Marks for classroom contributions such as reading out?

[mesomorph]

Do you give marks for classroom contributions such as reading out?

Thanks for your help.

[lolwhites]

In the University department where I work, we are encouraged to award marks for participation. Otherwise 90% of the class will sit there like lemons, waiting to be told all the answers so they can copy them down, while labouring under the misapprehension that they're actually learning something.

[mesomorph]

I know a girl who frequently gets 95%+ in tests and never speaks.

She should be getting 100% but some teachers think they are gods.

Marks for 'contribution' allows teachers to be gods.

Marks for contribution allows teachers to judge the personalities of the students and the value of these personalities to the teacher's little world of which they are gods.

When subconsciously (or consciously) a teacher finds a student's personality doesn't confirm to their world-view (their classroom view is a microcosm of their world-view), or is repulsive for whatever reason (i.e. he is more intelligent than the teacher and a threat to the teacher's 'leader' status), the student will be penalised under the banner marks for 'contribution' (or lack of contribution to the teacher's little world, and/or, God Status).

Participation makes the teacher's job easier and so students are often rewarded marks in a trade off. Everyone knows this.

Students either become disciples or heathens as a result, and are either embraced as part of the tribe, or outcasted as witches based on contribution anti-values.

Marks for contribution encourages false social hierarchies based on personality and social politics which is destructive to the foundations of the spirit of humanity.

If a student is difficult for whatever reason (intelligent, asks difficult questions) teachers often say 'his contributions are a bit off', and reject them.

Marks for participation allows students who don't do their homework and are crap in the subject to 'con' (or just simply get) brownie points out of the teacher. The teacher can often prefer this situation to the intelligent 'difficult' student.

Marks for participation teaches and rewards students for playing social games.

This impacts negatively upon social justice.

[fluffyhamster]

I know a girl who frequently gets 95%+ in tests and never speaks.

She should be getting 100% but some teachers like to have the upperhand.

Marks for participation encourages teachers to judge the personality of the student.

Marks for participation encourages teachers to judge the value of the student to the teachers own personal well-being.

If subconsciously (or consciously more disturbingly) a teacher finds a student doesn't confirm to their world-view (or general liking) the student can be penalised under the banner marks for 'contribution'.

Participation makes the teacher's job easier and so students are often rewarded marks in a trade off.

Everyone knows this.

If a student is difficult for whatever reason (intelligent, asks difficult questions) teachers can say 'his contributions are a bit off', and reject them.

Marks for participation allows students who don't do their homework and are crap in the subject to 'con' (or just simply get) brownie points out of the teacher. The teacher can often prefer this situation to the intelligent 'difficult' student.

Marks for contribution encourages false social hierarchies based on personality and social politics which is destructive to the foundations of the spirit of humanity.

Marks for participation perpetuates prejudice and all the destructive effects of it.

Marks for participation teaches and rewards students for playing social games.

This impacts negatively upon social justice and resultantly damages the foundations of human society.

If this sounds like your class start to worry NOW.

Bear in mind the hoary old adage that there is a difference between "simply" talking, and in talking about the language, and those students who are always wanting to stop and discuss (or indeed argue) about grammar and the like, whilst they may be developing certain linguistic skills and aptitudes in the process (and will need a fair level already to engage in such discussion in the first place), are just as if not more likely to be neglecting to give attention to growing, to more holistic growth in other, potentially newer and in every sense more vital areas; and it doesn't help that they are sometimes ill-informed or even just plain wrong about the questions they ask and the answers that they sometimes appear to strongly favour (I am thinking here especially of some Japan teachers of English, advanced students in other words, who really should've known better in many instances (and I mean known better themslves about the facts of usage, rather than 'known better to argue "with me"' - I wasn't up for arguing or rather being the messenger who got shot, and soon gave up trying to convince them of "my" take on things) - or of people like Shuntang/Xui (who used to frequent the AL forum)). Basically, learning about a language is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient precondition to actually being able to speak it*, and the teacher who awards participation is likely positively awarding genuine participation rather than negatively penalising "problem" students (and how often is it that the marks to be potentially earnt/awarded would make up more than ten percent) ~ not sure that 'students who don't do their homework and are crap in the subject' can "con" brownie points (or if they do get them, maybe they really have made a positive contribution to discussions).

Participation makes the teacher's job easier and so students are often rewarded marks in a trade off.

I'd say that that is a fair trade off. Language (and its learning and subsequent communicative use, in ESL classrooms at least) involves, has to involve, a fair bit of "socializing". Same response really to the following too:

Marks for contribution encourages false social hierarchies based on personality and social politics which is destructive to the foundations of the spirit of humanity.

Marks for participation perpetuates prejudice and all the destructive effects of it.

Marks for participation teaches and rewards students for playing social games.

This impacts negatively upon social justice and resultantly damages the foundations of human society.

That being said, I don't myself absolutely swear by marks for participation, and am sure that there are some abuses of such things. All we can really do is teach to the best of our ability and assume that our students will recognize that they aren't consquently being too short-changed. But the question remains, how will students come to be possession of all the relevant facts? Even books will make demands of students, and might not always match them perfectly and anticipate their needs or wants.

*I would however ultimately agree with the implicit claim that students who are acing presumably comprehensive tests won't have too many problems in making the leap to achieving spoken accuracy if not fluency (a possibly misleading if not invalid dichotomy if ever there was one!(?)).

[mesomorph]

FH.

I was editing the post you quoted as you quoted it but your response does respond to the core of my thinking.

It is a relief to hear:

'and the teacher who awards participation is likely positively awarding genuine participation rather than negatively penalising "problem" students (and how often is it that the marks to be potentially earnt/awarded would make up more than ten percent) ~ not sure that 'students who don't do their homework and are crap in the subject' can "con" brownie points (or if they do get them, maybe they really have made a positive contribution to discussions).'

I guess the situation I talk about is a worst case scenario, and is shadowed by my current experiences.

I suppose it all depends upon the spirit in which it is used.

It is a relief to hear your faithful administration of the idea.

[fluffyhamster]

I guess the situation I talk about is a worst case scenario, and is shadowed by my current experiences.

You mean you're administering marks less than ideally yourself?! Or perhaps rather that colleagues are. (Edit: Or you could be talking about your experiences studying French - it's easy to forget that we aren't always teachers but are sometimes students!).

But seriously, we're all human and sometimes "err" in who we decide to favour (I did it myself until I got control of assessment procedures and made them that bit more linguistic than sociolinguistic - save the socio stuff for the general give and take of/in classes, most or none of which should be held against a student for long. It helped that in Japan especially, genuine/extended conversational skills weren't prioritized and couldn't therefore have been assessed in much depth anyhow in most cases).

[woodcutter]

I agree with Meso. Controlling 30% of my uni students marks at whim based on "participation" was an unwelcome god-like power. Plus it didn't work as motivation.

[Macavity]

Whilst I agree to some extent that studying grammar and doing homework are important stages in the learning process , I don't think that it is here that students learn a language. They learn about the language, certainly, by doing their homework and by paying attention when a point of grammar is being explained, but this really only provides them with some of the materials they require to get started on the project in hand. Classroom contribution is, for me, very important indeed: this is where students learn to SPEAK the new language. I suppose it depends on your view, and this will be different from teacher to teacher, but as I see it speaking and listening are the primary skills whilst reading and writing are secondary skills, albeit that they are also important.

You might argue that for some students, those in adult education for instance who are learning a language for professional reasons, writing could be the priority as far as they are concerned: they may need to write emails, letters and reports. Nevertheless, even here speaking and listening are more important for them to get to grips with. I maintain that this is so since writing is a record of what we say. learning to speak from reading and writing is inevitably what we often see in a classroom but this IS the wrong way round, surely. Otherwise, if students concentrate their efforts on too much grammar and writing exercises and are reluctant to contribute in class all they learn to become is translators.

[lolwhites]

I was very reluctant at first to award marks for participation for precisely the reasons Meso points out. I couldn't see a way of doing it objectively, and here in France students are quite ready to protest if they feel they've been unfairly treated.

Having said that, a lot of the students I have are just a bit lazy, and will play dumb in the expectation that they'll be told all the answers, which they dutifully copy down on paper while thinking that what they're doing constitutes learning. They then turn up for the mid term exams and flunk them badly because they never asked a question, much less offered an answer, and so never stretched themselves in the way you need to in order to make progress.

I make the students aware that I'll keep a record of every time someone takes part (I keep a seating plan, which I mark every time someone participates), and that it'll contribute to their final grade. Even if they give a wrong answer, I recognise that they've made an effort.

Now you may say that some people who are just too shy and retiring and I'm grading their personalities. That is, unfortunately true, but life is like that. One day, these people are going to have to go out into the real world, attend job interviews and deal with other people. It's something that has to be learned (and I know it didn't come naturally to me at first), so I feel I'm encouraging them to develop an important skill that they'll probably need to get on in life anyway. The student who gets 95% in test but never speaks probably won't do herself justice when she's trying to get a job and losing out to the assertive, forward candidate who may not have such good grades.

[woodcutter]

Here in France could read here in Korea.

ESL doesn't, remarkably, pay much attention to what foreign johnnies say, think and do in class (apart from wondering how to change it) but it often seems to be globally at odds with anglo-saxon norms.

Anyway, I basically simply decided those students grades, and yes, then they would moan about exam scores. Speaking should be tested in a speaking exam. If they can snooze in class and breeze the exam, then let them snooze. It should be a good exam though. As to nerves, well, they are part and parcel of meeting foreigners, so my take on that is much like lols take on shyness. There's no perfect method for getting marks.

[lolwhites]

Controlling 30% of my uni students marks at whim based on "participation" was an unwelcome god-like power.

30% strikes me as a bit too high. I wouldn't want it to be more than 10-15%.

Speaking should be tested in a speaking exam.

If I didn't have classes of 30 or more with only 90 minutes of English per week, that's what I'd do. Unfortunately I don't work under ideal conditions!

[mesomorph]

I was very reluctant at first to award marks for participation for precisely the reasons Meso points out. I couldn't see a way of doing it objectively, and here in France students are quite ready to protest if they feel they've been unfairly treated.

Having said that, a lot of the students I have are just a bit lazy, and will play dumb in the expectation that they'll be told all the answers, which they dutifully copy down on paper while thinking that what they're doing constitutes learning. They then turn up for the mid term exams and flunk them badly because they never asked a question, much less offered an answer, and so never stretched themselves in the way you need to in order to make progress.

I make the students aware that I'll keep a record of every time someone takes part (I keep a seating plan, which I mark every time someone participates), and that it'll contribute to their final grade. Even if they give a wrong answer, I recognise that they've made an effort.

Now you may say that some people who are just too shy and retiring and I'm grading their personalities. That is, unfortunately true, but life is like that. One day, these people are going to have to go out into the real world, attend job interviews and deal with other people. It's something that has to be learned (and I know it didn't come naturally to me at first), so I feel I'm encouraging them to develop an important skill that they'll probably need to get on in life anyway. The student who gets 95% in test but never speaks probably won't do herself justice when she's trying to get a job and losing out to the assertive, forward candidate who may not have such good grades.

I suppose I'm really moaning about society in general.

I am shy but contribute a lot to my French class (really just to con the teacher out of marks and to overcome my shyness). I don't believe it contributes to my language learning. Not more than 5% anyway and certainly not 10/15/30%. It helps my bravery and social status but not much else.

Having a real grasp of the grammar I think is the most important thing, as just from speaking a language badly new knowledge doesn't just miraculously appear out of the ether.

Having a good grasp of the grammar is the hardest and most important thing.

Speaking can be brushed up in the pub after a beer.

As a teacher I used marks for participation more or less purely for management purposes.

Yes I was evil.

[Macavity]

mesomorph said: Having a real grasp of the grammar I think is the most important thing, as just from speaking a language badly new knowledge doesn't just miraculously appear out of the ether

My 3 year old would seem to be the living proof that what you say doesn't really hold much water.

[fluffyhamster]

mesomorph said: Having a real grasp of the grammar I think is the most important thing, as just from speaking a language badly new knowledge doesn't just miraculously appear out of the ether

My 3 year old would seem to be the living proof that what you say doesn't really hold much water.

Learning one's native language when a child is made a lot easier by the very functional focus that is effortlessly achieved within the contexts one not only finds oneself in but also has to live through (and often keep repeating, even when it's been mastered) in real-time; in comparison, second language learning, particularly as an adult and thus "part-time", is a process that requires constant creative ingenuity in contextualization by at least the teacher in order to produce any learning, and a lot of what passes for instruction can often hinder as much if not more than help - too much (or too little, or too little that is well-though out!) gets "packed in". I think this is what Meso was saying and referring to. But have a(nother) debate on first- versus second-language learning, innateness versus functionalism etc etc if you like! [Me, I think a real grasp of the grammar can be "effortlessly" developed (effortlessly in the sense that although the R&D may be exhaustive for the teacher before class, the improved materials and methodology will pay dividends in terms of students' comprehension/ease of understanding, and appreciation) in the adult (SL) learner's brain, and am not convinced that it ("a" "grammar") needs no "developing" (i.e. less conscious, more indirect development than in the case of adult SL learners) and instead somehow has come to mysteriously reside in native children's brains].

[Macavity]

Way too many brackets there fluffy, but I think I follow what you're saying. I don't disagree with the idea that a sound knowledge of grammar can be beneficial to students, but would maintain that it isn't the study of rules that really equips a person to make the breakthrough into speaking a language. Sure things are different for adults learning a second language than they are for children picking up their mother tongue, but all the same they do indeed absorb knowledge from the "ether", and this does equip them with new skills. It's just that we, perhaps consciously or less so, filter this new knowledge into the ether for them or else guide them to that part of the great blue yonder where they will encounter it. We can argue that 6 is 9 if we want as to how to teach and what to teach; and I do teach grammar as I find appropriate according to what I feel (guess?) are the needs of the given students, but at the end of the day, for some unknown reason, and despite my best efforts they just pick it up anyway!