Book Post Midas Touch

In the book, Midas Touch: Why some entrepreneurs get rich-- and why most don't, by Donald Trump and Robert T. Kiyosaki,  I found a section that was pertinent regarding my research.

Howard Gardner, a development psychologist from Harvard University developed a theory that there are seven types of intelligence.  These include linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.  He claimed these intelligences rarely operate independently; rather individuals have a unique blend.  As an educator, Gardner felt only the first two intelligences, linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences were valued in schools.  Musical, bodily-kinesthetic, and spatial intelligences were associated with the arts and the final two Gardner called personal intelligences. 

           

Academia should not place so much value on just these two intelligences.  Students with good grades should not graduate thinking doing good in math, reading, or science is more important than doing well in music, athletics, or art. 

           

Some students just have the ability to get better grades.  Some students find memorizing easy, especially if they have a photographic memory.  After all, a test is simply a measurement of knowledge at a particular moment in time, usually linguistic, or logical-mathematical knowledge.  The test measures nothing of what a student may retain or the effort an individual is willing to take to succeed.  A test does not measure drive or other intelligences; more appropriate would be a grading system that measures enthusiasm, effort, drive and knowledge, some method that would overcome a student’s momentary weakness or wrong answer.    

 

Solutions news paper post

In the article, “Study Critiques Schools Over Subjective Grading”, from the Los Angeles Times, Douglas Reeves talks about the problem of subjective grading and possible solutions.  Reeves is an expert on grading systems.  He wanted to look more into the issue of subjectivity behind grading.  Therefore, Reeves conducted an experiment on 10,000 educators in the United States, Australia, and South America to determine the final grade for students receiving the following grades in this order: “C, C, MA (Missing Assignment), D, C, B, MA, MA, B, A.”  The final grades ranged from an “A” to an “F.” 

Other than his experiment, he shared his feelings on grading.  Reeves feels that teachers are using grades improperly and are completely missing the point behind them.  He claims that teachers just give grades to adjudicate a result.  However, they should not be used in this sense, but instead to help students improve.  

Reeves included several solutions regarding the grading system problem.  First, he suggested setting learning targets and linking grades to the achievement of those targets.  I agree this is a good idea.  I feel a task-by-task learning is an effective way to truly understand and learn something.  Another was giving grades based solely on achievement and separately reporting attendance, effort and participation.   This also is not a bad thought, since this is a way to remove the subjectivity. Also I found his idea of making sure students understand how their grades are being determined very appropriate.  For a student to succeed, it is necessary and fair that they know how they are being graded.

Revees, Douglas. "Unfair grade? Blame your teacher - Study finds grading is quite             subjective." Daily Reporter-Herald, The (Loveland, CO) 3 Oct. 2009, A:             1. NewsBank. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

Interview post

While researching my issue of the problem with grading, I remembered a story my aunt Sofia once told me.  The story was about an incident that clearly exhibited the subjectivity behind grading.  The story was about her daughter, Penny.

Penny and Robin were neighbors, friends, and eight graders both attending Hinsdale Middle School.  Since English was such an important subject, these students had extended classes for ninety minutes a day.  Penny had English in the beginning of the school day and Robin had English during eight and ninth period.  They shared an honors teacher that had five classes a day with approximately one hundred twenty students. Often, they would work together on their homework.  Both girls were very good writers.  They would write papers together, correcting each other, and checking each other’s grammar and spelling.  That being said, a lot of their work was very similar.  However, Penny would always come home with a slightly better grade than Robin.  If Penny would get a “B”, Robin would get a “B-”; if Penny would get a “B+” then Robin would get a “C+”.  Therefore, one day they decided to test the teacher.  They were assigned a descriptive paper and they wrote the exact paper, word for word.  Penny turned the paper in first period and Robin turned the same paper in during the teacher’s last period.  They got their grades back; again there was a whole grade difference between them.  One paper had one person’s name and the other had another name, the only dissimilarity.  They could not be sure if that influenced the teacher.  They did confront the teacher.  The teacher did not know what to say, except, “A lot of the times I am reading one hundred papers all on the same subject, I get tired, and often I am in a different mood.”  

This story, told to me by my aunt, perfectly illustrates the problem students face.

Solutions Trade Journal Post

In The Responsibilities of Grading, authors Robert I. Wise and Betty Newman address needed change to the current grading system.  They refer to this issue as “the grading problem.” They discussed how evidence is mounting against the traditional practices of using percentages or letter grades and that educators, parents, and students are looking for a solution to the issue.  They list the alternative grading procedures that have already been proposed, such as, “parent-teacher conferences, descriptive or narrative reporting, student self-evaluation, mastery or performance-based evaluations, pass/fail, and its variants.”  The authors understand the severity of the problem and are looking for a good permanent alternative rather than a short-term solution.  A good alternative must consider two educational responsibilities—evaluation and reporting.   

The authors discuss the responsibility to parents, basically letting them know how well their child is doing and what they are learning.  With the current grading system, it is hard for a parent to evaluate these responsibilities.  There is not much significance to a letter or percentage grade in measuring a student’s development. Written reports would be more helpful, meaningful, and descriptive.  Parents could then determine specific areas of strengths, weakness, or need for improvement. The confusion of letter grades was exemplified in the article in the following way: “The ‘A’ Johnny brings home in reading can have a variety of meanings.  It can mean that Johnny is reading consistently above grade level.  It can mean that Johnny is one of the better readers in his class even though not reading above grade level.  It can mean that Johnny is reading as well as the teacher thinks he can, even though he may actually be one of the poorer readers in the room in terms of absolute achievement.”

The authors claim there is also a responsibility to students.  Ambiguous grading can confuse a student’s personal worth.  Reactions to low grades can be withdrawal or rebellion, while high grades can lead to unneeded suffering and anxiety by striving for these high grades, sometimes “at the expense of personal integrity.”  An “A” student may develop an ego based on their success for a “rather narrow range of human activities we call scholastics.”     

The current system is based on standards that are not clear and do not tell anything about an individual’s learning performance.  Three types of evaluation standards are possible: group-reference, self-reference, and task-reference.  Group-reference basically means grading students on a curve and placing them in a relative position in a group, but gives no information on what was learned.  Students are running the same race and the same students usually win.  The authors call this “inhumane.” Self-reference lets the student compete against himself, but this requires prior assessed levels.

 A new type of standard system has been recently developed, which is the task-referenced standard system, where a “task” can mean “any and all school learnings we expect of students, from learning basic addition facts to working cooperatively in a group.”  A teacher would evaluate how well a student has learned a particular task.  This system would provide parents with a report of what their child has specifically learned and what the school is teaching.  The system shows what a student can and cannot do.  Reporting could be as simple as using checkmarks to show achievements.  Narratives could allow more complex explanations, but would require more work by a teacher. When a student knows that mastering the knowledge and skills with a checkmark is what counts and not their ranking among other students, would improve the way a student performs in the classroom, possibly even their success in life.

Wise, Robert I., and Betty Newman. “The Responsibilities Of Grading.”

            Educational Leadership 32.4 (n.d.): 253.SocINDEX with Full Test. 24 Mar. 2013.

Solutions Newspaper Article Post

In Nudd’s article in the New York Times, he states “in order to give the bright as well as the dull child a square deal, it is obviously necessary that they be grouped on the basis of their individual ability and flexible program of instruction be adapted to their needs.”  He believes this system would be the best way for a student to get the proper education needed.  Nudd also believes this won’t only benefit the students, but parents and the public, as well.  He suggests that students should be broken up and separated into schools that fit their ability.  There would be schools for the superior, the bright, the normal, the dull-normal, the mentally deficient, and the neurotic.

The problems with his proposed system include needing more facilities for the segregation of students.  Additionally, in order for there to be a change from the current system, it must include people, “burying many unfortunate prejudices and facing the situation in a broad-minded and statesman-like fashion.” However, there are some negatives aspects to this separation system he plans on being the solution.

I believe Nudd is unrealistic to believe that parents would accept having their children placed into schools for the dull-normal, the mentally deficient, ect.  The labeling of these children from the beginning and by placing them into certain schools will handicap these students psychologically for life.  I do not know what Nudd is thinking. This is not the solution to the grading problem, but rather opens new more severe problems.

"Nudd Praises Plan for School Survey." New York Times (1857-1922): 37. Oct 01 1922. ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.

Solutions Website Blog from organization's website

In the article, From Degrading to De-Grading, Alfie Kohn discusses the issue I chose to research.  The author writes specifically how the current grading system is not reliable, valid, or objective.  He argues that schools should stop stressing grades. Kohn lists nine valid points regarding the problem with the current system and effects of grading.   In my opinion, the strongest point he mentions was how grades ruin the student’s interest to learn.  If students did not have to always worry about their GPAs and class ranking, then they could focus more on learning.  Other problems with grading include students often choose easier assignments, are encouraged to cheat, and can spoil relationship between teachers and students.  The author also stresses the subjectiveness of grades, since two different grades can be given for an assignment by two equally qualified teachers, or even the same teacher when read at two different times. In addition to stressing the problems of grading, he also proposes solutions. 

I agree with Kohn’s opinion that the change must be gradual.  The grading system has been the current way for a long time.  It would be unrealistic to expect such a big change to happen overnight.  Even though it is a hard change to make, it is a necessary change.  Kohn suggests the best way to go about making a change is in steps.  He proposed maybe just starting with one class to see how the switch works out. “Even a school that never gets beyond the first stage will have done a considerable service, giving students one full year where they can think about what they’re learning instead of their GPAs.”  Kohn presented studies indicating that graded students had “more trouble understanding the main point of the text” and “remembered fewer facts a week later” than non-graded students.   

A simple first step would be to remove curving grades or ranking students.  If students were not ranked, they could then focus more on the learning aspect rather than competing against others.  Curving grades artificially limits the number of top grades, teaching students that other students are “potential obstacles to their own success.”  Getting “A’s” should not be the point behind education.   

Removing grades or changing the grading system, does not remove the concepts of measuring a student’s performance.  Instead the author focuses on constructive, helpful method to improve the student’s learning.  Examples of this include “the teacher providing written comments, portfolios (carefully chosen collections of students’ writings and projects that demonstrate their interests, achievement, and improvement over time), student-led parent-teacher conferences, exhibitions and other opportunities for students to show what they can do.”  I agree these solutions may be rough on a teacher in high school considering how short the periods are and the large amount of students throughout the day.  Solutions to help the teacher’s load could be block scheduling, team teaching, interdisciplinary courses, and arrangements by schools were teachers could spend more time with fewer students.  These types of changes can take a long time implementing.  What can immediately be changed are individual teachers making “grades as invisible as possible for as long as possible” in their classes.  By helping students forget about grades, better learning can occur. 

Kohn, Alfie. "From Degrading to De-Grading." From Degrading to De-Grading.             
Kohn, Mar. 1999. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Guest Blog

By reading this blog it got me to realize more about the life of Alexander and where he is coming from with his topic. Its not that studyng changes a persons’ creativity so much but that teachers subjective grading style can affect a students success. At a young age it is hard to change your ways. Kids want to be young and little but in todays society and methods of teaching there is a lot more work that is concentrated on class and studying, this leaves students with a choice; to stay young or to go out and play. Alexander mad the decision to stay in and study even though he didn’t want to. His sisters and dad have all achieved a high status and that made Alexander want to achieve a high status as well, not to not fell left out but to feel that self achievement and succeed in life.  Students fight an everyday struggle on whether or not to study or hang out with friends. This is also a harder decision if you are in a different type of major. Some majors are harder than others and all professors are different with their subjective grading so new methods always have to be learned. But from this whole experience Alexander believes that hard work and discipline are important in achieving overall success. Without studying and proper habits a persons life can change in an instance.