Hannah's PGCert blog

I had an experience this week that left me questioning the value of grading as a system of assessment. As the second marker on a student essay, I assessed it at a B-. The first marker strongly felt that the essay should receive an A-. Since we could not agree, a third marker was asked to review the essay. Without seeing our comments or hearing our assessments, the third marker graded the student at a C-. There may be various reasons why grades shift during the marking process, but in this case, it was particularly striking. This was my third year delivering this unit as a second marker, while the first marker held a permanent role in the team. The third marker was the course leader. All three of us had marked at least 20 essays from this unit, had agreed on grades with a second marker in the past, and had participated in annual benchmarking meetings where we discussed our grading strategies extensively. Given these factors, I found myself asking: what is the true value of grades if three experienced markers can have such vastly different assessments of the same essay?

I was particularly interested to read Kate Brooks’ study, ‘Could do Better?’: Students’ Critique of Written Feedback (2008). The student responses collected in this study were not surprising, but they did resonate with my own experiences. The text examined written feedback on student essays, identifying thematic patterns in the feedback and considering, in a balanced manner, what could realistically be done to address students’ concerns.

One comment that stood out to me was the expression: “It’s too late now to do anything about it, so why bother?” (p.2). Brooks raised an important question about the purpose of feedback. When delivering summative feedback, some students may not see it as part of their learning—especially if they do not have another essay due in the near future. Recently, I wrote feedback for 23 students’ final dissertations. I found myself wondering how many of them would actually read the feedback and how useful my comments would be. Though I knew this was not the right perspective to adopt, it sometimes felt more practical to view my feedback as a justification of the grade for the second marker, since they were the only person guaranteed to read it.

Brooks highlighted that in an academic system where the emphasis is placed on achieving the highest possible grades rather than valuing learning for its own sake, students may not engage meaningfully with feedback. This raises concerns about how feedback is perceived and whether it truly supports student growth.

What can I take away from both my experience and Brooks’ study? First, grades offer only partial value. As a teacher, it is crucial for me to hold onto my conviction in the learning process. Second, I must strive to create a culture within my classroom that nurtures students’ curiosity and fosters a genuine desire for growth. Rather than focusing solely on grades, my role should be to encourage students to engage deeply with their learning, see feedback as an opportunity for improvement, and develop a mindset that values knowledge beyond assessment scores.

Refs

Brookes, K. (2008) Could do Better?’: Students’ Critique of Written Feedback

In preparation for the PgCert workshop, I was excited to read a section of Sara Ahmed’s What’s the Use? On the Uses of Use (2019). I was suprised to find this on the reading list, as I know Ahmed’s writing on everyday feminism, and hadn’t considered her as a pedagogic expert. The text explores how the concept of ‘use’ can shape institutions, objects, and individuals. The text examines how repeated actions and expectations reinforce certain norms, making some paths easier to follow than others. Relating Ahmed’s ideas to my teaching practice, I thought about how teaching practices might become rigid through habitual use and due to institutional expectations, but also how critical reflection on “use” could create a more inclusive and dynamic learning space.

Ahmed (2019) discusses how repeated use can create wear, making some concepts or structures appear self-evident while marginalizing others. This resonates with higher education teaching, where long-standing traditions shape curriculum design, assessment methods, and classroom interactions. For instance, conventional lecture-based teaching remains dominant, even while many teachers value Freire and hooks’ critical pedagogy (1970, 1994). Reflecting on my own teaching, I notice how I feel that I need to justify my value as a holder of knowledge to impart to others, and this might limit opportunities for a more engaged and participatory learning.

One of Ahmed’s points is that what is seen as ‘useful’ is often aligned with institutional power. In teaching, this translates to the privileging of certain knowledge forms, disciplinary hierarchies (sound is subvervient to visual mediums), and assessment practices. Learning at University needs to be measurable, which might not value all the ways in which learning actually occurrs and is evident. I have observed this in my own teaching when students write formulaic essays to meet the criteria set out, rather than using the opportunity to write in more creative ways that might better suit their subject or their own instincts. Their position as customers who’s future appears to depend on their grades can limit what they can achieve in terms of the development of their own practice.

Ahmed (2019) also explores how some paths become well-trodden through repeated use, while others are obstructed or rendered invisible. This can be seen in how certain cannonical voices, perspectives, and methodologies are prioritized. For example, curricula often center Eurocentric theories and texts, reinforcing existing power structures (hooks, 1994). As a teacher, I recognize my responsibility to challenge these exclusions by incorporating diverse voices and encouraging students to question dominant narratives. By doing so, I aim to make knowledge more accessible and meaningful to a broader range of students.

References

Ahmed, S. (2019). What’s the Use? On the Uses of Use. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

The article Embracing the Silence: Introverted Learning and the Online Classroom (Harris, 2022) resonated deeply with me. The text describes the author’s experience transitioning to online teaching during the lockdown months and the awkwardness she felt in this makeshift ‘classroom’ of many digitally connected homes. The author presents a series of ‘provocations’ (p.102) about what might constitute ‘active participation,’ both in traditional classrooms and in this new digital space. She highlights how some teaching models rely heavily on vocal participation, privileging those who are ‘super-skilled at speed-thinking and oratory’ (p.102), while placing others under stress by requiring them to ‘perform’ in ways that may create barriers to learning.

This reminded me of a similar experience in my own teaching. I was team-teaching in a large classroom with 40 students. My co-teacher frequently moved between tables, posing questions to the group and selecting students to answer. Following his lead, I directed a question to a student and was surprised when she completely froze. I waited awkwardly for her to regain her confidence and respond. I offered words of encouragement, but she remained silent, avoiding eye contact. After an extended pause, I made some additional comments about ways to approach the question and returned to the front of the room, handing over to my co-teacher. The experience unsettled me. I had not intended to make the student uncomfortable—I simply wanted to encourage her to use her voice in what I perceived as the safe space of the classroom. I now understand that she experienced the room differently. This moment has made me reconsider the practice of directing questions to individual students.

Later in the text, Harris quotes Dana Weeks: ‘Listening without anticipating and articulating an immediate response provides space for understanding ideas, perspectives, and experiences that may differ from one’s own’ (2018). This reminded me of an Autism Awareness training I attended several years ago. The trainer emphasized the importance of communication when working with young people with ASD, particularly noting that I tend to use too many words when explaining tasks, then follow up with questions to check comprehension. In this context, this approach is counterproductive—students are still processing my words when I expect them to formulate a response. I have since become more mindful of using fewer, more precise words when giving instructions and allowing for pauses so students can absorb information before responding.

Weeks’ text The Value of Silence in Schools (2018) highlights the broader benefits of embracing silence in education. This perspective has reinforced my commitment to creating a learning environment that accommodates different processing speeds and participation styles, ensuring that all students feel comfortable engaging in ways that work best for them.

References

Harris, K. (2022) Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/161/273 (Accessed: 15 February 2025)

Weeks, D. (2018) The value of silence in schools. Available at: https://www.edutopia.org/article/value-silence-schools (Accessed: 15 February 2025)