Mike Campito
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So, in your opinion then, aggregation can be useful in the circumstances where what could be construed as a larger learning goal is broken down into smaller, easier to track ones (or rather, the smaller learning goals that compose the aggregate all share a powerful commonality that is worth tracking in and of itself). Grading is not necessarily a negative force, but rather a tool such as any other, albeit one that is frequently misused. By making grading a more collaborative process, it can to some extent justify its usability in the educational system. Moreover, the distinction between assessment and grading is far more crucial than I initially gave it credit for, demonstrating a lack of appreciation for the individual functionality and practicality of either. Grading’s true value lies as a motivational force rather than as a punitive one, and using it as such will hopefully beget more honest participation from the student body as a whole. Moreover, shifting over to a focus on assessment allows for more personal growth from each individual student as well as a better tracking of a student’s current state, consequence free. Thank you.
If the aggregation is an issue, isn’t it simply fine to leave results divided? It is true that grading in general is inherently unhelpful, but it seems the primary problem is with the aggregation of the values. If that is the case, then assuming the individual tracking of learning goals, how can this be implemented to worthwhile educational value in a setting in which grading remains mandatory? Something still has to be graded in the vast majority of schools in America, so in order to implement this, that remains a hard wall that must be crossed. Is there any way that these learning goals can be tracked separately in a graded setting in order to better the student’s education without diverging irreconcilably with the greater educational system as a whole? Or is the KTL system too radical to be taken in half steps as such?
