 |
| Dr. Wojciech Mrozek |
Paradoxically, the inflation of grades in the U.S.
universities and colleges is neither about the grades nor their inflation. If this was the case, then the solution could
be straightforward: since the grades are inflated, one just has to lower every
grade from A to B, from B to C and so on. Yet, the solution is not that simple,
because the problem is bigger than the grades. I would argue that the problem
is directly related to the crisis of the educational system.
What is the purpose of education? Why do we learn?
Why do people pay money (in some cases a substantial amount of money) in order
to attend a school? The typical answers to those questions are as follow: “I
need that degree to earn more money.” “I need to graduate to advance in my career.”
“I have to become more competitive in
the job market.” To be honest, those statements are perfectly fine, but they cannot
be the main reasons why we learn. Yet, as
long as we choose to answer those questions in a very pragmatic way, we will
face the problem of focusing our attention on the highest possible grades
earned. In other words, as long as education is seen as a commodity that can
simply be bought and sold, or as an investment that can bring about a certain
profit, then the grades are going to be the most important part of the learning
process. The investments must pay off
the highest interests, meaning the highest grades because the investor expects
the highest profit (the highest grades), and the institutions of higher education
do not want to disappoint their investors (students). If that is the case, then
the students, whether labeled as consumers or investors, would demand the
highest possible grades and challenge any grade that does not fulfill their expectations.
The outcome of such an approach is the “entitlement attitude” on the part of
the students, and the “compliance attitude” on the part of the educational
institution. Yet, I strongly believe that education is not a commodity, it has
value in itself and the grades should be seen as a byproduct and not the main
focus of the learning process.
Furthermore, I believe that education is not simply
about teaching. It is primarily about
learning. Education is not merely
about what I teach, but it is more
about what you learn. I believe that
if the emphasis is on the latter, then the pressure of getting the highest
grade would be minimized, and the students would gradually realize that the
goal of education is not purely the final grade (which still is important), but
the comprehension and skills they have discovered through their learning
experience.
Unfortunately, there is not a simple solution to the
problem of grade inflation. However, I believe that the initial step that may
lead to a gradual solution is to change the focus of education from earning
grades or degrees to learning and experiencing something new. If the students
(and the instructors) increasingly change the focus from the grades to the
learning process, then, I believe, we are on the right path. Instead of asking,
“What grade did I get” one should ask, “What have I learned?” “How can I
improve?” “Have I really achieved my best?”
Of course, we still needs grades, we have to
recognize the achievements and accomplishments of every individual learner. The
question is how to do it?
In every human interaction, there is a certain tension
between subjectivity and objectivity. The relationship between
the students and the instructor is not excluded from this tension. Yet, subjectivity
is not only the problem of the instructor who is grading a paper; the student
has his or her subjective interpretation too. Now, the question transforms into:
Can any grade be ever objective?
There is a further tension between objectivity and fairness. Which grade is objective? Which grade is fair? Does
objective mean fair? What should we emphasize, objectivity or fairness? Should
we pay attention to both?
Another tension is between the process of learning
and the final product. While grading,
are we looking at the final product or at the process? Are we rewarding just
the basic value of the assignment or the work involved in accomplishing the
assignment? Are we helping the student to achieve his/her best potentials (thus
learning) or just judging the final paper? (I do not even know who wrote the
final paper. See: The Chronicle of Higher
Education, November 12, 2010. The Shadow Scholar. The man who writes your students' papers tells his story.)
Still another tension is between the uniqueness and individuality of every
student and the standardization of the
students’ achievements. We live in a society where individuality is highly
regarded, almost essential to our identity as human beings. On the other hand,
when it comes to education, we have standardized, numeric tests to define the
value of a particular achievement, which effectively destroy individuality.
If the goal of education is achieving certain
standards, then what should the standards be? Should it be the accomplishment
of certain numeric values? Or the standard should be defined in terms of learning,
widening horizons, growing and experiencing oneself and the outside world in a
new and a very personal and individual way? The question is then, how do we measure
the achievements? How do we recognize the individual accomplishments?
Dr. Mrozek is an adjunct instructor with Centenary College's School of Professional Studies; he teaches courses in Religion, Philosophy, and Academic Foundations.
7 comments:
Excellent point. We have become a diploma mill to some extent. There many excellent adj professors at Centenary however the class often wants the certification to the exclusion of the subject matter. I get many more emails requesting the due date rather than the exploration of the subject. For every class there are more interested in finishing their personal emails then those involved in learning. I spend most of my time getting students to pay attention. Now that I am online I see a simular ratio of interested students to grade hunters. We need to find more reasons for them to get them Involved.
To Allan's fine point about finding "more reasons" for students to get involved: this effort begins, I believe, upon our very first interactions with students, while their impressions of us, and the class, and the content are forming. At the outset, students will be asking, what's in this for me? We entice them by showing the value of the course, not in abstraction, but as it relates to them, how - if they invest the effort - the course will make them better people, better employees, just plain better. This effort varies based on the course and the individual student. It's all about helping students find intrinsic motivation. Does anyone have any proven tactics on this point that they would care to share?
Thank you Dr. Mrozek for presenting the Grade Inflation problem in a very thought provoking manner. I wonder if perhaps as faculty we can leverage the pragmatism that drives our Centenary students (and most all of us, these days) to make better “learners.”
If a student’s mindset is, pragmatically speaking, all about their course grade, then the instructor must instill that in order to achieve their desired grade, they’ll absolutely need to master the course’s content. The new mindset must be “I’ll achieve an A in this course if and only if I display mastery of the content.” This can be communicated and evaluated, in a number of ways; depending on each instructor’s unique style. In a nutshell, the way I instill the “content mastery” mindset is by continually emphasizing quality in everything a student hands in. This emphasis on quality also addresses Dr. Mrozek’s issue of the need for objective and fair grading methodologies.
Specifically, I attempt to teach the importance of quality in (1) their problem solution structure, (2) “quality over quantity” in their short paper writing; and (3) quality in their verbal participation in class.
Quality in problem solution structure: I teach primarily quantitative subjects (Finance, Economics and Statistics). In my view, these subjects typically present problems with 2 components – solution logic, or structure, and Math. I feel that if a student displays the correct solution structure (writes the correct verbal theory, formula, and solution steps), but misses a minor part of the Math execution, they deserve most, though not all credit for the problem.
Quality in short paper writing: While many students perceive that short paper grading is subjective, I feel there is a way to grade these papers in a primarily objective manner. Again, the key here is quality over quantity – we are looking for very specific displays of quality and mastery, per our rubrics – focus is solely on the topic assigned, ideas are well developed, and writing is free of errors.
Quality in verbal participation: The “participation” grade is perhaps the one viewed as most subjective by students. Again, here, we can change that to an objective grade, by stating our criteria for a “Participation A” in week 1 class. My criteria, for example, are: you consistently volunteer to “whiteboard” a homework problem, and you attempt to answer my questions and ask your own relevant questions, during class discussion of new material.
Excellent article and this is something we all struggle with. We our great leaders and innovators A students? I come from an engineering background and there are minimum levels of knowledge that are needed in order to demonstrate competency. Failure in my profession can have dramatic consequences. I believe that our collective goal as both instructor and student is to have the student achieve a minimum level competency in each course. In some cases this can be achieved by not having grades and simply using a pass/fail system. Grades above a C in my experience honor those students that want to explore a topic more deeply and is the way we reward those students and separate them. In many ways with the accelerated program, the centenary instructors serve as a facilitator role to introduce the material to the students, pose questions and then act as a catalyst so they can explore the material and absorb it so that it has meaning for them. I strive to create a love of the material for my students so that when the class is over they will continue to use the ideas and concepts that we covered.
Business Statistics is a course that most students believe to be abstract, esoteric and impractical. The typical preconceived notion is that “this course will not improve my life at all.” One of my main tactics for overcoming this is to explain how Statistics is, to a large degree, the search for truth. “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure,” is an expression well known to students. I believe the figures referred to here are actually statistics, and if we become competent in understanding them, we can cipher out the myths from the facts.
I explain that while we live in an information age, information alone is not knowledge, or truth. In fact, much of what we hear and read online these days is opinion disguised as truth. So how can we become competent “consumers of information,” and critically think through what is truth vs. opinion?
The answer is in the analysis… I teach how employing a range of basic descriptive statistics about a set of data (information), can greatly enhance our finding the truth. And if students can master the application of these basic stats, they’ll become much better “information consumers.”
One of the advantages of teaching Philosophy is how instructors can gear the course to be an introspective journey with the focus on learning about one’s core values rather than taking the course to ultimately gain a degree. I encourage the students to read the text, ingest, digest, and then discern for themselves what beliefs and values are important to their being and learning.
(Was wirst du tun, Gott, wenn ich sterbe?/Co byś Ty zrobił, Boże, gdyby mnie nie było?)
Rainer Maria Rilke
Post a Comment