I can remember the feeling I had at midterm when I saw my grade. "98%! Yes!" I thought to myself. But as my eyes wandered to the letter printed next to it I felt my elation drop sharply. "B+? Really?" I could hardly wrap my mind around it. On what planet is a 98% a B+?
This is the dilemma teachers face. How do you grade students fairly, while maintaining a high standard? How many students should get A's? How do you control grade inflation? In the above example, enough students achieved in the top two percent to bring up the curve to an unreasonable level. This is a textbook example of norm-referenced grading. Experts find that it is detrimental to the relationships between students, as well as the relationship between students and teachers. Anita Woolfolk, author of Educational Psychology, mentions that the curve arbitrarily limits the number of good grades that can be given. The normal curve has no sacred meaning in education. Is the goal not to see all students succeed? Therefore, when only a handful of students are considered "A" students, we have failed them. Norm-referenced grading is an inefficient method of grading students, which, to some extent, breeds hostility and learned helplessness in the classroom.
Another method of grading, seen as superior to norm-referenced grading, is criterion-referenced grading. If a student meets clear objectives set out by the instructor, then he or she will receive the correlating grade. In this way, students can work towards the grade they want by meeting the criteria. If in my example I had been graded according to the criterion-referenced method, I would have received my "rightful" A, since I had answered correctly the test questions.
There are more ways to grade than just the above examples. Despite this, it is important for teachers to choose the best method for the activity at hand, not a one size fits all grading pattern. For indeed there might be times when the norm-referenced grading system may be appropriate. Keep in mind the goals, which are for all students to learn and excel.
Miss Gabbert
This is the dilemma teachers face. How do you grade students fairly, while maintaining a high standard? How many students should get A's? How do you control grade inflation? In the above example, enough students achieved in the top two percent to bring up the curve to an unreasonable level. This is a textbook example of norm-referenced grading. Experts find that it is detrimental to the relationships between students, as well as the relationship between students and teachers. Anita Woolfolk, author of Educational Psychology, mentions that the curve arbitrarily limits the number of good grades that can be given. The normal curve has no sacred meaning in education. Is the goal not to see all students succeed? Therefore, when only a handful of students are considered "A" students, we have failed them. Norm-referenced grading is an inefficient method of grading students, which, to some extent, breeds hostility and learned helplessness in the classroom.
Another method of grading, seen as superior to norm-referenced grading, is criterion-referenced grading. If a student meets clear objectives set out by the instructor, then he or she will receive the correlating grade. In this way, students can work towards the grade they want by meeting the criteria. If in my example I had been graded according to the criterion-referenced method, I would have received my "rightful" A, since I had answered correctly the test questions.
There are more ways to grade than just the above examples. Despite this, it is important for teachers to choose the best method for the activity at hand, not a one size fits all grading pattern. For indeed there might be times when the norm-referenced grading system may be appropriate. Keep in mind the goals, which are for all students to learn and excel.
Miss Gabbert
No comments:
Post a Comment