Each of the three grading models that we examined provided a fundamentally different approach to evaluating students’ work. I find that Asao Inoue and Peter Elbow present the most compelling and applicable methods for re-envisioning the grading process.
Although Elbow’s plan for the classroom is quite structured and gives the students a clear understanding of the requirements for a B grade or below, it leaves the students confounded about how to achieve an A grade. Elbow’s plan encourages students not to aim for an A, but to focus primarily on simply meeting the criterion for attaining a B. By consequence, the benchmark for a B doesn’t include a thorough discussion or analysis of quality. Because only a small minority of students receive A’s, I imagine that the majority of students striving for that B or C walk away from the classroom having learnt little about truly improving their writing and quite a lot about how to meet general and minimal expectations. I do appreciate that Elbow’s model doesn’t include giving grades to the students throughout the semester (only at the end based on a portfolio). I agree with Elbow that this suspension of final evaluation allows students to focus on how to improve their work instead of driving them to obsess about grades. Ultimately, though, I think that the rubric is too stringent, inflexible, and doesn’t allow for a range of specific student needs and learning styles.
Inoue’s “Community-based assessment pedagogy” offers a better, more progressive and innovative plan for the classroom. Inoue’s emphasis on improving one’s writing through continual evaluation in steps and through multiple revisions certainly helps students concentrate on the quality and development of their writing (which, essentially, should be the aim of all writing classes), instead of on meeting minimal expectations. But I have a few concerns with regard to Inoue’s plan. First, his community-based learning style places assessment in the hands of other students. Some students are introverted and have difficultly forcing themselves to work in an environment where extroverts have an obvious advantage. Also, Inoue relays that he only had a few international students in his classes, which in my opinion, skews the results of his three-semester trial. International students face American writing expectations with conflicting writing experiences from their home countries. How does the peer evaluation process place them at a disadvantage? Without some special guidance and understanding from the teacher, how can international students navigate their way through a writing program that requires the same expectations of all students? International students must learn the basics of writing such as forming a thesis, using proper transitions, and parts of speech. Inoue’s plan adds a layer of new expectations primarily decided by their American peers. In general, I also think it does students a disservice to have them conjure up new phrases for English terms because they will inevitably face generally accepted terms when taking standardized tests and continuing their education. Instead, I would propose that students write their own descriptions for established terms. I also believe that the instructor should not be an invisible part of the classroom experience apart from asking questions. Just as a doctor plays a part in training physicians, a teacher plays a vital role in training writers.
In addition to the two plans discussed, I have had my own classroom experience that included a radical model from grading. As an undergraduate, I attended a college that resisted the typical grading process. None of my papers were graded throughout the semester. Every other week I met with my professors in person to discuss the progress of my writing and areas for further development and revision. By meeting with professors, I formed a clear understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and I gained so much perspective on how to generate and expand my ideas. The professor wrote extensive comments on every paper. Finally, my work was assessed in a portfolio, and I was given a half-page to a page written evaluation of my writing and its development over the course of the semester. Based on that evaluation, I was given a grade.
I believe that the ideal model would be a combination of Inoue’s “Community-based assessment pedagogy” and my own experience of dynamic discussion and feedback from instructors, culminating in a final grade given at the end of the semester. The plan would include Inoue’s constant revision process both of rubrics and papers. While I would limit the amount of public assessment of students work in the classroom, I think it would be valuable for students to work regularly in small groups and in pairs.
Overall, there were some excellent features in both Inoue’s model and my own undergraduate model that I think could be combined to form a classroom plan in which all students are nurtured, challenged, and inspired to succeed.
I think your final statement really hits at the heart of the issue here: our goal, as instructors (and, more particularly, as writing instructors) must be to create an environment where our students can be “nurtured, challenged, and inspired to succeed.” The things that worked best in your undergraduate institution and those which Elbow and Inoue set forth in their articles can all be adopted and adapted so that students feel their grades truly measure what they’ve learned and labored for in their classes, rather than seeing them only as numbers or letters arbitrarily marked at the tops of their papers.
ReplyDelete