Making the grade pt. 1

A few words on grading, from the instructor's point of view:

• the audience of a grade is a student 
• the goal of a grade is change

I used to worry a lot about precision in grading. Precision--the grouping of the arrows on the target, rather than their proximity to the bullseye--can still be achieved even in the context of inaccuracy. Accuracy--the proximity of an arrow to the bullseye--may be impossible in the humanities. One humanist may create a mental model of a student paper that's entirely different than another humanist's mental model. These differences are even greater when expressed on a 100-point scale. What's the difference between a grade of 86 and 87? What's the difference between a B and a B+? How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? In the face of this uncertainty, I decided that I could at least be self-consistent. Therefore I drew up a rubric before every assignment and tried to apply the same criteria to every student paper. I also had an ulterior motive: if I graded every problem exactly the same, then I could compile a list of "most common problems" as I graded, copy-and-paste when necessary, and then use that list to indicate where my students were struggling.

The problem with precision--real or implied--is that it doesn't really connect with the audience. Even if I have a nuanced and particular understanding of the difference between 86% and 87%, I doubt that my students do. Whether my students interpret these differences as optimistically as wearied O-Chem students or as pessimistically as entitled over-achievers, neither would align with my personal kabbalah of quantitative interpretation.

The bottom line: If the students don't understand the grades, they can't change.

Next time: Standards-Based Grading