The ideas I got from Pink are very idealistic. This does not mean I disagree with them, but I shudder because I know it would be a lot of work to implement the ideas he states. It requires a shift from some of the fundamental teaching practices, and though I try to be open minded, it is difficult to see them implemented.
I applaud his call for creativity, but as Pink states, that cannot be graded. So there lies a dilema: can a teacher grade somethings (traditional class work) and not others? I keep getting caught up in circular logic that I may not convey clearly. It is a matter of determining what is essential, what constitutes as learning, and how that is measured. Tradition class work, which I see as typical class activity geared around "depositing information" in students, can be measured by assessments. The creative work Pink calls for is more difficult to assess.
I think that their needs to be some system for monitoring progress that includes specific criteria. Otherwise, growth cannot be measured. I think this is the idea behind the standard grading system. But those numbers have been changed to a different meaning where students are ranked and labelled according to achievement. Grading has lost
Going back to the original question, I do not think grades and learning are linked. Getting an "A" does not make a person smarter, it simply shows their progress on a certain assessment. I believe in a system that measures growth toward mastery and the encouragement of creative output, but it is difficult to do so without returning to the traditional grading format.
No comments:
Post a Comment