This fall I will be teaching a course called On-Air Performance. Sadly, only a few of my students are looking at getting into broadcasting. Most take the class as a GenEd to satisfy their speech class retirement. The course is billed as a way to improve one’s speaking style by working on accuracy, enunciation, and enthusiasm. This time around I am experimenting with changes to the way I assess student work. My first big shift is kicking the 100-point grading scale to the curb and embracing the equitable grading movement. Letter based grades have been around since the 1940s. For a while now I’ve suspected that the widely used scale doesn’t reflect student performance and ends up emphasizing grades over learning. And I contend that the 100-point scale itself is a mathematical farce (i.e., a whopping 0-59 points are considered failing?!).
For years turning in assignments meant following specific directions. And whomever fulfilled requirements the closest got the best score. I have concluded that this simply encourages students to conform. They get caught up in turning in what they think I want rather than creating their own vision. Nervousness about grades mixed with a dose of communication anxiety could be a recipe for a semester’s worth of dread- and that’s no fun for anybody. I hope that by removing the focus on grades and encouraging them to take risks in their assignments, students will be able to focus on the process of learning and reflect on their work.
In addition, I’ve stopped giving out too many specifics about assignments. Part of the joy of teaching is to see what students produce when they figure details out on their own. I don’t want students to feel like they must color within the lines I have drawn. If their submission totally misses the mark, that’s OK. I allow multiple revisions.
However, my efforts to provide a variety of unexpected outcomes are not always appreciated. Some students are extremely uncomfortable and will plead with me to simply tell them what to do. The lack of explicit instructions is something they haven’t experienced before, and it terrifies them. Others dislike the idea of multiple redos. Student comments include: “I didn’t need five takes to get my project right. Shouldn’t my A be higher than theirs?” My response is I am trying to help everyone be successful. If someone has dyslexia or a speech disorder, or is a non-native English speaker, reading a script can be a challenge. All those retakes end up being active practice which everybody knows is the best way to master a skill!
Madison College has been extremely supportive of my efforts. I’ve been inspired to make these changes after participating in a school-sponsored book club where we examined “Grading for Equity” by Joe Feldman.
It is my hope that this year I will see fewer point chasers (those who are more concerned with getting an A than in the learning), more grading for growth, and maybe even convince a few students to pursue broadcasting.
Nancy Stillwell
WBA Education Committee
