Is There Any Real Way Around Grades?

So I recently came across a simple study by a couple anthropologists interested in the effects extrinsic rewards have on human interest. They put a group of people in an observed room with a complicated puzzle that involved word games, logic, and some geometry. (The report actually describes the puzzle for nearly two and half pages--weird). The first group of people, having nothing to do but wait, started working on the puzzle. When the observer came into the room, the subjects asked what it was they were supposed to be doing as participants in the study, but they also wanted to talk about the puzzle. The observer didn't answer their questions and only nodded in response to the progress they were making with the puzzle. The second time she (the observer) came in the room, the subjects were nearly finished with the puzzle and to use a word from the report, they appeared passionately connected to solving it. Not one of the subjects asked what they were supposed to be doing--they wanted to talk about the puzzle. The observer told them they we're free to go, but, you guessed it, they didn't leave until the puzzle was solved hours later. The next group the anthropologists brought into the same situation also started to work on the puzzle while they awaited further instruction. The big difference here was that when the observer came into the room, she watched them work on the puzzle and paid the participants whenever they solved a piece. What came next is not terribly surprising: the group only worked on the puzzle when the observer was present and not one of them was interested in finishing after they were dismissed.

Most of us have been warned of the dangers that might come from turning what we love into a way to make a living. This study certainly seems to shore up such a notion. It also lets scholars like Ken Bain ask questions about the value of grades. Can students connect in any personal way to knowledge if they are always given extrinsic rewards (grades) for the work they do? I imagine the answer is fairly dependent on the student. I know most the Freshman I teach don't feel a bit connected to their school work. By their own admission, they sign up for the classes that fulfill requirements, write papers, take tests, speak up in class, and study in order to get an A and a degree. That's it. And why should instructors expect anything otherwise? What the study concerning the effect of extrinsic rewards suggest to me is not so much the idea that grades prevent students from personalizing knowledge, from making it matter to the lives they lead outside the classroom walls. Rather, I think the study demonstrates that grades create fixed situations where deviation from a plan or even a lack of purpose is absolutely barred. The second group in the study quickly learned their purpose was to make money by performing well in front of the observer. (Sound familiar?). The first group never learned what they were "supposed" to be doing--nothing was ever solidified for them, so they used what was in front of them and did what they found interesting. And while I can only infer this from the study, the first group not only connected to their task (a task they thought was of their own choosing), they also connected to each other in a way the second group did not nearly approach. I wonder if grades don't so much ruin what might be authentic enthusiasm by "paying" or extrinsically rewarding a connection that doesn't require such an action, as much as they dictate what can happen in any given classroom. Grades are behind the student question that I can't stand (but I do understand): "How will this effect my grade?" They want to know how the direction of the class or an assignment fits the prescribed purpose of the class, which, and this is the kicker, is always to get a good grade. It doesn't matter what we write about our classes or how we invite students into the purpose of the class. Grades have already established the purpose, at least for the Freshman. Discussions that appear "un-scored," teaching styles that are difficult to predict, assignments that ask students to create rather than memorize might be uncomfortable because they don't always fit the mold built by our grading system. How can a student win a game where the rules are being created in collaboration? I don't know--but I can't think of better way to connect to whatever it is you're learning.

I've recently realized that much of my grading is based in emotion. And while that scares me and makes me question every letter I write on every paper, I'm starting to actually believe the voice in my head that keeps asking "why is this a problem?" If a student gets exited or worried or angry or whatever in response to their composition--if they connect to it, take risks, and sometimes (apparently) don't give a damn what I think, shouldn't I just give them an A? I wish that wasn't an option. I wish I could, like Evergreen State, Earlham School of Religion, and other schools, write each one of my students personal evaluations that would push them further into their thinking, their fear, their joy, their freaking lives. But for now, I'm stuck with letter grades and I don't know how to get around that.