The ideal relationship between grades and understanding is
There’s complexity even in that ideal: if I have a stronger understanding of one aspect of a concept and you of another, how should our grades reflect that? But we don’t need to worry too much about that complexity because we can’t get even close to the ideal.
Two approximations of the ideal are worth understanding as more approachable objectives:
I’ll refer to this objective as certification
: a grade is an attempt to certify that a certain level of understanding has been reached. The understanding might be reached without the grade to certify it, but if the grade is there so is the understanding.
I’ll refer to this objective as fair
: if you achieve a given level of understanding you are guaranteed the corresponding grade. The grade might be reached by some who lack understanding, but all who gain understanding also gain the grade.
The ideal first presented is that grades are both fair and certifying. I am not aware of even a single instance of that ideal being achieved. Conversely, fair grades can be achieved (trivially) by giving everyone the highest grade; and likewise certifying grades can also be achieved (trivially) by giving everyone the lowest grade. Nontrivial close approximations of these lesser objectives can also be achieved, where many people who learn recieve a certifying grade or many people who receive a fair grade earned it by learning, even though there are a few exceptions.
Most instructors I know have a natural leaning, either more toward fairness or more towards certification. I perceive more as learning toward fairness than certification, in part because hurting good people feels worse than helping bad people and results in far fewer student complaints.
Many consumers of grades – employers, graduate admissions, scholarship committees, and the like – wish that grades were certifications. Overlooking a good candidate is seen as being far less harmful to the company/school/etc. than is accepting a bad candidate.
That disconnect between the incentives of grade producers and desires of grade consumers has little impact on grades themselves. Even when I am in both roles at once, such as when I hire those who completed my course to staff it in the next term, the desire that I had more certifying grades is not enough to overcome my desire to give more fair grades.
The lack of ideal grading systems also leads to a mismatch between the desires of (some) students and their instructors. My goal is that my students learn; they may wish to learn too, but many of them are more motivated to get a good grade. If I lean towards fair grades, that may mean they seek ways to get the grade without the effort of learning. If I lean towards certifying grades, that may mean they focus more on test prep or other activities that help separate those who learned and got the grade from those who learned and did not. Either way, there is an objective mismatch.
When objectives do not align, negotiations begin. Students who wish the instructor would do X instead of Y resist Y, engaging as little as possible and complaining as they go, denying the instructor the payment of see the students happy and learning. Instructors who wish students would do Y instead of X throw hurdles in the way of X, adding quizzes and check-offs and grade penalties, denying the students the payment of unencumbered learning and grades. Sometimes this devolves into hostility, with teachers giving low grades and lectures and stress and students giving low ratings and complaints and stress. Sometimes it results in back channels, where any student willing to ask often enough gets what they want even if it was not offered freely to all. Sometimes it results in a compromise, with instructors providing the students a mix of learning and non-learning grade enhancement, the exact balance between those two varying case by case.
When I began teaching, I did not know any of the things I’ve explained in this post; I’ve learned them bit by bit as I’ve developed as a teacher. But I’m very glad I know them now.
Knowing that perfect grades are unachievable helps me not beat myself up for being like everyone else.
Knowing that I can choose how to balance fairness and certification helps me plan grading systems intentionally. It also helps me prepare policies and avenues for students to redress grievances that fit the structure of the course. Is it the students’ job to prove to me their knowledge, or is it my job to prove to them their misunderstandings? Do I offer them a second chance to make their case or a second chance to refute my claims? Superficially those look similar, but in my experience the small differences they inform have dramatic impact on the smooth running of a course.
Knowing that employer and educator objectives do not align helps me communicate with students who are worried about landing a job, and with employers who are frustrated by the poor quality of some applicants.
Knowing that my students’ objectives do not necessarily align with my own helps me in all of my interactions with students. It helps me resist making decisions in the moment, helps me avoid betraying my ideals when faced with a suave student, and helps me translate my desires into terms students sympathize with and accept. Of all of these points, it has the largest positive impact on my ability to help students learn.