Blog

Debate: Should Grades Reflect What Students Learn or What They Know?

The assumption that the rate at which students learn varies drives many common grouping, instructional, and grading practices. It may seem obvious that some students learn at a faster pace while other students need more time to make a similar amount of progress. But what if this assumption is wrong?

What if, in fact, most learners actually learn at the same rate? A major peer-reviewed study conducted at Carnegie Mellon University set out to discover why and how some learners learn faster than others. The study included more than 7000 youth and adult learners from a variety of backgrounds, learning histories, and geographic areas, as well as 1.3 million observations, and 27 datasets. Participants were given a variety of learning tasks in math, science, and language, and their progress was closely monitored.

To the surprise of the researchers, the data showed that there was very little variance in the pace of learning across populations. They discovered that the determinative factor is the amount of background knowledge learners bring to the learning challenge. Those labeled as “fast learners” possessed more background knowledge to apply to their learning efforts, not special skills or talents. Of course, elements such as level of motivation and strength of memory can impact the amount of persistence and length of learning retention, but these factors only complement learning efforts.

To use a baseball metaphor, some students come to learning tasks with academic background knowledge that already places them on second or third base, while other students may have so little background knowledge that they are barely at first base. Of course, students on all three bases may be capable of reaching home and “scoring,” but the students on first base have a much longer distance to travel to be successful. In this context, it is not difficult to understand why students with limited background knowledge are less likely to “score” consistently. Yet, most grading systems are weighted heavily toward those who “cross home plate,” not how far they have come.

This research calls into question several common assumptions about learning and traditional grading practices. As we reflect on the implications of the Carnegie Mellon study, there are several aspects of common practice worthy of debate. Here seven questions to start the discussion:

Should grades reflect what students know at the end of a teaching and learning cycle, or should grades reflect what they have learned during that cycle?

If learning success is heavily dependent on background knowledge, should more time be spent building and activating background knowledge to better “level the playing field” before engaging in new instruction?

Should students be assessed prior to instruction to facilitate the documentation of what they learn?

Does a student who initially lacked background knowledge deserve to call “foul” if another student who learned less than that student receives a higher grade?

Would giving students a grade based on what they learn regardless of their initial background knowledge be comparable to giving a prize for effort? Why or why not?

Since academic background knowledge is highly correlated with race and socioeconomic status, is grading solely on what students know at the end of a teaching and learning cycle inequitable?

Should students receive two grades: one grade for what they know and one for what they have learned during a teaching and learning cycle?

This study raises important questions about how we engage learners and document learning. Now is a good time to reexamine our assumptions about the rate and nature of learning. We also need to revisit traditional grading practices to ensure that we are not placing too much emphasis on what students know at the expense of what they have learned.

Reference:

Koedinger, K. R., Carvalho, P. F., Liu, R., and McLaughlin, E. A. (2023). An astonishing regularity in student learning rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 120(13). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2221311120

January 18, 2024

The Surprising History of Grades and Why It Matters Today

Grades are such an integral part of schooling today that it can be difficult to imagine how schools could ever operate without them. Students are told that getting good grades is the ultimate reason to work hard. After all, grades are used to judge a learner’s history and status, and even predict—and sometimes dictate—their future. Given the significance assigned to this component of our educational system, we might think that it has a deep and rich history associated with learning.

Yet, grades and grading have not always been the way in which learning was measured and reported. Prior to the introduction of grades, the quality and preparedness of students were connected to the educator, or educators, under whom they studied. When seeking a position, students presented the name and reputation of their teacher or teachers. The reputation and testimony of the person(s) under whom they studied was used to assure the preparedness of the position seeker. However, this approach presented at least two challenges: first, educators’ reputations were dependent on ensuring that their students gained the intended knowledge and skills, and second, such a tight connection between learner and teacher meant that educators could support a limited number of students at any time.

In the late 1700s, a tutor at Cambridge University, William Farish, borrowed the practice of grading the quality of shoes made in factories and applied that practice to students. Finished shoes were given a grade based on the quality of the workmanship they represented; better-quality shoes were worth more, while lower-quality shoes were priced low or rejected. Interestingly, Farish’s idea caught on almost immediately, became common practice in schools within a generation, and has remained the most common way to judge learners and learning ever since.

Why is this history important, and why might it matter today? Let’s explore.

First, students and learning are much more complex than stitching and leather, and learning is infinitely more difficult to measure and judge than the ruggedness and style of a shoe. Deciding to consolidate the multiple dimensions of learning into a single number or letter compromises understanding and ignores the complexity of the process.

Second, while a poor-quality pair of shoes may not be comfortable or last long, failing to learn risks handicapping future opportunities for students. Further, a low grade does not just imply poor-quality learning; it often means that some learning did not occur at all. Consequently, future instruction based on the assumption that prior learning occurred further disadvantages the learner and compounds the error.

Third, when grades are applied to shoes, the identity of the shoe is intertwined with the quality of its materials and workmanship. Alternatively, students are much more than the grades they receive. Yet, grades too often are used to assign identity, define expectations, and determine the levels of adult effort and investment that students will experience.

Fourth, a shoe may be the product of the assembler’s effort and skill, but learners play a key role in the teaching and learning process. Readiness, relationships, and instructional practices are all significant to the learning process. However, the assignment of grades can create a temptation to blame students for lack of learning rather than sharing responsibility, providing needed support, or taking timely steps to address barriers.

Fifth, while the idea of grading students like shoes provided an efficient way for teachers to teach more students, there remain limits on how many students a teacher can effectively support. It is true that many of the limitations present at the time grading was adopted no longer exist today. We know much more about how learning occurs and how to nurture it, and technology can help us to customize experiences and track progress in real time. Regardless, the ability to assign grades should not serve as a reason to continually expand the number of students teachers are expected to support.

The time has come to re-examine the traditional practice of assigning a single grade to such a complex process as learning. Students, parents, and others with an interest in learning progress and performance deserve more informative and actionable indicators of where learning has occurred, how much learning has occurred, and what needs to be done to see that expected learning will occur.

November 16, 2023

Five Instruction and Assessment Practices to Abandon Now

We recently turned the calendar to begin a new year. For many of us, we now face the second half of our academic year. These annual milestones offer an opportunity for us to pause and take stock of practices and routines on which we rely as we instruct and assess the learning of our students. It can be easy to assume that longstanding practices must be effective. Yet, some things that used to seem like good practice may look different as we consider their contribution to our students’ learning. Similarly, it may be time to re-examine some of our assessment practices to be sure they’re generating accurate and reliable information about the learning progress of our students. Here are five common instruction and assessment practices that are worth our attention as we move into the second half of the academic year. Let’s begin with the practice of assigning unit, quarterly, or end-of-course grades based on the average of grades given throughout the grading period. Students who enter our classes with limited background knowledge and experience related to the content often score poorly on early assessments. Even though these students may perform well as their learning grows, averaging scores risks under reporting the extent of their learning growth and may not reflect their current learning status. Conversely, students who enter our classes with extensive background knowledge and experience may score well early in the learning process and receive an advantage in the assignment of grades. In fact, students who begin with significant knowledge and experience may not learn as much as their less advantaged classmates and still be awarded higher grades. We do better when we assign grades based on what students have learned than on how much they knew when they began. Another practice worth examining is the use of timed tests to measure whether students have learned a concept or skill. Unfortunately, timed tests create a level of anxiety that can impede students’ ability to think clearly and show the full extent of their learning. This impact is most common among young students, those more likely to be subjected to timed tests. The ability to perform quickly under pressure can be a measure of memorization and reflexivity; it does not necessarily represent deep learning or full understanding. Yet another practice worth review is relying on a pre-set pace for instruction to ensure curriculum content coverage rather than allowing the pace of student learning to drive the nature and pace of instruction. Pacing guides and quarterly instructional plans can be beneficial, but they’re not measures of student learning and don’t guarantee that students will be ready to learn at the pace we might expect. What matters most isn’t whether we have “covered” the curriculum. In fact, coverage means nothing to students who failed to learn what they were taught. If we must choose between coverage and student learning, learning is the only responsible choice. Still another practice worthy of review is treating students who are fast learners as though they also must be good learners. We often use the terms “fast learners” and “good learners” almost interchangeably. In fact, fast learning students often are blessed with strong short-term memories. They’re capable of absorbing and repeating information quickly and accurately. However, they often forget almost as quickly as they learn, especially once their learning has been assessed. On the other hand, students who may struggle to grasp a concept or take more time to develop and demonstrate a skill may learn more deeply and retain what they learn much longer. We do well to coach “fast learners” to move their learning to long term memory and resist assuming students who require more time to learn aren't good learners. A fifth practice that, while embedded in the traditional design of schools, warrants review is the grouping of students for instruction by age. While it is a convenient way of deciding how to organize for instruction, we know that students grow at different rates and learn in different ways. In fact, the average American classroom includes students with academic and learning readiness levels spanning 3.5 years. Nevertheless, most classes are formed based on students’ years of birth rather than their readiness to learn what is taught. While it may not be practical to immediately and completely dismantle age-based grouping practices, any modifications and adjustments that can be made to better recognize learning development and readiness as a basis for instruction will be helpful to young learners. You may have additional practices you want to reexamine. There may never be a better time to make the commitment than now. Of course, making changes in relied-on practices can be challenging, but your students and their learning deserve your best.

January 12, 2023