C
chevalier
Guest
Something I’ve been talking about with a younger friend of mine has given me the idea of having this theoretical discussion.
In his case, it looks like he got a B+ while his classmate A-, even though he made one mistake fewer than the classmate, and also explained to the teacher it was in a hurry and told her what was wrong and how it should haven been written (English as a foreign language, below his skill level, he forgot either the auxiliary “had” or the participle twice in third conditional). Now, we may raise the point that his grade was somewhat fitting, if a bit on the strict edge, but it looks like the friend was graded along different lines.
Now my question: Shouldn’t teachers be consistent in their grading rules? This reminds me of seeing copied homeworks graded differently for different students by the same teacher in the same class, and similar disproportions in the grade to quality ratio.
Some teachers seem to believe that the amount of work one puts in the task is more important than the outcome. Similarly, they might think the amount of improvement is more important than the final point reached. While there is some logic in this, I disagree. Also, it seems to me many of those teachers then treat the students as if the ones with the better grades, achieved for more effort or more improvement, really knew more than those who achieve objectively better results at a smaller cost, or improve less. In that, they create fiction. Harmful fiction and unjust fiction, if I may say so. Illogical for sure - while grading, they use the justification that the actual amount of work or the scope of improvement was higher. But once graded, they use the grade given to infer conclusions about the actual knowledge of the student. Very poor logic.
Personally, I’ve always avoided grading people and I’ve always concentrated on telling them what they need to work on and what the current state of their knowledge and ability is. If I actually had to give them real grades, I suppose I would base it on the comparison between their knowledge and the knowledge required. No awards or punishments trumping the objective reliability and comparability of the grade and no relative grading such as the best result has to get an A and the worst a failing grade, either, even if I wouldn’t actually go point by point with a checklist, as those are limiting and they don’t foresee all the creative solutions the students can come up with, for which they deserve credit.
This means the grades would have to be materially deserved. If some genius came to my mid-level course, I would obviously still try to teach him something, but he would be graded on the same scale. If he refused to write a test, he would still fail it, although I wouldn’t make it look like he actually got 0 points for not knowing anything. If a student below the level of the course didn’t follow the suggestion to find a different group, he would still pass or fail according to his knowledge, although I would perhaps give him more attention if appropriate. At any rate, no fiction like everyone’s entitled to pass no matter his actual knowledge, or pretending the lazy buggers really know nothing. No adjusted requirements pretending to remain within the same scale.
The only exception I can think about is physical education. I think a better solution should be found than awarding disadvantaged students higher grades for lower results, but obviously one shouldn’t be blocked from academic pursuits by being unable to run as fast as a healthier person (not like lack of academic prowess or interest should inhibit a sports career, either). Actual scores should still be kept, though, to avoid silly fiction. It should never be implied that their actual, physical results are comparable, but at the same time, they shouldn’t suffer the material consequences of their health problems and, to some extent, even their fitness problems. P.E. eludes grading by the scores anyway, since such a lot depends on individual height, weight, some things are different between the sexes, and all, so I conclude it’s different from academic subjects. I think it should be graded using some clever system taking into consideration the physical limits of the students, or perhaps they could come up with some opportunities… don’t know. I remember written tests (game rules) and assignments (e.g. history of the olympic movement) for P.E. But I wanted to focus on the academic subjects, anyway. Just had to make the reservation for P.E.
What’s your opinion?
In his case, it looks like he got a B+ while his classmate A-, even though he made one mistake fewer than the classmate, and also explained to the teacher it was in a hurry and told her what was wrong and how it should haven been written (English as a foreign language, below his skill level, he forgot either the auxiliary “had” or the participle twice in third conditional). Now, we may raise the point that his grade was somewhat fitting, if a bit on the strict edge, but it looks like the friend was graded along different lines.
Now my question: Shouldn’t teachers be consistent in their grading rules? This reminds me of seeing copied homeworks graded differently for different students by the same teacher in the same class, and similar disproportions in the grade to quality ratio.
Some teachers seem to believe that the amount of work one puts in the task is more important than the outcome. Similarly, they might think the amount of improvement is more important than the final point reached. While there is some logic in this, I disagree. Also, it seems to me many of those teachers then treat the students as if the ones with the better grades, achieved for more effort or more improvement, really knew more than those who achieve objectively better results at a smaller cost, or improve less. In that, they create fiction. Harmful fiction and unjust fiction, if I may say so. Illogical for sure - while grading, they use the justification that the actual amount of work or the scope of improvement was higher. But once graded, they use the grade given to infer conclusions about the actual knowledge of the student. Very poor logic.
Personally, I’ve always avoided grading people and I’ve always concentrated on telling them what they need to work on and what the current state of their knowledge and ability is. If I actually had to give them real grades, I suppose I would base it on the comparison between their knowledge and the knowledge required. No awards or punishments trumping the objective reliability and comparability of the grade and no relative grading such as the best result has to get an A and the worst a failing grade, either, even if I wouldn’t actually go point by point with a checklist, as those are limiting and they don’t foresee all the creative solutions the students can come up with, for which they deserve credit.
This means the grades would have to be materially deserved. If some genius came to my mid-level course, I would obviously still try to teach him something, but he would be graded on the same scale. If he refused to write a test, he would still fail it, although I wouldn’t make it look like he actually got 0 points for not knowing anything. If a student below the level of the course didn’t follow the suggestion to find a different group, he would still pass or fail according to his knowledge, although I would perhaps give him more attention if appropriate. At any rate, no fiction like everyone’s entitled to pass no matter his actual knowledge, or pretending the lazy buggers really know nothing. No adjusted requirements pretending to remain within the same scale.
The only exception I can think about is physical education. I think a better solution should be found than awarding disadvantaged students higher grades for lower results, but obviously one shouldn’t be blocked from academic pursuits by being unable to run as fast as a healthier person (not like lack of academic prowess or interest should inhibit a sports career, either). Actual scores should still be kept, though, to avoid silly fiction. It should never be implied that their actual, physical results are comparable, but at the same time, they shouldn’t suffer the material consequences of their health problems and, to some extent, even their fitness problems. P.E. eludes grading by the scores anyway, since such a lot depends on individual height, weight, some things are different between the sexes, and all, so I conclude it’s different from academic subjects. I think it should be graded using some clever system taking into consideration the physical limits of the students, or perhaps they could come up with some opportunities… don’t know. I remember written tests (game rules) and assignments (e.g. history of the olympic movement) for P.E. But I wanted to focus on the academic subjects, anyway. Just had to make the reservation for P.E.
What’s your opinion?
During the final ORAL and WRITTEN exam (the written I actually did okay on, btw, apparently I can translate the written word better than the spoken word) it was painfully obvious to both the teacher and myself that all our desperate efforts had failed. She gave me a B+! I was horrified. I actually asked her how in the world she could justify that and she gave me a very pained look and said, "Don’t take this wrong or personal. You earned that grade by sheer desperate desire to learn and effort to try. I’ve never seen anyone try so hard."
**