Regent College : 1999 Seminar

Narrative

Hit or Miss: The Mark as Problem and Process
(Grading and evaluation within the teaching and learning process at Regent College)

A new faculty member recalls:

 

I read a student thesis one more time. I am very disappointed in the quality of the paper written to accompany an Arts Thesis Project. The students' song writing has been ably demonstrated in a concert. But the paper is weak; requested revisions only partially made. By the rubric (see Appendix A) I have been given for assigning grades, I would give at best a B- for the paper; perhaps an A for the performance. The performance is to be weighted 75%, to 25% for the accompanying academic paper. Would that make the whole project a B+? An A-? A year ago I would have given the lower grade without hesitation. I might even have given it a B overall. But I have learned that the grading rubric is not applied exactly, and that I am marking at least a grade lower than the norm. I decide I will err in the student's favour, and grant an A-. I will add a written comment to the record, describing the paper as weak, but granting the grade on the strength of the strong performance component. Both the second reader and I know this is a compromise; what I wonder is just how much has been compromised.

 

Another relatively new faculty member speaks not of the pain of a particular situation, but of grading in general:

I find grading the hardest thing. Why? Because I genuinely like 99.9% of my students. I know most of them work very hard; in smaller classes we often chat together and have coffee, and most actually seem quite eager to please ME (yes, me personally!!!!). I find it terribly difficult to give such nice people a B or B- (even harder, a C+). BUT I have to try to put aside those feelings and ask myself: how would this paper stand up to public scrutiny? I cannot give them a grade that in the larger public arena would result in their humiliation, i.e., they have the grade but not the goods. I remember when I was drumming professionally being told by a good friend, whom I admired, that my playing style was too "busy." It hurt! But I learned. In the end, learning is more important. Sometimes the pain of a low grade is the stimulus to excellence—I have seen it over and over again. I cannot bring myself to deprive my students of this possible avenue to greatness.

A group member who has taught here for much longer still finds that grading is the point at which teaching often loses its joy:

It's just after midnight and I'm lying awake worried about the low grade I will have to assign to a student in my class. For one of the assignments clear instructions have been given, and I have met with him individually to go over his ideas. He has had the opportunity to observe eight fellow students address the same assignment, but, he begins awkwardly, handles the text inaccurately, is confusing in his communication, poorly organizes his time, and ends abruptly. Although trying to be as constructive as I can in my written comments, I must be as clear as I can be in my assessment. His assignment deserves a low mark. As I write it on his paper, I know he will protest. Within 24 hours I have his letter on my desk, forcing me to anguish over this. . . again.

And even after years of teaching, another faculty member still feels the pain of assigning
grades in this community of learning:

An Asian student in the Certificate of Christian Studies program has limited English, with no idea of how to study or construct an exam answer. He does OK in essay and tutorials, but has failed both exams. My dilemma: do I pass him? Or do I construct an alternative evaluation process which emphasizes his strengths—and be unfair to the rest of the class. All this I have to consider with a student in tears, close to nervous collapse wanting only "to serve the Lord." His background: totally pagan.

A couple of the members of our group have institutional roles in which they often meet with students other than in the classroom or instructional context. From Gordon (Dean) and Thena (Assistant Dean of Students), we hear that grading practices and the meaning of marks is a focus of student anger and staff frustration. Gordon is concerned about what a fat file of student appeals—in some cases complaints about major delays in the return and grading of assignments; in others, complaints about the use of Teaching Assistants for grading; in others, complaints related to what grades represent at Regent. He tells about his induction into the conflicts around marks and grading practices.

In a Fall meeting of the Curriculum Planning Committee, the members sat quietly while one of the two student representatives calmly but firmly outlined what he and many students at Regent viewed to be a major problem: assignments and grading (see Appendix B).: ‘This was something about which they were angry and deeply frustrated, and if it did not find resolution soon, was a matter that could easily lead to deep alienation between students and faculty. And I already knew that there were faculty members who did not do any grading but had it all done by TA. And naturally I wondered if the Regent faculty considered assignments and grading an integral part of the teaching-learning process. All of this meant that something needed to be done and it needed to be done soon.

Rikk feels that students here are too worried about marks. What really matters, at least for students going on in their studies, is a professor's reference. This draws attention to the difference between the quantified entry process in North American institutions and the reference-based entry process in United Kingdom and UK-influenced schools. Regent's historic hybrid character as a North American institution with a mix of "Oxbridge" and North American educational models suddenly becomes the topic of our conversation.
Soon we are telling each other stories not only about "where I came from" but "in my contact with students here at Regent. . . ." At Regent, we have not one but three different student constituencies, each of which sees grades in a different way. We have those anticipating going on to post-graduate studies; those who are attending Regent for personal enrichment, integration, and spiritual growth; and those who attend in preparation for pastoral ministries.

Our questions include such things as optimal class size and what courses can be offered by lecture and which should be delivered by seminar. We wonder how marks can best be made an integral part of the teaching-learning experience—to foster excellence, demonstrate progress, and help students honestly assess their potential for further scholarship. And we consider the complexity of marking courses in which aesthetic or reflective work is produced for grading alongside analytic or academic writing. How do we maintain academic integrity and still foster creativity, diversity, and the exploration of a range of modes of expression?

We think we can use a focused discussion of the practice of assigning grades as a lens through which to consider a range of issues about what we are as an institution; about what we think about the process of education, and the role within that process of responding to and grading student work; and about what we offer at Regent. We see that this discussion can bring together faculty concerns about workload and life balancing acts—many faculty members feel stressed and overworked, and some of this relates to grading—with student concerns about workload and the value of their degrees as benchmarks in their own spiritual formation, as tickets for the marketplace, and as a means of securing placement for further studies. And, in the midst of this, we want to sustain a balanced integration of the effective, intellectual and spiritual aspects of life.

Our task will be to see the discontents around marking as a presenting issue, leading us to ask how grading and evaluation fits into the teaching-learning process at Regent. But as we attempt to explore that issue, it will lead us to ask the more fundamental questions on which it touches. How can Regent be a true community of learners for all three student constituencies and the faculty? Can clarifying and re-thinking issues around grading help us become this community?

 

 

APPENDIX A

Grading Rubric

 

Letter Grade	Standing	Explanation	Grade Point
A+ A A-	First Class	Excellent Work	4.0 4.0 3.7
B+ B B-	Second Class	Sound, capable work	3.3 3.0 2.7
C+ C C-	Pass	Acceptable work	2.3 2.0 1.7
F	Failure	Unacceptable work	0.0
N	Did not write	Without extenuating circumstances student failed to complete course requirements within prescribed time.	0.0
AG	Aegrotat	Ungraded pass granted by Registrar, who for exceptional reasons are unable to complete a course in their final term of study.
AU	Audit	Non-credit. Attendance recognized.
EX	Extension	Temporary designation for course in which a student has been granted a Registrar's extension for coursework.
IP	In Progress	Temporary designation for course of more than one term's duration.
NR	Not Recorded	Temporary designation for course in which the grade has not yet been recorded.
P	Pass	Competency. Used only where letter grade is deemed inappropriate.
R	Retake	Course subsequently retaken.
W	Withdrawal	Granted by Registrar in exceptional circumstances only.

 

APPENDIX B

Comments on grading (Gideon Strauss), November 11,1998

 

The importance of grading:

1. Grading is not an ephemeral matter, merely required of us by convention and for the purpose of accreditation, but otherwise unrelated to the life of our community. To the contrary, it is a most concrete expression of the character and central purposes of this community of learning. How we grade reflects who we are.
2. Grading is a matter of justice-and-righteousness. It is a concrete measure of the degree of fairness and care with which we treat one another in this community.
3. Grading is a vital part of the learning process. Grading which does not appropriately, adequately, and timeously enable students to assess the quality of their learning subverts the very purpose of this community. While grading is integral to the learning process at all levels of education, it is particularly so in graduate coursework, where students are highly motivated and purposeful in their approach to learning.
4. Grading, whether done well or done poorly, has a profound effect on the lives of students. Often grading suggests aptitude and skill for this or the other vocation. Equally often, grading recommends students to future places of learning and work. Inappropriate, inadequate, or belated grading can cause various species of havoc for students—including misguided vocational decisions, marital discord, nervous exhaustion, and undeserved failure to gain entry to places of learning and work (or, worse, finding oneself admitted to a course of learning or work with a false sense of the adequacy of one's preparation).

In my view, there are problems with grading at Regent. I have no research findings with which to verify this opinion, but sufficient anecdotal evidence to know that this is in fact a matter of general concern among students, and in certain individual instances, a cause of bitter disappointment.

1. The grading problem at Regent has, in my opinion, two parts:
   A. The length of time which lapses from the handing in of assignments or the writing of tests until the return of formal feedback; and
   B. The quality of TA grading. It is not clear to me what standards, if any, are being applied in the selection and training of TA's who will do grading. Nor is it clear whether appropriate and adequate grading norms are available to such TA's, against which they can benchmark the quality of their work, and in terms of which a degree of grading equity can be achieved across all the disciplines on offer at Regent. This is not a blanket complaint against TA grading. In my experience certain Regent TA's, such as Marcus Tso for Bruce Waltke, exceed every reasonable expectation in the quality of their grading. Good grading at Regent should not, however, be dependent on such exceptional commitment and ability.

It is clearly in the interest of the entire Regent community that these two problems with regard to grading be addressed speedily and effectively. It is equally clear that the only body within the Regent community able to address these problems effectively, is faculty.

 

Thank you.