"ONLY labor, or time on task and amount of words read or written,"
Oh, I don't know about this! This is basically basing a student grade on the degree to which they "engaged" with the course. I DO include "engagement" as a small PART (10%) of a student's grade. But, in the end, aren't final grades supposed to reflect the degree to which students have LEARNED or KNOW/understand the content?
I MIGHT consider basing UP TO HALF of the grade on "engagement" (labor based) but the other half HAS to reflect learning/knowledge/understanding of content. A student who might work really hard and earn an A for engagement but just "not get it" and fail when it comes to quality of work, might still fail the course (they only earn the 50% credit for the labor). A student who comes into the course already knowing much of the material might have to spend very little time/labor "engaged" with the course. That student might earn an A on all work but an F for "engagement". Does this mix of F and A = C for both students? If it fair to dock the "smart" student's grade simply because she did not HAVE to work so hard to do well on the work?
Is it really in keeping with the intent of education to pass a student who fails when it comes to knowledge of the content? To pass them simply due to "effort"?
Harmful norms? Like what is correct? This nonsense does a disservice to students. They deserve honest feedback on their work so that they can improve their performance. We can be corrective without shaming.
I appreciate your comment & thank you for reading! I think - and I am not an expert by any stretch - that proponents would argue there is a fundamental challenge in determining what is "correct," at least in terms of development of writing skills. This doesn't mean the approach is appropriate for everyone, or every discipline, but it is I think fruitful to think about where our standards of "good" versus "bad" work come from.
We can debate the origins of standard English grammar; it's an interesting topic, one that I do cover with my students. But students need to be fluent in standard English if they are to succeed in the world. Students from elite backgrounds pick up these skills early through their exposure to books and other educational materials. It is the less-privileged students who lack these skills and who will miss out on opportunities if we refuse, due to some esoteric educational philosophy, to provide them with these skills.
What I think labor-based grading can address is that non-elite students often don’t last long enough in a standards, grade-based class to put in the labor to get better. Time on task and a constructive, feedback harnessing relationship with the instructor are key to learning. A labor-based, process focused approach puts those two things front and center.
No experience but I'll share my thoughts...
"ONLY labor, or time on task and amount of words read or written,"
Oh, I don't know about this! This is basically basing a student grade on the degree to which they "engaged" with the course. I DO include "engagement" as a small PART (10%) of a student's grade. But, in the end, aren't final grades supposed to reflect the degree to which students have LEARNED or KNOW/understand the content?
I MIGHT consider basing UP TO HALF of the grade on "engagement" (labor based) but the other half HAS to reflect learning/knowledge/understanding of content. A student who might work really hard and earn an A for engagement but just "not get it" and fail when it comes to quality of work, might still fail the course (they only earn the 50% credit for the labor). A student who comes into the course already knowing much of the material might have to spend very little time/labor "engaged" with the course. That student might earn an A on all work but an F for "engagement". Does this mix of F and A = C for both students? If it fair to dock the "smart" student's grade simply because she did not HAVE to work so hard to do well on the work?
Is it really in keeping with the intent of education to pass a student who fails when it comes to knowledge of the content? To pass them simply due to "effort"?
Harmful norms? Like what is correct? This nonsense does a disservice to students. They deserve honest feedback on their work so that they can improve their performance. We can be corrective without shaming.
I appreciate your comment & thank you for reading! I think - and I am not an expert by any stretch - that proponents would argue there is a fundamental challenge in determining what is "correct," at least in terms of development of writing skills. This doesn't mean the approach is appropriate for everyone, or every discipline, but it is I think fruitful to think about where our standards of "good" versus "bad" work come from.
We can debate the origins of standard English grammar; it's an interesting topic, one that I do cover with my students. But students need to be fluent in standard English if they are to succeed in the world. Students from elite backgrounds pick up these skills early through their exposure to books and other educational materials. It is the less-privileged students who lack these skills and who will miss out on opportunities if we refuse, due to some esoteric educational philosophy, to provide them with these skills.
What I think labor-based grading can address is that non-elite students often don’t last long enough in a standards, grade-based class to put in the labor to get better. Time on task and a constructive, feedback harnessing relationship with the instructor are key to learning. A labor-based, process focused approach puts those two things front and center.