English 5508 - Teaching Composition
Response to Elbow
Jason Hudson
Dr. T--
English 5505
3 November 2002
I want to respond to Peter Elbow's essay on ranking, evaluating and liking for the simple reason that I had not ever thought of the negative effects of the common grading system. Although I find some of Elbow's arguments hard to follow completely, more because of my disagreement of them than for their complexity, I tend to agree with the overall idea that grading devoid of evaluating is harmful to young students and to their development as scholars. The goal, according to Elbow is to summarize less and judge more.
Elbow lists three problems with ranking in the opening of the essay. I initially agree with the first two: ranking is inaccurate and nonsubstantive. The third, however, seems to be connected more the first two. He says that it is harmful to the atmosphere of teaching and learning. Since Elbow's goal is obviously not a tautology, maybe there is a better way of summing up the third problem of ranking. Perhaps what he means is that a ranking system does not teach the student anything. I see that ranking has very little to do with the "atmosphere" of the classroom and more to do with the lack of substance. Therefore, I think problem three deals with the same issue in problem two. Nonetheless, Elbows ideas on pinpointing the problem, namely ranking, and offering solutions are interesting. I am eager to try some of the tactics he uses in my own teaching experience.
One thing that I never thought about before reading this essay is that our grading system has such a subjective nature to it. If 100 teachers were given the same essay, and if the essay had obvious problems within it, there might be 100 different opinions on the value of the paper. I suppose that is one of the main reasons for courses such as this one, where teachers are "trained" to be consistent readers and graders and to give a paper a score comparable to other teachers using a holistic scale. However, Elbow seems to red-flag the use of training by bringing in the Herrnstein article. Herrnstein would argue that training in a sense gives an unreliable and artificial result. In that case, is training simply another evil to lay alongside horrid ranking? And if so, is there a solution to these problems that don't create fresh problems one has to contend with?
The following phrase in the Elbow essay sent chills down my spine: "We know too much about the differences among readers and the highly variable nature of the reading process" (396). The implications of this are scary. Is it safe to say, then, that my overall grade in a particular course might depend greatly on my teacher, nay, my institution of higher learning? What about my abilities, or lack thereof? And what if the grade I receive is nothing like what I had expected? I fear that I will have a bleak future as a teacher since a grade that I give a student "is liable to have substantial consequences" such as scholarship eligibility or career opportunities (396).
There is another comment from Elbow that leads me to ponder upon equally interesting implications. He says that our first reactions to a particular paper could change drastically, simply by articulating a judgment to the student. To me, it seems that if you can't describe the problem in a clear and concise way, then you may as well soften your judgment. After all, as C.S. Lewis says, it is easier to "express [...] disapproval of things than to describe them" (397). Of course this can go both ways. Perhaps I think a paper is marvelous. The word marvelous doesn't necessarily clearly define why the paper is satisfactory to me.
I appreciate the comment that Elbow makes about the tendency for students that receive high grade have a false sense of "making it to the top." They may then stop improving their craft. On the other hand, a bad grade with little or no encouragement could lead a poor student to drop out of school completely.
Elbow argues for evaluation. But wouldn't this process take too long? I have tried to consider the time it would take to genuinely practice what Elbow suggests. There seems to be little possibility to find that kind of time and dedication for every student. To be honest, I don't agree that ranking is so big of a problem that we need to make such drastic changes.
A rubric of some sort seems to be the best way to incorporate the ranking for those who must have a grade on their paper, and evaluation to communicate ways that a student might improve.
My favorite idea that Elbow suggests is opting to give "bottom-line" grades of H or U. That way, those who suffer will have opportunity to improve throughout the semester without a shocking discovery of F at the end. Likewise, those who are in the middle know that they are in a "safe" zone and that they don't need to be distracted by the perimeter grades. Those at the top who receive the H's, have a sense of accomplishment and reward, something obviously valid and worth striving for.
Elbow's section on "liking" appealed to me perhaps more than anything. Since I haven't actually experienced the classroom setting as a teacher, I am probably a bit idealistic. I hope that I can adopt Elbow's view that liking a student and their writing will benefit the student and teacher alike. Most of all, I hope that my grading and evaluating will be balanced and fair, and that my students will have a positive experience in my classroom.