Old teachers never die, they just grade away.
Anonymous

Evaluation of students in the classroom can be a double edged matter. In the traditional method, there is a certain amount of fundamental objective knowledge upon which a student must base his or her evaluations. This part of the discipline is straightforward. However, there is a second, more subjective aspect to consider. Given that I am also asking for students to express their opinions, their ideas, their assessments, the matter becomes a little trickier. Outcome objectives such as ‘evaluate’ and ‘interpret’ are more abstract than quantifiable products, especially when coupled with the term ‘creatively’. Therefore traditional assessments like objective tests (in my opinion) are of limited usefulness and should be used in conjunction with other methods. One of the most effect assessment tools available to the instructor is writing. I believe writing is where the greatest learning occurs; for it is in such situations where complex and abstract ideas can be explored, interpretations can be defended, philosophical positions can be argued, and student understanding can be evaluated. Everyone participates on their own terms, all opinions are heard, and all ideas are given voice. Every student, no matter how participatory or how reserved can express themselves in a format that is open to possibilities. And it is with a written expression that the student learns to articulate his or her thought process, an act which often brings new insight. Students often have a moment of clarity in the midst of such exercises that previously was not apparent.

Still, this begs many questions: What makes one written response superior to another given the importance placed on personal interpretation? Are there right and wrong answers when it comes to said interpretation? Are there universal standards? How does one determine and define qualities such as originality and uniqueness in historical analyses? Again, the answer is not simple. However, it could be said that the best work, arguably, is that which expresses fresh ideas on any given subject. The problem is that under such circumstances, it would be entirely possible for one instructor to give a certain student work a “C+” while a second instructor might consider the same piece an “A-” and a third a “B.”

So what is to be done about grading? I suppose in a very liberal reality, I would be able to dispense with grades altogether. It is the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to apply it that matters. However, my radical notions aside, this is not, in reality, at all practical, especially in academic settings. Schools need to be able to assess students with quantifiable data in order to determine their ‘timely’ progress, and that they are assimilating knowledge. Thus, every student is judged based on a certain criterion that usually revolves around a grade point average relevant to promotion and graduation. There are numerous other reasons for specific calculable evidences of success so students must be graded. The question then becomes how to incorporate the need for such specificity with subjective content and merge them into a insightful measurement that is not bereft with bias implications?

I have come to believe that the only way to achieve all these objectives is with the use of a guiding principle, or rubric conjoined with a grading scale. In this manner, issues of objective and subjective assessments can be fully and openly expressed and explained.

Any assessment that requires an objective answer is graded strictly on its content and according to a specific scale. The traditional A-F grading scale with the plus (+) or minus (-) subdivisions is easy, well known, and appropriate in these situations, and requires no in depth explanation.

The grading of any subjective test requires more specific explanation as well as a well designed chart.[1] Specifically applied, this refers to two areas: 1) Writing and 2) Participation.

For writing, starting with the traditional letter grades, I reserve “A” for work I consider shows polish and professionalism, and could be submitted, without any significant changes or alterations, for presentation at seminars or similar environments relevant to said students work level (undergraduate, graduate, etc.). A “B” reflects work that is good, strong, creative, but needs some revision, some refinement, before it could be considered for submission to the aforementioned environments. “C” level work means the student met the minimum requirements. They did everything correctly, but the work quality does nothing to draw exemplary notice. A “D” is used for sub-standard work; incomplete or inconclusive, or missing a major required component. “F” is generally reserved for work that is has failed to be submitted. I will give such a grade if I have received work that is vastly incorrect or shows little or no effort. However, the work would have to be at the extreme edge of incorrect, so much so that I would question my involvement in the obtainment of such a grade. For example, if I asked for a written response to a reading on Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and got a paper on Fredrick Douglas’ involvement in Slave rights. In such a case, I could not bring myself to give them a passing grade unless there was clear evidence that I had given the assignment wrong or misinformed what I wanted.

The actual rubric, naturally, is much more specific and broken down with a scale that relates to the objective scale. Thus, bridges between the subjective aspects of any written assignment are merged with the objective to form a unified ‘code’ that is accessible. Furthermore, each student is supplied with a copy (made available in the syllabus) so that there should be no question as to what is required to obtain any given grade level.

Participation is also considered as part of the grading process. An ‘A’ in this portion is assigned to those who show continuous interaction, offer logical, well considered responses, show understanding of the subject at hand, and respects, listens, and learns from others. A ‘B’ is assigned to those who offer responses, participate regularly, show some understanding of the subject at hand, and respond to others reasonably. ‘C’ is earned by semi-regular participation, some understanding of the subject, and interaction with others. A ‘D’ is issued from infrequent participation, lack of understanding, and little or no interaction or unreasonable responses to others activity within the class. ‘F’ are rewarded to those who give little or no participation in classroom activities, little or no effort to understand, and no or negative response to others efforts. Again, the provided rubric is more specific and provided to the students.

Starting from theses basic rubrics I break the writing or participation down into specific categories. For example, under writing I have categories that include thesis and conclusion, content, number of paragraphs and sentences, spelling and grammar, and writing style. Each of these would be given a specified point range, accumulated and then applied to the traditional, aforementioned A - F, + and – scale i.e. a quantitative assessment. Again, assessments also usually have specific non-subjective, requirements as well. Points are subtracted from the grade for failure to meet one or more of these criteria.

These letter grades are not set in stone. I have a standing policy in all of my classes that written assignments not associated with major assessments (i.e. midterm or finals or any work that requires spontaneous, in class responses. These are evaluated on a slightly different structure taking into account required circumstance) can be re-worked and then resubmitted. Improvement in the quality of the work improves the grade. I do this for three reasons: 1) to encourage students to work harder, to not be satisfied with work that is simply “good enough”; 2) to give students a glimpse of the “real world,” where work often has to constantly be revised in order to appease clients and patrons; and 3) so that the students will have the greatest potential to earn a solid grade, which can have either a positive or negative impact on their future educational goals.

It is important to understand that personally, I find alpha numeric grades to be a very limiting in terms of evaluation. The most important component of evaluation is understanding where students show enough knowledge to express their opinion in a manner that effectively shows how they perceive and interpret , and how to pose questions that lead to those conclusion. A detailed, thoughtful analysis in this setting is far more useful to a student than a generic, an somewhat ambiguous, letter grade.

[1] For examples see subsection entitle ‘rubrics’ under section GRADING PHILOSOPHY or within the syllabus in the subsection entitled ‘syllabus’ under TEACHING PHILOSOPHY