3 ms·

How so? If someone already knows the material or has a very solid framework to fit the extra knowledge into and needs zero catching up, of course they'll know t

by Aachen 5y ago

How so? If someone already knows the material or has a very solid framework to fit the extra knowledge into and needs zero catching up, of course they'll know the material better at the end of the course and/or will be able to apply it better. How should that not translate into a better grade? The only alternative I see is to let those less-prior-experienced students take a longer time and only then determine the final grade.

etchalon 5y ago
Or you could grade for mastery of material, instead of the individual steps taken to get there.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
That presumes people learn at equal rates. People don't learn at equal rates though.
octokatt 5y ago
Because the grading system _encourages_ students who already know the material, and _discourages_ students who don’t know the material. If someone is discouraged from a subject, they are less likely to put in the effort to succeed in the subject. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle, which ideally education would fix. Similarly, this sets students up for a false idea of their “good subjects”, when instead those are familiar subjects. A student who could be a polymath gets discouraged from pursuing multiple subjects because they’re already far ahead of the game in math, so they pigeon-hole themselves to the subject where they receive positive reinforcement. Essentially, grades as a feedback system are less than ideal, and we can do better.
- Aachen 5y ago
  > Similarly, this sets students up for a false idea of their “good subjects”, when instead those are familiar subjects. A student who could be a polymath gets discouraged from pursuing multiple subjects I had never considered it that way, interesting perspective. Not yet sure how this will work in the grander scheme, I'm thinking of the impact on the value of a diploma when it's based on learning ability or broader knowledge as compared to being specialized in one thing. Something I'll be thinking about in the future.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Consider thinking of early exams and assignments as requirements for participation and good faith effort. Doing poorly on them would result in a PIP(performance improvement plan) but poor performance in early tasks shouldn't doom you. I recall some classes in Uni that would have, say, three major exams. And if you had adequate participation and grades in smaller assignments, the score of the lowest exam would be replaced with the 2nd lowest, in order to smooth out a negative deviation. I think it achieves what is being discussed here: Either you did really well through the course but had a bad final, or you didn't grasp the material early on but ended up getting it in the end.
beej71 5y ago
Let's push it to the extreme. Let's say there are 100 students in a class, and one of them is an absolute ace due to knowing the material or having a very solid framework. Should the other 99 people in the class get relatively bad scores at the end of the term? Is that a working system? The underlying problem here is that people of different skill levels are being graded on the same criteria. They're in the same class. Classes should be far more granular and far shorter (e.g. two weeks) so that people of the same skill level can be so-grouped.

by Aachen 5y ago

etchalon 5y ago

Or you could grade for mastery of material, instead of the individual steps taken to get there.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

That presumes people learn at equal rates. People don't learn at equal rates though.

octokatt 5y ago

Because the grading system _encourages_ students who already know the material, and _discourages_ students who don’t know the material. If someone is discouraged from a subject, they are less likely to put in the effort to succeed in the subject. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle, which ideally education would fix. Similarly, this sets students up for a false idea of their “good subjects”, when instead those are familiar subjects. A student who could be a polymath gets discouraged from pursuing multiple subjects because they’re already far ahead of the game in math, so they pigeon-hole themselves to the subject where they receive positive reinforcement. Essentially, grades as a feedback system are less than ideal, and we can do better.

Aachen 5y ago
> Similarly, this sets students up for a false idea of their “good subjects”, when instead those are familiar subjects. A student who could be a polymath gets discouraged from pursuing multiple subjects I had never considered it that way, interesting perspective. Not yet sure how this will work in the grander scheme, I'm thinking of the impact on the value of a diploma when it's based on learning ability or broader knowledge as compared to being specialized in one thing. Something I'll be thinking about in the future.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Consider thinking of early exams and assignments as requirements for participation and good faith effort. Doing poorly on them would result in a PIP(performance improvement plan) but poor performance in early tasks shouldn't doom you. I recall some classes in Uni that would have, say, three major exams. And if you had adequate participation and grades in smaller assignments, the score of the lowest exam would be replaced with the 2nd lowest, in order to smooth out a negative deviation. I think it achieves what is being discussed here: Either you did really well through the course but had a bad final, or you didn't grasp the material early on but ended up getting it in the end.

beej71 5y ago

Let's push it to the extreme. Let's say there are 100 students in a class, and one of them is an absolute ace due to knowing the material or having a very solid framework. Should the other 99 people in the class get relatively bad scores at the end of the term? Is that a working system? The underlying problem here is that people of different skill levels are being graded on the same criteria. They're in the same class. Classes should be far more granular and far shorter (e.g. two weeks) so that people of the same skill level can be so-grouped.