Let’s try a thought experiment.   Let’s assume we live in a culture where all forms of educational achievement tests have been banned and no one is allowed to assign a letter or numerical grade for anything.   How would we evaluate what students are learning?

I'm fascinated by experimental psychology experiments that reveal that we know almost nothing about ourselves--or that our "selves" reveal far more about "us" than we ever imagined in our rationalist paradigms.  The West has been clinging, against odds, to the mind v. body dualism for thousands of years, gave it a few booster shots in the Enlightenment, and now requires psychologists with cagey experiments to trick us into seeing that the mind and body are, in fact, not opposites but all part of the same thing.

Our entire practice of testing is based on a theory of knowledge that is out of date.  . . . I fear that No Child Left Behind may well be constructed to leave behind exactly those non-linear thinkers, some of whom, if nurtured, might well grow up to Be Like Einstein.

“A wacko holding forth on a soapbox. If Ms. Davidson just wants to yammer and lead discussions, she should resign her position and head for a park or subway platform, and pass a hat for donations.”

Another look at Cathy Davidson's "How to Crowdsource Grading" appears in the Duke campus paper, The Chronicle.

Please don't ever ask me to bet on which topics will be "hot" and which ones not. I managed to blog about an experiment in evaluation (y-a-w-n, so I thought!) during the week our new site was down several times for repair and then when I was off the grid, on my big one-week-of-vacation-fun of the year. Off the grid. I thought posting what is basically a revised version of a very successful course I taught last spring, "This Is Your Brain on the Internet" was a respectable place-holder during absence (www.hastac.org's and my own). I threw in some new ideas about experimenting with grading methods almost as an afterthought. About 5000 views and dozens of comments later, well, I get it now: Grading is a hot topic! Here's why . . .

Cathy Davidson's post on her use of crowdsourcing techniques to facilitate grading in her courses has sparked a lot of interesting commentary, both on the HASTAC site and on this post at the Chronicle of Higher Education's "Wired Campus" blog.

In her first paragraph, Cathy provides a concise summary of what many of us find to be the major flaws of traditional grading:

I can't think of a more meaningless, superficial, cynical way to evaluate learning than by assigning a grade. It turns learning (which should be a deep pleasure, setting up for a lifetime of curiosity) into a crass competition: how do I snag the highest grade for the least amount of work? how do I give the prof what she wants so I can get the A that I need for med school? That's the opposite of learning and curiosity, the opposite of everything I believe as a teacher, and is, quite frankly, a waste of my time and the students' time.

Inside Higher Ed has also picked up the "How to Crowdsource Grading" blog and featuers a very nice and thoughtful follow-up by the always thoughtful Scott Jaschik:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/03/grading.

I loved returning to teaching last year after several years in administration . . . except for the grading. I can't think of a more meaningless, superficial, cynical way to evaluate learning in a class on digital, collaborative, process-oriented online thinking than by assigning a grade. It turns learning (which should be a deep pleasure, setting up for a lifetime of curiosity) into a crass competition: how do I snag the highest grade for the least amount of work? There has to be a better way . . .