Putting the Focus on Learning (Conquering the Grade-Centric Mindset)

Would it surprise you to hear that one of sport’s greatest coaches never mentioned “winning” to his players?   To John Wooden, the longtime head coach of UCLA basketball, winning was an end result.  He wanted his players attendant to the journey, focused on doing the right things, the right way, every day.  Winning is the by-product of those labors.  And some days the best effort results in losses and the worst results in wins.   He asked his players to give all, save none, and do their best.  If that resulted in winning, great.  And Wooden’s teams, their focus elsewhere than on winning, won an awful lot. **

I think you will enjoy this short video clip of Wooden discussing his teaching philosophy:  John Wooden Defines Success (also linked at the end of this post)

Why do I share this?  No, SPS is not starting a basketball team (and even if it were, they would not be looking to a 5’4” ex-lawyer to spearhead the effort).   I share this because it provides a blueprint for getting our students focused on the learning process (the journey) rather than on final grades (the by-product of that journey).

We are not A’s or B’s or C’s.  We are what we know, what we do, and what we believe.  We are the effort we put forth, the potential we realize.  Grades are ephemeral transcript notations; true learning we keep as our own.  How do we help our students understand that, so they can emerge from the haziness of GPA fever and hunger not for A’s but for the means to keep getting better?

Suppose a student comes into Quantitative Analysis with zero understanding of the topic or its purpose.  Inspired by the passionate instructor (let’s call him Prof. Tom B.), the student identifies the course’s treasures,  redoubles effort to obtain them,  puts in extra time-on-task, devours Prof. Tom B.’s timely and useful feedback, and gets a final grade of, heaven help us, 87 (B+).   This student went from zero to 87 in eight weeks.  That’s the value, the scope of knowledge gained.   Despair awaits a student in this situation who laments falling short of an A instead of understanding the extraordinary situational value of this B+. 

  

Now imagine a student who came into the same class but with solid quantitative background and coasted to an 87 (B+).  Both students earned the same grade but with much different value gained because the rigors and splendors of their journeys differed.   The final grades are accurate and fair as they represent the ultimate mastery demonstrated by the student (equal).  But the first student has gained more.  This need not be reflected in the grade, as it is not what grades are for (in my mind).  Grades measure mastery.  The value added, the distance traveled, is recouped personally by the student in terms of human betterment and self-efficacy. 

  

Coach Wooden talked about those days when his teams worked hard and expended their best effort but faced a superior opponent.  Even if his team lost that day, he taught them how to evaluate their own effort, to understand that wins and losses were mere by-products and not the true measure of their ultimate success.

Learning is a culture.  As instructors we are cultural icons in our classrooms.  In that role we can focus our students on the learning journey, liberating them to value effort and quality and let the grades fall where they may.  We must help our students understand and recognize the situation where a hard-earned B+ in one class might be better than an easy A they earned in another. 

**If you prefer the same philosophy but in a different context, consider Eric Rippert’s approach to running a world renowned restaurant:

Jeff Haden:  [L]e Bernardin has received four stars from The New York Times for a record 26 years in a row, with you as executive chef for 18 of those years. How?

Eric Ripert: As much as we don't take for granted our four stars and any awards we have received, we do not think about these on a daily basis--our focus is solely on the kitchen preparing the best food and front of house providing the best service possible.

Click here for the full interview with Chef Ripert from Inc.com.

Grade Inflation and the "Process of Learning" by Dr. Wojciech Mrozek

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.