The takeaway from John Sarte and Sherri Hughes' Refocusing our efforts: A shift from grading to an emphasis on learning is that "learning occurs without the use of grades". My student bird reminded me of when I focused on attaining high grades because it felt good. I'd feel accomplished and that all my hard work had paid off. However, my teacher bird asks me if the marking schemes used to define my intelligence were even accurate? Were my grades an actual reflection of my intelligence or were they a reflection of how well I managed to complete the work? Jo Boaler highlights the idea that math competency is based on how student perform rather than what students really learned. I have a strong belief in that grades and percentages aren't accurate feedback; they are superficial feedback and don't always give the student the entire story of what they actually learned. I learned that many years ago, mark books would only be filled with words describing where a student glowed and where they needed to grow. This approach of providing feedback seems more clear, more honest, and more thoughtful. Raw marks or percentages are more convenient, but they can be misleading. For example, what does half a mark even mean? A student could have a high A while another student receives a low A, yet they both are A students.
I think math and science teachers can offer so many opportunities of assessment that don't require a grade. For example, listening to how students present their ideas to their peers is a method of assessing their comprehension of math or science ideas. As mentioned by Sarte, Hughes, and Boaler, grades get in the way of intrinsic motivation. When students want to learn about something they then have the will to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment