I have always had a strong dislike for
grading systems, both for their inflated nature and the stress and
preoccupation they cause in students. I
really enjoyed reading about Inoue’s approach because it seemed to solve a
number of the issues I was having in my composition classes, not only in
regards to grades, but also concerning student interest and participation in
the classroom. It seems that
theoretically Inoue’s approach would allow for a much more relaxed classroom
atmosphere in which students are stripped of the urge to ask questions about how
much a certain assignment is worth or stress over producing the kind of work
they believe the teacher desires.
Furthermore, given that students have
such a hands-on approach to constructing and even deconstructing each writing
assignment, students would perhaps be able to better understand why a
particular task or project has been assigned to them. In my own classes, I attempt to talk with my
students about why I have assigned each writing, and what I hope they get out
of them. I stress the importance of
process over product, at least for our purposes.
While I like that it seems that this
approach would take some of the pressure off of the instructor, both in regards
to grading load and assignment creation, it makes me question the exact nature
of the role the teacher would come to play in the classroom. Inoue quotes Condon and Butler as remarking “If you leave
this course dependent on the teacher to tell you what your writing needs, then
this course has failed in its mission.”
I feel that this is a very lofty goal to meet; everyone has questions
and concerns about their writing, from freshman to tenured professors. I think I might be interpreting this a little
too literally, however. Perhaps the
comment means that the community-based methods allows students to develop
independence and the ability to work with others, aside from their instructor,
in improving their writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment