Assessment and value: theory, practice, and keepin' it real

Tony's lunch conversation on assessment has got me thinking...

I'm thinking about how the practice of grading involves is us, as teachers, deciding what should be valued and how this value will be determined.

I'm thinking about how when we place value on a particular part of any process, it is then this part of the process that becomes valued.

I'm thinking about how what we, as teachers, place value upon are tangible artifacts of learning.

I'm thinking about how the reason we place value on such artifacts is not because of the inherent value any particular artifact possesses, but rather because we believe that the product we value has value in the learning process.  That the creation of a such a product or engagement in such an activity must reflect a particular degree of thinking and learning.

I'm also thinking about the observation common to us all today in our conversation, that what is being reflected through the grading system is often anything but learning.  It's the knowledge and skills a student possesses before entering our classroom.  It's the student's ability to game the system.  And it's our willingness to play into the system, not assigning too many A's or not making parents or administrators angry, engaging in grading practices that validate the a particular set of beliefs and the structure of the system.

And I'm feeling like the grading practice, along with the increased weight society places on the commodity of grades, has taken us to a place where it's too easy to lose sight of what grades were originally intended to reflect.

This isn't the first time that I've thought about all of this.  I'm sure that it's not the last, either.

Over the past couple of years I've made attempts to address the problems with grading, while also working within a system of grades.  With only a few exceptions, I stopped grading the products and instead began including a reflective component to just about every project, writing piece, and discussion.  I check the products for completion and respond to them, but as for the assignment's grade, it is the reflection where I place value.

My students were a bit baffled by this approach at the start of the year, and their first written reflections were also pretty week. As the year progressed, though, students reflections gained depth, and more importantly I saw a shift begin among students about what they valued.  Students began to take more risks and play with creativity.  Writing was more recursive, students were more engaged, and the products produced (though not what the grade was tied to) was of greater quality than any I had seen in years past.

And what made it even cooler is that because of the reflections, students grew meta-cognitively.  They were aware of and could articulate their own learning.

....
Reading back over this post, I'm feeling that it's got a whole happy ending thing going.  Like one of those fairy tales you read about in education where the teacher overcomes all odds to be amazing.    I don't want to come off as sounding like I'm telling that over-used teacher as hero narrative.  So, I'm feeling like I want to come back and keep it real, say all of those things that make the picture look less glamorous.  Things like the process was messy and hard.  That it wasn't a perfect system and some students still tried to game it, and weak writers were at a disadvantage because reflections were written.   That there were still some students who weren't engaged, and some type-A's were driven crazy by the approach.  Yep, all these things are true, just as it also true that that I'm still figuring it out.

But for the sake of keeping it real, I still have to point out...

This approach IS a step in the right direction, and if more teachers took it, more real learning would take place in our classrooms.


Our students won't value learning until it is what we place the value on.