On The Abolition of Grades by Antony Sammeroff
Foreword
Grades were first established as a means of assessment in the University of Cambridge in 1792, it is thought, after being developed as a system by William Farish.[1] Since that time their application to work submitted by students within educational institutions has become almost ubiquitous with exceptions often being considered fringe or at the margins. In cases where a system of grades does come into question, it is more often than not an assessment of how students should be graded rather than whether grading them is necessary at all, or even helpful. Writing as early as 1913 Finkelstein stated, “When we consider the practically universal use… of a system of marks... to indicate scholastic attainment of pupils... and remember how very great stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real measures… of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system.”[2]
This enquiry will try to establish of what value, if any, grades have as an educational tool by assessing the most plausible arguments in their favour and contrasting those with reasons we may have to doubt their educational application. Logically it would seem that grades are either of superior educational value to other means of assessment (including in-depth feedback on work without a grade or pass/fail systems), of inferior value to them, or of equal value. There is a fourth position though, which is that that grades are of some negative educational utility. While establishing that grades are of inferior value to other forms of assessment would be sufficient to promote a strong argument for the abolition of grades on practical terms, this final position would philosophically compel a moral argument for the abolition of grades.
There are of course other considerations on the role of grades in education, such as the purpose of education, and whether basic pedagogic value is the only valid criteria for judging the utility of grades as a form of assessment in light of the economy, political and ideological considerations. These will also each be addressed to some appropriate extent where deemed necessary.
On the Question of Motivation.
Perhaps the most popular argument made in favour of a system of grades is that some students are motivated by them. While this is almost certainly true, before accepting this as justification for their use we must first call into question whether grades are a sound motivation for students in and of themselves. Psychologists (with the exception of behaviourists who are result-orientated and reject considerations of the inner environment) generally draw a distinction between extrinsic motivation, the desire to attain in order to receive perceived rewards, and intrinsic motivation, the desire to do something because it is perceived as innately worthwhile.[3] In the context of education Carol S. Dweck states, “Both goals are entirely normal and pretty much universal,” [4] although extensive research shows that a motivation to learn for the sake of learning is inversely related to a desire to learn for grade achievement.[5] Correlation does not prove cause, however, progressive pedagogue Alfie Kohn has written: “as far as I can tell, every study that has ever investigated the impact on intrinsic motivation of receiving grades… has found a negative effect.” [6] The evidence suggests that promoting a grade-driven orientation leads to a degradation of a learning-driven one. “While it’s not impossible for a student to be concerned about getting high marks and also to like what he or she is doing, the practical reality is that these two ways of thinking generally pull in opposite directions.”[7] If we accept intrinsic motivation as a virtue which a strong need for extrinsic motivation is less preferable to, then these findings seriously undermine the ‘motivation’ argument for using grades: grades create a dependence on extrinsic motivation and citing motivation as an argument to justify their use is analogous to prescribing an addictive substance because it relieves symptoms of addiction.
On the other hand, the argument can be made that extrinsic motivation is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, this argument is often applied with a “students better get used to it” attitude in anticipation of the workplace, where employees may often need to reach targets and meet goals. Indeed, extrinsic motivations are a natural part of life: a child will need to put his toys away to enjoy playing with them, and an adult will have chores to do which are unappealing but for which the ends justify the means. The question is whether attempts to impose extrinsic motivations (such as grades) artificially in order to acclimatise individuals to them is in any way necessary or achieves desirable results. Students demonstrate less interest in learning as a result of being graded, “When students are told they’ll need to know something for a test or… that something they’re about to do will count for a grade – they are likely to come to view that task (or book or idea) as a chore.”[8] This stands to reason, as if grades are what motivate a student to learn then logically the same students ought not to be motivated to learn when they leave education and grades are not presented as an incentives for learning. Thus students are not really being acclimatised to natural extrinsic motivations, they are being socially conditioned to require unnatural, externally imposed ones and to perform tasks reluctantly for them. Returning to consideration of the workplace, can we honestly imagine that workers dependent on external rewards will make preferable employees to individuals who are self-motivated? It seems unlikely.
On the Question of Cultivating Habits of the Workplace through Education
Sometimes a social argument is made to the effect that education exists to prepare students for “the real world,” while at the same time offering a relatively harmless economic environment where, should they fall short of standards, they will not end up redundant or homeless. By “the real world” what is generally meant is the job market (as consideration for the “false world” of the home, family and social relationships rarely comes into education.) The argument continues that because governments pay for education, part of that education should be to cultivate within students the habits of the workforce to ensure their employability upon leaving education. The institution of grades is often seen to tie into these ends in some ways (being scarce, competitive, an indication of hard work, ability to respond to tasks imposed by an authority figure, and other qualities.)
While the claim that the grade-performance will reflect the performance of students later in the workplace - a term that can be equally applied to a wide variety of employed activities each with varying demands that may radically differ from what is expected for the achievement of high grades in any system - strikes as highly suspect, let us accept the premise to explore the argument further.
If the habits which are desirable in work take precedence over quality of learning this only goes to denigrate the role of education to mere institutionalisation. If the marketplace demands certain habits then it seems only natural that it is the role of the marketplace to fund their cultivation. Whatever training increases the economic value of employees sufficiently will create a profit motive for employers to fund within their workforce in exchange for certain guarantees of loyalty. If it is not economically viable for industry to fund the cultivation of certain habits then, not only is it morally dubious for the government to subsidise private interests at the expense of the tax payer to produce the same, but they cannot seriously be considered to be the habits of the workplace as they are not of a net economic gain where it is concerned.
It should be noted that a better world is always possible and we cannot predict what the workplace of a future will look like in a society where the vast majority of individuals do not go through an education system which habituates them to extrinsic motivation. Ricardo Semler pioneered some work in this field by putting into practice a business model based on delegation where employees ran their own departments, interviewed, employed and assessed their own managers, set their own salaries and were not regulated for coming in late or leaving early.[9] The fact that Semler’s model was so successful it made him a millionaire who then went on to teach it to other entrepreneurs is evidence that so-called “idealistic” invitations to reform can be less resistant to the “real world” than meets the eye.
On the Question of Competition for Grades Promoting Achievement
A further argument in favour of grades is that competition between students for them will lead to higher achievement (also often compounded by the desire to habituate students to the harsh realities of a competitive economy.) While the case for competition is susceptible to many of the counterarguments already laid out regarding artificially applying extrinsic motivations where none are inherently necessary, and cultivating habits of the workforce in schools and universities, there are more to consider besides.
Firstly, if engineering a competitive inclination amongst students is desirable then there should be no reason why those efforts are limited to the grade results of assignments. The same habits could be cultivated (perhaps more effectively) by limiting the number of seats in lecture theatres and having students compete over them, or by limiting the amount of food available in lunch halls, for example. The end results of accepting such a premise is absurd, and in light of that fact, the only relevant consideration remaining is over whether competition for grades is of any pedagogical value. In a comprehensive review of 245 classroom studies, the findings of Johnson and Johnson at the University of Minnesota, were that 87 per cent of the time the advantage went to the cooperative approach.[10]
In the book “Awareness” philosopher and theologian Anthony De Mello discusses the example of an American doctor who went to a Swiss medical school where there were no grades, awards dean's list, and thus no competition. The doctor was quoted, “Some of us just couldn't take it… We thought there must be some kind of trick… Those who survived suddenly discovered a strange thing they had never noticed at American universities: students, brilliant ones, helping others to pass, sharing notes.”[11] A Hindu proverb states, “To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach,” and the truth contained within this statement would suggest that brilliant pupils tutoring the less able would be of mutual benefit. The same doctor’s son went to medical school in the United States and reported that people would often tamper with microscopes so that following students would have to spend three or four minutes readjusting them. [12] This gives pause to consider the sociological implications of falsely instituting competition where cooperation could yield more favourable results. It also conflates with research showing that the more students are driven to focus on getting good grades, the more likely they are to cheat.[13] One paper[14] said students were likely to view themselves as "chump[s]" for allowing ethical considerations to hinder academic achievement.[15]
Society can blame students for acting on the impulse to cheat while fostering an environment that incentivises it, but should exercise caution while doing so. Consider that much of what may constitute cheating in the classroom is often considered collaboration outside of it, something which offers its own distinct benefits, “The quality of students’ thinking has been shown to depend partly on the extent to which they are permitted to learn cooperatively”[16] found Johnson and Johnson.[17] Perhaps this because while cooperation is “marvellously successful at helping children to communicate effectively, trust in others and accept those who are different from themselves,”[18] competition moves student’s from attention from what they are supposed to be learning to how well they are performing in comparison to their peers. All in all “grading policies may create a competitive climate that is counterproductive… it discourages a free exchange of ideas and a sense of community that's conducive to exploration.” [19]
Finally, competition is often touted as in some way character building but this can only be the case if we consider a person of good character to be someone who views others as an obstacle to their success and only measures themselves in comparison to them rather than for their own intrinsic qualities. “Even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child [or student] gloat temporarily... feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation...”[20]
The Case Against Grades
Having deconstructed many of the popular arguments that favour a system of grades, I should like to present the conclusions which Alfie Kohn identified as the three most noticeable effects of such a system, outlined in his essays “From Degrading to de-Grading” (1999) and “The Case Against Grades” (2011).[21] Those are the following:
1) Grades tend to diminish students’ interest in whatever they’re learning. Because their attention is now focused grade achievement rather than the content of what they are learning. They are also more likely to forget what they have learned in a short space of time where they are advised that they will be graded on their performance.[22]
2) Grades tend to reduce students’ preference for challenging tasks while creating a preference for the easiest possible task. This stands to reason because if the goal is to achieve a good grade then it is not rational to choose a task which will make such a grade more difficult to achieve.
3) Grades tend to reduce the quality of students’ thinking. This is because they are more likely to simply learn what they “need to know” to succeed, and are less likely to raise questions over the information they are learning. “The highest achievement occurred only when comments were given instead of numerical scores.”[23]
There are also a number of other reasons we may have to reconsider the worthiness of grades. A grade alone says nothing about what a student understands, can or cannot do, and where they might need help, and yet often students get exam results in the form of a grade with no real feedback. A student may argue that grades give them an idea or how well or poorly they are doing, when in fact there is no indication of where they are doing well or poorly. What is more they are not particularly objective: one review of research on the topic showed that not only can any given assignment be given different grades by equally qualified teachers, but may even be given two different grades by the same teacher reading it at two different times.[24] By creating a desire for objectively quantifiable criteria to mark students work on, grades can encourage an approach to teaching which radical pedagogue Paulo Freire called “The banking model of education” in which students are expected to be filled with information (often by the teacher) without critically appraising it.[25] Even when given alongside feedback, the grade can deemphasise feedback as it is considered to be the real measure of achievement and definitive goal, which devalues the role of the teacher to a mechanistic handling of letters. In this way one can “Confuse process and Substance” as pointed out by Ivan Illich in his insightful book Deschooling Society, “The pupil is thereby ‘schooled’ to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new.”[26]
Grades (whether accompanied by feedback or otherwise) create a fear of failure even in students that achieve highly[27] and this can distract them from considering what value their work is of. White a recent study has shown that the elimination of grades in favour of a pass/fail system has produced substantial benefits in medical school with no apparent disadvantages.[28]
Yale Law School says of its system which does not use grades (but still distinguishes between an honours pass and a low one for better or worse) states that their systems “allow a level of flexibility and freedom that is unparalleled.” where “Students can tailor their educations however they see fit…. Yale allows you to make your education truly yours without worrying about grade competition… the myriad of ways that students do this that allows them to be unique, to market themselves to prospective employers, and to secure the variety of jobs that lead to the many incredibly interesting careers... We compete not with each other, but with ourselves. We set our own goals, and we work hard to achieve them.”[29] Some may object to the abolition of grades on the grounds that students in schools will not take courses seriously or even ignore them, but this could as easily instead prompt an assessment of why any given course is not being well attended and thus significantly improve the standards of engagement within education.
The abolition of grades would not preclude all forms of critical assessment, and perhaps there are benefits to using grades which have not been considered in this paper, but in light of the evidence of their deleterious effects it seems reasonable always keep in the forefront of the mind the question of whether these benefits can be achieved equally by other means. “These include narratives (written comments), portfolios (carefully chosen collections of students’ writings and projects that demonstrate their interests, achievement, and improvement over time), student-led parent-teacher conferences, exhibitions and other opportunities for students to show what they can do.” Perhaps the removal of grades would encourage students to place more emphasis on creating a standard of work which they can be proud of rather than work which simply meets the external criteria necessary in order to receive a good grade.
[1] Postman, N. (1992). “Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology” Vintage Books, New York, p. 13.
[2] Finkelstein, I. E. (1913) "The marking system in theory and practice" Warwick & York, inc.
[3] Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., Walkup, V. (2008) “Psychology in Education” Pearson Education Limited, p. 438-439.
[4] Dweck, C. S. (1999) “Self-Theories – Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development” Columbia University.
[5] Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” (Highschool Magazine, March 1999) cites all of Beck et al., 1991; Milton et al., 1986, Benware and Deci, 1984; Butler, 1987; Butler and Nisan, 1986; Grolnick and Ryan, 1987; Harter and Guzman, 1986; Hughes et al., 1985; Kage, 1991; Salili et al., 1976.
[6] Kohn, A. (2011) “The Case Against Grades” Educational Leadership, November 2011.
[7] Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” Highschool Magazine, March 1999.
[8] Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” Highschool Magazine, March 1999.
[9] Semler, R. (1993) “Maverick!” Warner Books.
[10] Kohn, A. (1991) “Competition vs. Excellence” New York Times, April 26, 1991.
[11] De Mello, A. (1990) “Awareness” Doubleday, New York, p91-92.
[12] De Mello, A. (1990) “Awareness” Doubleday, New York, p92.
[13] Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T. and Westerfield, G. (1998) “Motivation and Cheating During Early Adolescence.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90 p84-93.
Milton, O., Pollio, H. R. and Eison, J. A. (1986) “Making Sense of College Grades.” Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
[14] Anderman, E.M., & Murdock, T.B., eds. (2007) “Psychology of academic cheating.” Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
[15] Milliron, V., and Sandoe, K. (2008) “The Net Generation cheating challenge.” Innovate 4, The Fischler School of Education and Human Services, Nova Southeastern University.
[16] Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” Highschool Magazine, March 1999.
[17] Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989) “Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.” Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co.
[18] Kohn, A. (1987) “The Case Against Competition” Working Mother, September 1987.
[19] Kohn, A. (2002) “The Dangerous Myth of Grade Inflation” The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 8, 2002 -- vol. 49, no. 11.
[20] Kohn, A. (1987) “The Case Against Competition” Working Mother, September 1987.
[21] Kohn states that these were laid out in earlier the works of other academics (Crooks, 1933; De Zouche, 1945; Kirschenbaum, Simon, & Napier, 1971; Linder, 1940; Marshall, 1968.)
[22] Grolnick, W. S., and R. M. Ryan. (1987). "Autonomy in Children's Learning: An Experimental and Individual Difference Investigation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 890-898.
[23] Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” Highschool Magazine, March 1999.
[24] Kirschenbaum, H., Simon, S. B. and Napier, R. W. (1971) “Wad-Ja-Get?: The Grading Game in American Education.” New York: Hart.
[25] Freire, P. (1970) “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” New York: Continuum.
[26] Illich, I. (1971) “Deschooling Society” C. Nicholls & Company Ltd, Great Britain.
[27] Pulfrey, C., Buch, C., & Butera, F. (2011) “Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 683-700.
[28] White, C.B., & Fantone, J.C. (2010) “Pass-fail grading: Laying the foundation for self-regulated learning.” Advances in Health Science Education, 15, 469-77.
[29] Author Unspecified (2012) http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/4881.htm
Bibliography
- Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T. and Westerfield, G. (1998) “Motivation and Cheating During Early Adolescence.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90.
- Anderman, E.M., & Murdock, T.B., eds. (2007) “Psychology of academic cheating.” Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
- Dweck, C. S. (1999) “Self-Theories – Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development” Columbia University.
- Finkelstein, I. E. (1913) "The marking system in theory and practice" Warwick & York, inc.
- Freire, P. (1970) “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” New York: Continuum.
- Grolnick, W. S., and R. M. Ryan. (1987). "Autonomy in Children's Learning: An Experimental and Individual Difference Investigation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52.
- Illich, I. (1971) “Deschooling Society” C. Nicholls & Company Ltd, Great Britain.
- Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989) “Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.” Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co.
- Kirschenbaum, H., Simon, S. B. and Napier, R. W. (1971) “Wad-Ja-Get?: The Grading Game in American Education.” New York: Hart.
- Kohn, A. (1987) “The Case Against Competition” Working Mother, September 1987.
- Kohn, A. (1991) “Competition vs. Excellence” New York Times, April 26, 1991.
- Kohn, A. (1999) “From Degrading to de-Grading” Highschool Magazine, March 1999.
- Kohn, A. (2002) “The Dangerous Myth of Grade Inflation” The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 8, 2002 -- vol. 49, no. 11.
- Kohn, A. (2011) “The Case Against Grades” Educational Leadership, November 2011.
- Milliron, V., and Sandoe, K. (2008) “The Net Generation cheating challenge.” Innovate 4, The Fischler School of Education and Human Services, Nova Southeastern University.
- Postman, N. (1992) “Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology” Vintage Books, New York.
- Pulfrey, C., Buch, C., & Butera, F. (2011) “Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 103.
- White, C.B., & Fantone, J.C. (2010) “Pass-fail grading: Laying the foundation for self-regulated learning.” Advances in Health Science Education, 15.
- Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., Walkup, V. (2008) “Psychology in Education” Pearson Education Limited.