Jim Clark wrote:
> Artificially giving all students (or almost all) the same grade
> does not minimize variation in the underlying trait, achievement,
> in this case. It simply hides the variation so that one does not
> know to what extent one is minimizing differences in achievement,
> and rewards students for not trying to achieve more than some
> minimal level.
I don't Deming would have said assignment of Pass/Fail should be "artificial".
If the student doesn't perform, then of course they shouldn't Pass. He did say,
on the other hand, that grading imposes an artificial scarcity of A's (also of
C's and D's). These are again Deming's words, and echo Dennis Robert's comments
about the pure subjectivity of the grading process.
The motivation for the students should be in Joy of Learning (one of Deming's 14
points) rather than the grade. This I agree with wholeheartedly. How can we
achieve this? I think it is our main challenge as educators. Using the grading
system as a motivational substitute for Joy of Learning is lazy, inefficient
management of our classes.
Students who are fairly sure they are not going to get the coveted A, or who
only need a "C or better" are going to give less effort. This will increase
variation, and operates contrary to the stated goal of the system.
>
> > My question is again: Is ranking really necessary? Given the goal of
> > reducing variation, what does it help? Students in competition for the
> > scarce A's will withhold information from one another. Does this achieve
> > the stated aim of the system in an optimal way? W. Edwards Deming would
> > have said, most emphatically, no. He spoke quite often of the
> > educational system particularly in his later years; his message was not
> > at all meant to be limited to manufacturing.
>
> Grading is not equivalent to ranking, unless one uses a forced
> distribution. One can grade without any restriction on the
> number of As or other grades other than the achievement of the
> students. I would be interested in hearing about any empirical
> evidence that non-use of grading schemes produces better or even
> as good learning as the use of grades?
>
I think this is a very important point: what can we do in place of ranking?
Now, as much as you say you don't use ranking, I am not sure you can get away
without out. What if all of a sudden everyone got A's by your criteria?
Wouldn't the administration get on your case? Then, you might say, just make
the criteria harder so that we get back to a "normal" proportion of As, Bs etc.
Well, aren't you just back to ranking?
I don't have any data from the classroom experience, but I do have an
observation from business. Texas Instruments had a policy of ranking plants in
terms of their performance. The employees at the top plants received bonuses.
Great idea, right? Motivates people, makes them perform to the best of their
abilities, just like grading. The problem is, the innovations were hoarded by
the individual plants to secure the bonuses, to the detriment of the company at
large. Optimization of individual processes can be detrimental to the system,
if the system at large is not considered in the optimization process.
Thanks for the continuing discussion. I have been profoundly influenced by the
words of W. Edwards Deming, and hope others will take a look at what he had to
say, at least to stimulate discussions such as this. As he himself said, you
don't simply "implement" his system, much like you don't learn to play piano by
buying one and placing it in your living room. In the same way, you don't
simply implement Deming's method as it applies to teaching by implementing P/F
and be done with it.
I would like to know, are there any others out there who have been influenced by
Deming? Has his message lost its force in our current climate of economic
prosperity?
Peter Westfall
