Curzan and Damour claim that "You have to find the 'zone' of grades that makes you feel comfortable and that is acceptable at your university" (152). I wonder if these two categories are always reconcilable. It seems that the zone of grades that "makes you feel comfortable" may not necessarily overlap with the grading scheme "acceptable at your university." I've heard stories (from undisclosed sources) of T.A.s who have been reprimanded for not "producing" the correct range of grades or for having a class average that deviates from the norm as defined by the institution.
This external pressure to "manufacture" a predetermined range of grades makes me a bit uncomfortable. As a teacher, I will have high expectations of my students -- that's a given. I've discovered during my experience as a student that I have always admired (and learned more from) the teachers who took their classes seriously and expected excellence. I worry that high standards may interfere with my ability to "produce" the acceptable grade range. What if the class is significantly more or less talented/equipped than the norm? Should an excellent class be punished for its excellence by the necessity of producing a standard grade spectrum? Should a terrible class be rewarded with the giveaway of lower grading standards?
I hope we can talk a little more in class about what Mizzou's standards look like and how they are maintained. What I gleaned from Dr. Kinnison's speech on the "supervision" system seemed to imply that one was expected to manufacture a fairly standard set of scores semester after semester. Could one be punished by the institution for grading in his or her "comfort zone?" How do we fell about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Tim,
I've thought about this a lot. As someone who was anal about, well, everything, I flinched at the thought of a B, not necessarily because of the grade per se, but because of what that would indicate about what I was learning. So, the thought that the average grade in my classes should be a B- is really disturbing to me.
That said, I've read enough comp essays in the WL to realize that not everyone is as interested/ invested/ anal as I was as an undergrad. I've seen some papers that I don't think I could grade highly, even with effort and sympathy points added.
The thing that I have gathered about grading and particularly about the expected averages of classes, is that if you have a group of really good/bad writers, the average grade can deviate from the norm (and honestly 2.2-3.2 is a pretty wide range) so long as you can give reason for that. At least that is what I have been told by a couple of grad students who have had similar concerns. I suppose that makes me breathe easier.
--Bri
Tim,
I, too, have been thinking a lot about the grading "curve" simply because when teaching high school I had to uphold a different standard--grading "easily." I couldn't manufacture all of the grades to be high so I was often in the principal's office explaining why an "A" student had received a "B" or worse on papers. It is a lot of pressure. Now I am worried that some of the low standards might have rubbed off on me. Anyway, I am always suspicious of a system which asks me to deliver a certain grade range. It is a big concern of mine even though I think many papers should receive a "C" after working at the tutoring lab.
Post a Comment