learning.

Elbow’s “Good Enough Evaluation” can encourage teachers with a wide range of grading methodologies not to despair that fairness is “largely unavailable,” but rather to continually question their own methods of evaluation as they strive to make it as fair as they can. I believe he also offers valid strategies to help move toward fairer grading practices, such as combining norm-based and criterion-based strategies and adopting multidimensional grading systems.

Finally, the article about contract grading (a process which, despite its claim of being “easier and fairer,” seems to me to be surprisingly similar to traditional grading) offers teachers with a variety of grading pedagogies some incentive to focus on processes as well as end results and to separate evaluative feedback from grades. These strategies, as Danielewicz and Elbow point out, can help improve student writing by enabling instructors to be “blunt without being threatening” and to focus on writing more than on grading.

Learning to grade

What I find most troubling about teaching writing is in fact the fact that I must assign a concrete score to the student's paper, and that it is completely subjective. While there are several different methods of doing so, I still think the entire process is terribly unsettling.

After reading Inoue's article in which he states he feels similarly, I felt more comfortable with the method he suggests. Allowing for students to assess themselves as writers and become more involved in their education of writing would certainly create a less traditional classroom setting, but how would it work in a real life situation? I have to wonder whether this almost gives students too much credit for what they should be learning, after all, aren't we the ones who are supposed to be doing the teaching? It is our jobs as instructors to give the best guidance we can for each student to achieve his or her own goals for their writing. This is where I feel I align with Inoue and his pedagogy. It is indeed up to the student to set goals for him or herself in order to get the most out of the writing experience. However, in the same line of thought, I find myself disagreeing with Inoue as he states it is not his job to grade, because he has already asked his students to do so. And that the idea that he should grade, as the instructor, is the traditional way for teaching, period. There's something off about his logic regarding this traditional system. And so I find myself aligning and disagreeing with Inoue and his communitative pedagogy.

I have to say that I was completely blown away by the idea of contract grading. While it reminded me of rubric grading (in that you as a student begin a paper with 100 points, and for each category your paper satisfies you get so many points), but seemed a bit careless. To day that every student could receive the same grade across the board, without regard to individual writing or background, seems insensitive. This particular method lacks the ability to evolve for the need of the student, as the community-based method does. In a way contract grading is more for the sake of the grader, rather than those being graded. While there are those who modify the contract as per student's request, it still seems like it has been invented for the ease of the instructor.

While I have issues with both, I think the overall criticism I have of each method is that they both wish to define what "good" writing is. Students evaluating each other's work might struggle with the ability to make this definition in the community-based method, while students in the contract method only wish to fulfill the basic requirements to get a passing grade with "good" writing, relative to whatever letter grade they are shooting for.

Community-Based vs. Contract Grading

Community-based and contract grading superficially have a similar purpose: to diminish the role of traditional, performance based assessment in the classroom, along with students' attendant stress. However, I feel that they actually have quite opposite effects. While community-based grading uses an alternative method - peer review - to establish a benchmark of what "good writing" is, contract grading keeps the authority where it has always been, in the teacher. Within a community-based assessment actual letter grades are almost an afterthought. What counts is the work, and students seem to care about the work for its own sake. Contract grading, by contrast, puts all of its stress on letter grades (or, on one letter grade, the much-sought-after B). It seems to me that this creates less work for the teacher and less enthusiasm in the students. A telling moment in Elbow's article is when he says he must "badger and cajole" students to do the minimum amount of work for a B. Inoue's students, far from being badgered, seem to enjoy participating.

Another positive aspect of Inoue's community-based model is the extent to which the syllabus is built into it. It connects the process of assessment with the work of writing on a one-to-one level, which allows students entry into the process. While contract grading certainly demystifies the process of grading, it changes nothing in terms of the standard set-up of a syllabus: a list of assignments that must be completed for credit (with the student's involvement limited to the "completion" portion of the process).

Ultimately, I feel that the community model sets up a relatively radical dynamic in which everyone can participate in the classroom, while contract grading merely tweaks traditional methods enough to clarify the process without actually changing the classroom functionally.

Read below.

Here's an incredible animation by Sir Ken Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

One day, the animals will run the zoo

Grading must really be one of the worst parts of teaching. Although we judge each others' work, and perhaps even each other, almost constantly, voicing these judgments is uncomfortable. It's especially uncomfortable when we're asked to reduce the whole of our interactions to a number score or letter.
The common thread among these approaches to evaluation is that they are ways of informing students about the expectations for their coursework. For example, community grading seems to not only depend entirely on the pupils for the criteria of grading, but it actually encourages them to challenge these self-made criteria. For a traditionalist, this might seem like letting the animals run the zoo, but the fact of our mortality means that these animals will be the zookeepers whether we like it or not, so we might as well show them how to work the gates. In another sense, this approach threatens to seem like the instructor is passing the buck--taking one of the most difficult parts of teaching and handing it over as the students' responsibility. But as long as the students are being controlled on some level, then they will be more interested in surpassing their own criteria.
Similarly, contract grading can give students a better idea of the process that often goes on inside the instructor's head when giving grades. In this way, they have a sense of power that, while is somewhat overblown, can pave the way to success.
Finally, the idea of a good-enough evaluation system can help students understand how their work will be evaluated. Students should not feel unnecessary stress about a one-page homework assignment. That only makes them learn to the grade. When they are given a better idea of what's important, they better understand the other side of the desk where the grader sits.
My primary criticism of these grading approaches is that they tend to focus on mid-level students more than those at the highest or lowest levels. For example, some students might be interested in being graded on their instructor's expertise more than on the half-learned approaches of their classmates. And while failing students might not so easily demonize their instructors in a community grading system, they now face even further separation from their peers. We cannot pretend that classrooms will ever exist without excellent or subpar students, and our grading systems must account for these differences.
Similarly, a contract set out for a B sends a confusing message about an A, and a failing student can easily question the legitimacy of a contract. When it manages too much on process, students are asked to perform in a uniform manner. It's critical that contracts are only tied to what the final grade would suggest--that is, a B in English 1000 ought to accurately suggest proficiency in writing, not an ability to adhere to contract clauses involving attendance, conferencing and peer evaluation.
Most importantly, students must learn through grading what constitutes 'goodness.' Perhaps they write it themselves, perhaps they sign on to a managed process. But what's clear is that the process of grading should be a more explicitly discussed process in schools from an early age.

A response to Community-Based-Assessment Pedagogy

Donna, I mentioned this with you concerning the 'uncovering' pedagogical philosophy earlier, but Community-Based-Assessment Pedagogy rings similarly true: this is strikingly similar to the rabbinical teaching methods of Judaism.

I hope I don't bore you with this, but I find it extremely fascinating.

The most striking similarity I see is with the question and answer style teaching. Typical teaching today poses the answers - engaging students may develop their own questions to predict test material, but most simply regurgitate the answers given to them in a close to the original format as possible. However, in the philosophy of community-based-assessment pedagogy (from now on abbreviated to CBA) the students discover the answers as the instructor offers questions - many questions that do not have a single correct answer. The rabbinical teaching method was similar.

And here's what happens with this: unlike in the video we watched today, creativity isn't stifled. Because an authority figure is not imposing a correct answer upon students and expecting, in essence, clone-production of his/herself as a scholar, new and innovative ideas are not only accepted but implicitly encouraged. Not to mention the self-satisfaction that comes with realizing the answer yourself.

The second thing is the general atmosphere of the classroom. The synagogue as a learning center had a very unique aspect - everything spoken was confidential. It was an unspoken, yet enforced rule. A legend from the Midrash states that a scholar spoke of something that took place within the classroom decades before and was consequently no longer allowed to participate in the synagogue. Of course, what is learned can be brought forth from the classroom - otherwise no academic advancement would occur except within the classroom, and it would die with the instructor and students. Rather, it was the "who said what" that was confidential. This removed the competitive nature of learning and transferred the emphasis from the student onto the subject material.

This reminds me, in a peculiar way, of the classroom experience of CBA. By eliminating grades as a competitive edge and making every student an equally valued assessor, the emphasis seems to have been placed on the material learned, rather than the grade achieved, and, consequently, the ranking in the class and society. I could almost see an unspoken rule of confidentiality taking place in the classroom as well, beyond the professor's explicit confidentiality, that students must guard what other students express and not mock or misuse it outside the classroom. Why? Because every other student has the same advantage, namely, of having access to other students' personal expression in writing.

I have some cautions about this method - not that I do not appreciate it more than the current traditional methods, but that this still should not be conceived as the perfect teaching model.

My biggest complaint is that of time. This purely depends on the course structure, but I could see the class-time required for these endeavors to increase. And the students' workload could increase significantly as well. The assessment procedure operates very similar to a creative writing workshop experience, and while I loved these classes, I do recall a significant amount of time spent 'assessing' papers beyond my own coursework for the class. I do not say that these are flaws inherent to CBA, but rather that these elements need to be addressed.


For the time being this is all that I have, which is probably well enough, as I feel that I've been quite winded. And apologies for failing to address much of Elbow's work, but this article has spurred more immediate thoughts available for sharing.

Peace.
jds

Welcome!

Welcome to the class blog for English 8010, non-teaching section! I look forward to reading and sharing reflections and ideas with you all over the course of this semester.