Grade Standardization at Exeter
Though not one of the greatest issues we face, the lack of a rubric or standardized grading for humanities here at Exeter is something many Exonians lament. Some feel as though they can work to understand one teacher’s preferences only to face another teacher with completely different writing expectations. In addition, a rubric provides additional guidance to students who struggle with the writing process. Students have raised the concern for a rubric so much that some candidates during last year’s Student Council election underscored a standardized rubric for all teachers. While I’m sure we all undergo frustration whenever a grade drop occurs from one teacher to another, rubrics jeopardize the open-ended spirit of writing. Furthermore, the instillation of a rubric would brush against, but not actually address, how to enhance the humanities learning process here at Exeter.
I have come to understand the chief problem with rubrics through a few teachers here that have provided them. I remember the excitement I felt when I finally received a guide on how to excel at writing, but my joy quickly vanished once I read the rubric. It is no longer with me, but to summarize my teacher informed us that an ‘A’ paper would have to somehow ‘change’ her life. And ever since, each new rubric given to me contains the same vague language that establishes a high expectation instead of providing any direction.
These rubrics can be pretty frustrating, but through them I have found appreciation for writing at Exeter. In my middle school and on many standardized tests, exact rubrics were handed out and one simply had to go through each box to get the best grade. Teachers here at Exeter expect much more from us. A great deal of independence goes through the writing here, and even with a teacher conference Exonians still have to create the bulk of their work. With the expected essay structure, a lack of word limit and a general topic, our writing assignments are pure reflections on our quality of writing, which is the best form for a teacher to critique. Even the slight guidelines teachers may provide, such as how many sources to use or how to start an introduction, take away from the authenticity of a work. We learn from the teacher’s comments and fix our mistakes for the next assignment. This method only works on the condition that the works we submit are ours and not just regurgitations of another’s.
It’s for a better learning method, however, that rubrics possess their strongest argument. Most agree that detailed rubrics from skilled writers, such as our English or history teachers, would provide us with quality information to absorb. Also, students in great need of help would benefit from the boosting hand of direction. These issues, though, could also be solved without the implementation of a rubric, but a shift on our model of humanities teaching.
In most humanities classes here, or at least in the ones I have taken, teachers give us a total of three or four major writing assignments. A few long weeks after one assignment is due, it is sometimes handed back in the middle of another assignment. Teacher’s comments range from thorough to practically nonexistent, and this overall process I believe shows a huge neglect in our supposed development. If sports’ players played only three to four games in a season and received advice from their coach after each game, they would progress much less than the current system where they play multiple games after which the coaches provide them with plenty of critiques. Likewise, at Exeter, instead of having only four big writing assignments, we should break them up or have more, shorter writing assignments. That way, we will both receive more feedback from teachers on a range of issues. We will also undergo the process of crafting novel and interesting papers, which is an essential part of our learning.
Recent strives in the field of cognitive science reveal how essential memory is to learning. More so, the overall process of learning a little, forgetting some and then attempting to remember it again is crucial to eventual mastery. This is opposed to massed practice, which calls to mind Gladwell’s advice on 10,000 hours of studying. Massed studying includes cramming, which I think resembles how we often write. Some teachers provide students with little time to write, and beyond that, we are always expected to not write frequently, but in a mass. Bulk writing is an important skill that Exeter clearly prioritizes, but if we were also given frequent small writing assignments and had to continually go back into our minds and fashion clear arguments and then receive decent feedback, we would surely progress at a much faster rate.
And already some departments have begun to assign smaller but more frequent assignments. Both my math and Latin classes have reduced the size of tests and provide more frequent and smaller quizzes. This method greatly follows the spirit of Harkness as it forces me to constantly receive feedback and work to improve my mistakes. If a similar approach is implemented into the other humanities, perhaps we will all reach the point where we can change a teacher’s life.