Posts tagged ‘summative assessment’

Grading gets an F

persian_geometryBuy this Persian Geometry design on a PiFactory tee-shirt

THE PRINCIPAL of my school has bravely initiated a discussion about whether or not D and F grades should be used by teachers. The argument goes along the lines if D and F grades are ditched then teachers will need to work with their pupils to find the success within every student.

Ds and Fs don’t motivate or promote learning. Finding success does.

Ds and Fs have enshrined the out-dated pedagogy that grading is about sorting and ranking, that students need to be judged in comparison with one another.

The result of such alpha-numeric grading is that the traditional idea of the “good” student — the students who most closely resemble the aspirations of their teachers — is the scale against which students are judged; learning is demonstrated by turning homework in on time, doing well on quizzes and tests and putting your hand up to answer questions while not talking out of turn.

The result of such behavior is turned into a mathematically nonsensical percentage inside a computer, which then spews out the grade. And for many teachers that’s it.

If a student does not fit into this rigid mould, or cannot demonstrate learning by these criteria, then the result is F for Failure.

Yet the research should be pointing us to question this approach: Not only does this traditional way of measuring learning not reveal the learning going on among many students, it is actually an obstacle to learning for all students… the achievers as well as those who appear not to be getting it.

As part of the discussion in our school I was challenged in a meeting to summarize the case against alpha-numeric grading. I mumbled a few sentences as best I could for as long as it seemed polite to do so.

Then, later, I kicked myself for forgetting the key reason grading does not work. So, I decided to summarize in short sentence bites the best case I could muster for a two-minute contribution:

❏ Grades tell students nothing about what they need to do to improve.

❏ Grades tell students nothing about what they have achieved.

❏ Grades focus students on grades and collecting points, not on what they are learning.

❏ Grades introspectively focus students on ability, or their feelings of lack of ability, not on how they can work to improve.

❏ Grades destroy intrinsic motivation.

❏ Grades don’t measure learning: grades measure obedience, compliance and how well a student can jump through a teacher’s grading-policy hoop.

❏ Grades discourage intellectual risk taking.

❏ Grades divert the attention of teachers and parents as well as students.

❏ Grades encourage rote learning, memorization not reflection.

❏ Grades pit student against student, ranking and sorting.

❏ A grades require F grades. Grades force teachers to give Fs to justify the As. Grades work against finding the success in every student.

❏ Grades increase stress. Stress is bad for learning.

❏ Grades don’t describe learning.

❏ Grades throw students off the back of the boat.

❏ Grades discourage student collaboration.

❏ Grades reward skills not valued in later life, such as memorization.

❏ Grades demoralize and demotivate.

❏ Grades label and stigmatize.

❏ Grades are part of an out-dated carrot and stick, rewards and punishment behaviorist approach to education.

❏ Grades lower the self-esteem of low achieving students and discourage risk taking among higher achieving students.

Readers will find plenty of links elsewhere in this blog on the research behind these statements. But a good start would be From degrading to de-grading by Alfie Kohn.

Advertisements

October 21, 2009 at 9:05 pm 1 comment

UK moves closer to ending damaging tests in favor of teacher judgement

Mathematicians have great powers tee-shirtBuy this Mathematicians have Great Powers PiFactory tee-shirt

UK SCHOOLS are further ahead than most of their competitors in developing and using formative assessment, assessment for learning, in classrooms. But the pressures of traditional testing still appear to be holding back further progress.

In 2005 the UK’s chief of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ken Boston, predicted that external summative tests for 11-year olds and 14-year olds will eventually be replaced by moderated teacher assessment, possibly by 2015. He said that teachers in England will one day be allowed to select tests for their pupils from a bank of assessment tasks and tests and choose when the tests should be taken.

Research focussing on a cohort of pupils over eight years, extending from before the introduction of national testing for seven-year-olds in the UK, has revealed that after the introduction of the external tests, teachers’ own classroom assessment became more summative.

Before the introduction of tests, pupils felt that teachers’ assessments helped their learning but they later noticed that their teachers increasingly focused on performance outcomes rather than learning processes. Pupils themselves began to adopt summative criteria in commenting on their own work.

Reporting on the findings, the pamphlet The Role of Teachers in the Assessment of Learning concludes that opportunities to help learning — and reduce the gap between higher and lower achieving children — are being missed.

The pamphlet has been produced by members of the influential UK Assessment Reform Group as part of the Assessment Systems for the Future Project funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

“Worse perhaps is the distorting effect on assessment for learning… Many (UK) schools give the impression of having implemented AfL when in reality the change in pedagogy that it requires has not taken place. This may happen,for example, when teachers feel constrained by external tests over which they have no control. As a result they are unlikely to give pupils a greater role in directing their learning, as is required in AfL, in order to develop the capacity to continue learning throughout life.

“The nature of classroom assessment is dictated by the tests.”

The report acknowledges that the use of teacher assessments for summative purposes is not without its problems. But, it adds, these problems need to be judged against “the ample evidence that a system based on tests is flawed”.

“Systems relying heavily on tests results are found wanting in several respects, particularly in their ability to give a dependable, that is, both valid and reliable, account of pupils’ learning… the negative consequences of summative assessment for learning and teaching can be minimised by more appropriate use of teachers’ judgements” it concludes. It adds:

❏ Testing-based assessment fails to provide information about the full range of educational outcomes that are needed in a world of rapid social and technological change and therefore does not encourage the development of these skills.These outcomes include higher-order thinking skills, the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the understanding of how to learn, and the ability to work and learn collaboratively in groups as well as independently.

❏ It inhibits the development of formative assessment (or assessment for learning) which is proven to raise achievement levels and reduce the gap between higher and lower achieving pupils.

❏ The data it provides are less reliable than they are generally thought to be. For example it has been estimated that the key stage (KS) tests in England result in the wrong levels for at least a third of pupils at the end of KS2 and up to 40 per cent at the end of KS3.

❏ The weak reliability of tests means that unfair and incorrect decisions will be made about some pupils, affecting their progress both within and between schools and beyond school.

❏ There is no firm evidence to support the claims that testing boosts standards of achievement.

❏ It reduces some pupils’motivation for learning.

❏ It imposes stressful conditions that prevent some children from performing as well as they can.

❏ It encourages methods of teaching that promote shallow and superficial learning rather than deep conceptual understanding.

The authors also add the use of test results, from league tables to target setting, is “too simplistic”.

Much summative assessment restricts the range of learning outcomes that can be assessed and excludes many of the higher-level cognitive and communication skills and the ability to learn both independently and collaboratively. The high stakes attached to the results encourage teaching to the test and excessive practising of test-taking.

This can result in pupils being taught to pass tests even when they do not have the skills that are supposedly being tested.

A study commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) concluded that while drilling 11-year-olds to pass national tests is likely to boost results it may not help pupils’longer-term learning. The narrow range of learning outcomes assessed by tests contrasts with the broad view of learning goals reflected in the DfES Every Child Matters policy document.

The authors argue, it is crucial that assessment covers the learning that will be essential for young people who will live and work in a rapidly shrinking world and changing society. Two key sets of goals in any subject are:

❏ learning with understanding;
and

❏ understanding learning.

The first refers to the development of “big ideas” — concepts that can be applied in different contexts, enabling learners to understand a wide range of phenomena by identifying the essential links between different situations. Merely memorising facts or a fixed set of procedures does not help or a fixed set of procedures does not help young people to apply learning to a range of contexts.

The second set of goals relates to the development of awareness of the process of learning. It is widely recognised that ‘students cannot learn in school everything they will need to know in adult life’. School must therefore provide the skills, understanding and desire needed for lifelong learning. “Since what is assessed has a strong influence on what is taught and how it is taught, we must look critically at what is assessed. If the required outcomes are not included, then alternative methods of assessment are needed.”

❏ Testing can reduce the self-esteem of lower-achieving pupils and can make it harder to convince them that they can succeed in other tasks;

❏ Constant failure in practice tests demoralises some pupils and increases the gap between higher and lower achieving pupils;

❏ Test anxiety affects girls more than boys;

❏ Teaching methods may be restricted to what is necessary for passing tests (eg neglect of practical work).

Instead “the negative consequences of summative assessments may be minimized by giving teachers a greater role in assessing individual pupils” concludes the report.

Reports from the Assessment System for the Future project seminars can be found at: www.assessment-reform-group.org/ASF.html

A PiFactory review of the ARG’s earlier review of research on testing, Testing, Motivation and Learning is at The research gives testing an F.

February 16, 2009 at 8:47 am Leave a comment

Assessment… a new sort of gradebook

Buy Homage to a Square tee-shirtBuy this Homage to a Square PiFactory tee-shirt

WHAT could authentic assessment look like in the classroom?

For four years I have been experimenting in my math classroom to replace percentage and letter grades with much more meaningful descriptive feedback.

There’s no shortage of percentage-based grade books for teachers. Punch in the numbers and out come the letter grades.assess_screen_02
Assignments built from learning targets with student self-assessmentassess_screen_04 They don’t tell the student what they need to do to improve… they don’t even tell the student what it is they have achieved.

They just divert the student’s attention with a meaningless letter grade from the essential tasks of learning. The frustrated and anxious student is left vainly to plead for extra credit in a bid to get more nonsense points.

The challenge is to create a gradebook that is not based on numbers and letters, but records descriptive progress and gives the student the sort of valuable feedback that describes just what it is they need to do to improve their learning.

Well, take a look at this powerpoint and let me know what you think.

The system is based on student-friendly learning targets. Assignments and questions are all linked to a learning target.

Against each assignment and learning target the teacher can record and feedback to the student a description — ranging from Starting through Getting it to Got it — and add a suggested revision learning target plus a customized study skill tip.

It also records the student’s own self-assessment of progress.

And rather than add up meaningless percentages, the system summarizes to what extent the teacher and student agree on their assessment of progress.

It can show a matrix of an individual student’s progress. Or, it can show, color-coded, the progress of an entire class.

Input screens allow the teacher to add questions (+ pictures, diagrams and equations), new targets, target notes and assignments — and link them together in a host of assignment designs.

December 14, 2008 at 11:14 pm 1 comment

Competitive grading still sabotages good teaching

Click to buy this Eratosthenes teeBuy this Eratosthenes Net on a PiFactory tee-shirt

TWELVE years ago a professor and a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford wrote a paper entitled Competitive Grading Sabotages Good Teaching. I found the paper this weekend and read a depressingly accurate description of how my school works today.

Assigning competitive grades “skews teachers’ values” and affects teachers’ behavior in five basic ways argued Prof John Krumboltz and Christine Yeh in their 1996 paper:

❏ it turns teachers into students’ opponents,

❏ it justifies inadequate teaching methods and styles,

❏ it trivializes course content,

❏ it encourages methods of evaluation that misdirect and inhibit student learning, and

❏ it rewards teachers for punishing students.

Below are some quotes from their damning indictment:

Teachers become opponents

“To assign grades, teachers must become critics whose focus is negative, always seeking errors and finding fault with students’ work. Moreover, students must be compared with one another, because there is no accepted standard for a given letter grade. A performance that earns an A in one classroom could earn a C in another classroom because of differences in the teachers’ standards or in the composition of the two classes.

“When judging the relative merit of students’ performances takes precedence over improving their skills, few students can feel good about their accomplishments. Only one student can be the best; the rest are clearly identified as less able. Comparative grading ensures that, unlike children in Lake Wobegon, half of the students will be below average.”

Grading justifies inadequate methods of teaching

“When students fail to achieve course objectives, whose responsibility is it – the teachers’ or the students’? Current grading practices put the onus squarely on the students. Teachers can use the most slipshod of teaching methods, discover that many students do not understand the material, and then assign grades accordingly.

“Current grading practices do not encourage teachers to help students improve, because only the students are blamed when they fail to learn.

“If every student achieved all the objectives of a given course, every student would earn an A – an unacceptable state of affairs in the current view. Thus teachers are reinforced for using methods that ensure that some students will not succeed.”

Grades trivialize course content

Which of the following questions is more challenging to a student?

❏ When was the Declaration of Independence signed?

❏ Would you have signed the Declaration of Independence if you had lived in 1776? Why or why not?

“The answer seems clear. The first question requires students to memorize a date. The second question requires them to think — to imagine themselves in another time and place and then to justify an action that would profoundly affect their own lives and the lives of others. However, many teachers might hesitate to include such thought-provoking questions on a test.

“If assigning grades were not required, teachers might opt for the second question. Thus course content is determined, at least partly, by the need to grade students. Teachers would be liberated to teach toward more consequential goals if they were not obligated to assign grades.”

Grading inhibits constructive evaluation

“Ideally, the evaluation process would help students discover how to improve their achievement of important goals. Grading defeats this purpose by discouraging the vast majority of students, who receive below-average grades, and by not challenging students who could improve on what they have already learned.

“Pressure to perform well often causes students to attend only to ‘material that will be on the final’.

“Students develop learning styles that they expect to yield good grades. They quickly learn that the operational definition of a course objective is ‘what appears on the final exam’.”

Teachers can take pride in failure

“Some teachers feel proud when a high percentage of their students fail. They want others to believe that a high failure rate signifies a difficult course and an intelligent teacher. To a large extent, they succeed.

“There is a common assumption that taking a ‘tough’ course is more prestigious than taking a ‘Mickey Mouse’ course. Some teachers believe that giving students low grades adds luster to their own reputations. Such teachers may choose to include excessively difficult material in their courses simply to enhance their own self-importance.

“One way of guaranteeing a high failure rate is to present material that is too difficult for most of the class to comprehend. But the inclusion of material for this purpose stands education on its head. Teachers deserve shame, not praise, if their students fail to achieve.

“Teachers who take pride in giving low grades blame the students, not themselves, when course material is not mastered as quickly as it is presented.

“The students who fail are blamed undeservedly, and the teachers who fail them are esteemed undeservedly — but the real culprit is the grading system.

“Competitive grades turn educational priorities on their head. Classes in which most of the students master the material are perceived as unchallenging. High grades are often dismissed as “grade inflation,” not as a sign that the teacher and the students have successfully achieved their mutual objectives. Meanwhile, prestige is accorded to teachers who are unable to help most of their students learn the material.

“The situation is ridiculous.”

And in conclusion they added “…under the competitive grading system, teachers are not required to help every student learn, but they are required to judge every student. Judgment is mandatory; improvement is optional.

“Competitive grading de-emphasizes learning in favor of judging. Learning becomes a secondary goal of education. Clearly, then, the need to grade students undermines the motive — to help students learn — that brought most of us into the profession.”

Click to read the full article by Prof John Krumboltz and Christine Yeh.

Similar points were also made in From Degrading to De-grading by Alfie Kohn… nine years ago.

December 4, 2008 at 7:27 pm Leave a comment

Win, win not fail, fail

Sierpinski triangle tee-shirtBuy this design on a PiFactory tee-shirt

GRADING day, end of the first quarter. After a long day writing individual assessments, I have some envy for my colleague teachers who have been punching in percentages into their computers for the past few weeks.

As the email reminded us at the beginning of the day: hit the yellow button and the magic software will turn all the numbers into a grade and get the report cards ready for dispatch. Bingo! Easier than punching in 180+ grades and descriptive assessments by one-by-one.

I note one of my colleagues’ students has a percentage of 92.827. Well, that’s an A, then. To three decimal places!

Clearly the assessments that built this grade had not just 100 criteria, not 1,000, not 10,000… but 100,000. Some grading!

But what is this percentage of..? What exactly has our student achieved 92.827% of..? What, exactly, is being measured?

Percentages are a mathematical nonsense, unless they are of something. Just what did our student fail to do to miss out on the last 7.133%? Nothing on the report card gives an explanation.

Even being more sensible about the three decimal places (the very expensive software used across school district spewed those out, not I), just what would, say, a rounded 90% actually mean?

More important what about the student who got a 65% and got an F? What practical advice does the 65% contain to tell the poor unfortunate who has been branded a failure need to do to become a success?

The A, B, C, D or dreaded F may contain no help in specifically describing what a student has or has not learned… and certainly contains no help in telling a student what they need to do to improve. But it does label the student.

This might be ok for the (albeit stressed-out) student labelled an A or B… but it’s not so hot for the student labelled C, D or F. Labelled a failure… but given no clue as to what to do.

And, believe me, where these percentage-based letter grading systems are used with enthusiasm, then these numbers have been pinned up fresh every week in classrooms… raising stress levels in all the students weekly and forcing them to focus and re-focus… not on the joys of learning, but on the terrors of the grade.

You might get an A one week on your assignment. The next, you miss it. That means you’re at best 50% and failing wildly. There’s plenty of teachers who practice, and defend this as a perfect reflection of their students’ learning. You get a perfect 100% A the following week… that still does not lift you back up to passing!

You might be well on top of the learning… but you can’t meet deadlines = F! What’s important here?

So, what’s on your mind? The beauties of that Shakespearean sonnet or doing something desperate to scrabble together a few more percentage points? Or, just call it quits? You can’t win.

What if you are the kid who doesn’t get As? And you miss an assignment? And you work nights?

Is this education… or just a confusing nightmare? Life was much more fair in Catch-22. Welcome to school.

❏ So, what is to be done?

Drop the As, Bs down to Fs. Learn the lessons of pre-algebra and accept that percentages without a definable “of” are a mathematical nonsense.

Instead, describe in student-friendly phrases just what it is they need to learn, what they have learned, and what is the next achievable step they need to take to improve.

And give them as many chances as they need to do it, to learn. It’s the learning that’s important, whenever and wherever it finally happens. Not the grade.

That’s a win, win. Not fail, fail.

November 3, 2008 at 4:48 am 2 comments

Working inside the black box

Click to buy this Eratosthenes teeClick here to buy this Eratosthenes Net PiFactory tee-shirt

YET MORE research is now available to confirm that alpha-numeric grading and traditional testing not only do nothing to promote learning… but actually lower achievement.

Since the late ’90s the team assembled around Prof Paul Black at King’s College, London, has steadily chipped away at the traditionalist approaches to assessment with their Inside the Black Box series.

“In terms of systems engineering, present policies in the US and in many other countries seem to treat the classroom as a black box,” Black and Dylan Wiliam argued a decade ago. “Certain inputs from the outside — pupils, teachers, other resources, management rules and requirements, parental anxieties, standards, tests with high stakes, and so on — are fed into the box.

“Some outputs are supposed to follow: pupils who are more knowledgeable and competent, better test results, teachers who are reasonably satisfied, and so on.

“But what is happening inside the box?” they asked.(October 1998 issue of Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 80, No. 2.)

Their books and articles have since influenced tens of thousands of teachers and educational professionals around the world. But while their reasoning has changed both thinking and practice in the UK and Europe, it has yet to take a hold in US public schools which remain fettered by traditionalist, formulaic practice and teaching children to collect points.

Now Black, Wiliam and colleagues have produced a new series of slim pamphlets taking the argument further and giving specific advice and a wealth of teaching points tailored to key subject areas, with an overall summary Working Inside the Black Box.

The pamphlets, published by GL Assessment, focus on maths, english and science.

Working inside the black box means focussing on assessment inside the classroom with the priority of serving student learning: “It thus differs from assessment designed primarily to serve the purposes of accountability, or of ranking, or of certifying competence.

“An assessment activity can help learning if it provides information to be used as feedback, by teachers, and by their pupils, in assessing themselves and each other, to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged.

“Such assessment becomes ‘formative assessment’ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet learning needs.”

Research experiments have established that, whilst pupils’ learning can be advanced by feedback through comments, the giving of marks — or grades — has a negative effect in that pupils ignore comments when marks are also given (Butler, 1988).

“These results often surprise teachers, but those who have abandoned the giving of marks find that their experience confirms the findings: pupils do engage more productively in improving their work,” says the Black team.

“The central point here is that, to be effective, feedback should cause thinking to take place… the assessment of pupils’ work will be seen less as a competitive and summative judgement and more as a distinctive step in the process of learning.

“The key to effective learning is to then find ways to help pupils restructure their knowledge to build in new and more powerful ideas… that learning was not a process of passive reception of knowledge, but one in which the learners were active in creating their own understandings. Put simply, it became clear that, no matter what the pressure to achieve good test and examination scores, learning cannot be done for the pupil; it has to be done by the pupil.”

Teachers in the UK involved in a two-year experiment demanded to learn more about the psychology of learning after working on such formative assessment practice in the classroom:”Learning is not just a cognitive exercise: it involves the whole person. The need to motivate pupils is evident, but it is often assumed that this is best done by offering such extrinsic rewards s merits, grades, gold stars and prizes. There is ample evidence that challenges this assumption.

“Pupils will only invest effort in a task if they believe that they can achieve something. If a learning exercise is seen as a competition, then everyone is aware that there will be losers as well as winners: those who have a track record as losers will see little point in trying.

“Thus, the problem is to motivate everyone, even though some are bound to achieve less than others. In tackling this problem, the type of feedback given is very important.

“Feedback given as rewards or grades enhances ego — rather than task — involvement. It can focus pupils’ attention on their ‘ability’ rather than on the importance of effort, damaging the self-esteem of low attainers and leading to problems of ‘learned helplessness’ (Dweck 1986).

“Feedback that focusses on the needs to be done can encourage all to believe that they can improve. Such feedback can enhance learning, both directly through the effort that can ensue, and indirectly by supporting the motivation to invest such effort.

“When feedback focusses on the student as a good or bad achiever, emphasising overall judgement by marks, grades or rank order lists, it focusses attention on the self (what researchers have called ego-involvement).

“A synthesis of 131 rigorous scientific studies showed this kind of feedback actually lowered performance (Kluger + DeNisi 1996). In other words, performance would have been higher if no feedback had been given.

“This is because such feedback discourages the low attainers, but also makes high attainers avoid tasks if they cannot see their way to success, for failure would be seen as bad news about themselves rather than an opportunity to learn.

“In contrast, when feedback focuses not on the person but on the strengths and weaknesses of the particular piece or work (task-involving feedback) and what needs to be done to improve, performance is enhanced, especially when feedback focuses not only what is to be done but also on how to go about it.

“Such feedback encourages all students, whatever their past achievements, that they can do better by trying, and that they can learn from mistakes and failures (see Dweck 1999).”

Quotes taken from:

Working Inside the Black Box, Dept of Education + Professional Studies, King’s College London by Paul Black, Christine Harrison, Clare Lee, Bethan Marshall and Dylan Wiliam

Mathematics Inside the Black Box, Dept of Education + Professional Studies, King’s College London, by Jeremy Hodgen and Dylan Wiliam.

❏ If this article was of interest, try… No prizes in points

❏ PiFactory’s descriptive grading rubrics can be found at: pifactory.net/catalog/assess_page_one.html

October 18, 2008 at 9:23 pm 1 comment

No prizes in points

Sierpinski triangle tee-shirt
WHEN I was training to be a math teacher in Britain some years ago there was a popular satirical BBC radio program called I’m sorry I haven’t a clue, presented by legendary jazz trumpeter Humphrey Lyttelton.

Humph arbitrarily awarded points for no apparent reason. The rules of the games were far from clear.

And although the audience shouted “points mean prizes…” on cue, no one ever knew what the prizes were. The only real prize for all concerned being an addictive dose of hilarious nonsense that was also a biting weekly commentary on current events.

Reflecting on the issue of grading, I’m reminded of this farce.

Three years ago I decided to completely abandon all grading based on points, marks, percentages or letters. The only numbers in my classroom would be in the math my students and I were working on, and not in any assessment. I felt naked.

But since then, this simple decision has lead me radically to re-assess everything that goes on in our classroom — from testing, homework policies, seating plans, late work, make-up work, behavior management to the really important question… the very essence of what it is my students and I are trying to achieve in our thinking laboratory.

Now my assessment focuses on observation, listening, discussion, collaboration and increasingly on students’ own assessment of progress. I hope the result is a focus on what we’re trying to think about in the classroom, free of the diversion of worrying about some ill-defined percentage.

The prize is the achievement of just trying to get it.

Feedback is verbal and descriptive, striving to help the student find some way of constructing their own meaning and paths to mathematical thinking.

I changed career to be a math teacher at the age of 50. UK educationists were encouraging new math teachers to abandon the traditional mark-book full of numbers. Numbers have no place in assessment and feedback in the math classroom was the argument.

It was summed up: Students who get nines and tens out of ten, nearly always get nines and tens. It may make them — and their parents — happy, but the points don’t motivate them to seek out new challenges or how to improve. They coast, complacently.

Those who get sevens or sixes… well, they’re passing. They just need to survive the you-could-try-harder talk. But how to try harder? To do what, exactly?

Those with the fives, fours, threes… confused, disappointed, frightened, feeling an inexplicable shame, they give up and cover-up as best they can. I was given a class into which such kids had been herded: “Hi,” they said, “we’re the dumb class.” I felt ashamed.

Numbers in assessment de-motivate, set student against student and encourage assessment as a process of ranking and sorting.

Adding some words of encouragement to the numbers also seems to make little difference. Students still focus on the numbers, despite their lack of any real meaning. Changing the numbers to letter-grades, doesn’t shift the focus to learning either.

Only when you take away the numbers, and letter grades, and replace them with phrases such as, “well done, now you need to work on… the distributive property” does motivation get turned round.

A target, a goal, something to focus on finally clears the clouds of confusion for the student. Now the student can see just what to do to improve. With student self-esteem no longer punctured by the stark moral judgement of a number or letter dripping with blood-red ink, students are free to focus on what they need to do to improve… and work cooperatively together to collaborate and help each other.

April 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm Leave a comment

Older Posts


Categories

Recent Posts

The PiFactory archive