Skip to main content

Should we put grades on pupils' work?

For a number of years there have been calls from some quarters for teachers to stop putting grades on pupils' work. A seminal article in this context seems to be "Inside the black box" by Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam written in 2001. They cite research in a passionate argument against grades. The argument is familiar: kids only look at the grade and not the comment, the bright ones become complacent and the less brilliant are deflated. Allocating national curriculum levels has the same effect, they would argue.

http://weaeducation.typepad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf

Donald Clark summarises "why marking sucks" in his entertaining blog:

http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/

So why is it that I have resisted a policy of no marks on work? Well, we have spoken to pupils about this and we have discussed it more than once in the department. It has to be said also that our pupils are in the 11-18 age range and are nearly all are of above average aptitude. Black and Wiliam's study, as I recall, found that the effects of "no marks" were greatest for pupils of lower ability.

Our pupils say they would be frustrated not to have a grade. They say they want to see their letter grade (we also give an effort grade). Some say that they are motivated by the fact that they keep getting A grades and do not want less. To state the obvious, a grade is also an efficient, short-hand way of describing the quality of the work. It is the case that many, though not all, MFL homework tasks are routine, repetitive tasks where the focus is on grammatical accuracy and correct spelling. They are often reinforcing a pattern practised in the classroom. There is often little to add to the mark, bar something to the effect: well done, keep it up, you are making good progress, try to remember the endings next time. This contrasts with the type of marking you might see in English, history, geography or art.

I acknowledge that pupils often look at the grade and need to be prompted to look at corrections. I should get them to do corrections more often, just as I should just underline more errors, rather than writing in the correct version. (I think I neglect to get the kids to do corrections because I sense it is a dull task for them.)

We have a system where A= "very accurate, with a good range, among the best we would see at RGS"; B = "good work, but with some error and a narrower range"; C = "quite a few errors, evidence of some misunderstanding"; D = "weak - misunderstood, inaccurate" (I have simplified our descriptors somewhat). We do not routinely use national curriculum levels when marking work.

A primary school colleague recently observed to me that written marking is not very useful and that the most powerful way of motivating a child through assessment is to speak to the child. This makes sense. That little chat you have at the end of the lesson, be it encouraging or otherwise, is often much more powerful than a grade or a très bien.

So my conclusion: try not to mark too much, but do enough so that the kids know you care and are making sure they are getting the work done, resist the temptation to write in corrections when children can often see the error themselves, give marks most of the time because children like them and they motivate, and lastly, write in motivational and useful comments (e.g. how to get better) when you have the time. Oh, and use any colour you like, provided it is visible.

Comments welcomed!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,