Halfway this past spring semester 2020, in the USA we had to change the way we do school due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The change was dramatic and affected all around the world. In our case, the main change was that we had to deliver instruction via the Internet. Unintentionally other aspects of the life of the student were affected as well, like for those who were graduating and couldn't get the proper commencement celebrations. For me, one thing that stood out was the way we do the grading of a course, and of course for the students as well. That is why I need to articulate some ideas about grading.
What is it about grades that get in the way of education?
Is it the social stigma of a "good grade" that inhibits the performance of students as they focus more on them than on the actual knowledge, Skills, and Convictions that are supposed to be what education is all about?
Let's focus on STEM education. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics have been the driving force of progress. Medicine and in general the wellbeing of our society depends on well-trained professionals in these areas. Many students, young and old, are getting into STEM because they see a bright future.
What are the proficiencies that education is to develop?
These questions are difficult to answer, as the socio-economic conditions framing the context of the relationship between students and their learning is very complicated, it is a complex environment. The complexity comes from the multiple dimensions of the situation, starting with who the student is as an individual, and who is the student supposed to be. Who is the student as a product of his/her environment, and who is the student supposed to be as a product of his/her environment?
Where is the student coming from?
What is the student's background? And, even more difficult, where is the student going?
Where is the student now?
What is the context that the educational institution provides for the success of the student?
Science students, in particular, have to face a series of prejudices, misconceptions, and lies.
On the one hand it has been traditionally supposed to be an area for exceptional, rare, mainly white males, individuals who must sacrifice an open and fun life like any extrovert would enjoy. "In the good old days" these individuals couldn't be good looking, socially active, nor popular with their peers. They were labeled as "nerds."
Making scientists social heroes has been an uphill battle for many years. Few in the past have obtained recognition when due to a social crossroads the moment is right. But in general, it is the economic success of those in STEM that makes it attractive to study.
Is it the social stigma of a "good grade" that inhibits the performance of students as they focus more on them than on the actual knowledge, Skills, and Convictions that are supposed to be what education is all about?
Let's focus on STEM education. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics have been the driving force of progress. Medicine and in general the wellbeing of our society depends on well-trained professionals in these areas. Many students, young and old, are getting into STEM because they see a bright future.
What are the proficiencies that education is to develop?
These questions are difficult to answer, as the socio-economic conditions framing the context of the relationship between students and their learning is very complicated, it is a complex environment. The complexity comes from the multiple dimensions of the situation, starting with who the student is as an individual, and who is the student supposed to be. Who is the student as a product of his/her environment, and who is the student supposed to be as a product of his/her environment?
Where is the student coming from?
What is the student's background? And, even more difficult, where is the student going?
Where is the student now?
What is the context that the educational institution provides for the success of the student?
Science students, in particular, have to face a series of prejudices, misconceptions, and lies.
On the one hand it has been traditionally supposed to be an area for exceptional, rare, mainly white males, individuals who must sacrifice an open and fun life like any extrovert would enjoy. "In the good old days" these individuals couldn't be good looking, socially active, nor popular with their peers. They were labeled as "nerds."
Making scientists social heroes has been an uphill battle for many years. Few in the past have obtained recognition when due to a social crossroads the moment is right. But in general, it is the economic success of those in STEM that makes it attractive to study.
Coming back to misconceptions. Having a good grade average has been the myth of success. Many students believe that in order to get into a recognized institution to obtain a diploma that allows them to enter the work-force at a high level of income, they need good grades. To the extreme of thinking that an average grater than 3.5 is necessary in order to succeed. This is a major impediment in students' performance as thinking about the grade blocks the student to thinking about the subject matter. The stress of the possibility of getting a low grade highly inhibits the potential of understanding the material that they have to master in order to be able to perform professionally.
That is the main issue with grades as obstacles for proficiency.
I agree, Dr. T! For a long time, my identity was wrapped up in my academic achievements. I was so afraid to disappoint myself and others that I couldn't really enjoy learning. It wasn't until I had an existential crisis in my last year of college that I really confronted my values and redefined what learning means. - Misty
ReplyDelete