Tacet groans and loud cheers echoed around the Harkness Table. For seniors, it is the last day of the quarter — the last marking period for grades sent to colleges — and with it, participation grades. Either an unwanted gut punch or a welcome respite, these last-minute participation grades can be the final shove needed to achieve the next letter grade or the knockout blow to students trying to get into college.
The lack of clarity regarding participation is unfair to students. Teachers are not given set guidelines to determine how participation grades are to be conducted, which leads to many discrepancies between different classes within the same department. Some teachers may believe that simply not disrupting class warrants credit, while others require significant input from students. These differences leave students feeling confused as they struggle to understand what standard they are being held to.
Participation grades lie in an ambiguous space; some classes put much emphasis on them, while others have none at all. What may achieve adequate credit in one class, will often not be enough for students enrolled in the same course but with a different teacher, which in turn causes a lack of standardized difficulty even within the same course. Interdepartmental standards are even more chaotic, with math classes traditionally putting very low emphasis on participation grades, while some social science and fine arts classes consider participation to be nearly 50 percent of the cumulative grade.
Much like how test scores are used as an incentive to encourage students to study, participation grades encourage students to over-participate and mindlessly babble in hopes of scoring higher, in turn degrading both the school’s intellectual curiosity and overall classroom discussion quality. When discussions are actively being graded, students are enticed to prattle in the hopes of earning points, rather than engaging in an authentic intellectual conversation. The shift from meaningful discussion and participation towards more point-grabbing behaviors distorts the education experience and fosters a mindset where quantity is superior to quality.
Similar to how teachers are not given a guideline for how to conduct participation grades, they are not given a timeline for how often they should be completed either. Some classes with participation grades every day seem to overinflate the grade book, while others with once-a-quarter entries pose a nasty surprise to the unprepared. A standardized loose timeline for participation grades would go a long way towards allowing students the opportunity to manage their engagement more effectively. It would also provide a clear framework, ensuring that participation grades are not only consistent across courses but also align with the pacing of the curriculum.
Participation grades are decided nearly entirely subjectively by the teacher, causing potential personal disputes and bias to negatively reflect on a student’s score. This poses a problem, especially in social science classes where students will attempt to adopt ideas and positions they believe will earn more support and thus more points from teachers, inevitably limiting the diversity of perspectives and inhibiting genuine conversation. This subjective grading encourages students to conform to the ideas and beliefs of their teachers, rather than critically engaging with and arriving at their conclusions, which blocks the growth of critical thinking skills and derives the community of valued diverse opinions.
While a nuisance in the short term, the long-lasting impacts of the current system regarding participation grades are most troubling. Due to how the current system incentivizes an overabundance of low-quality comments and inputs, gradually the accepted standard for what constitutes productive participation may be eroded. This normalization of superficial engagement can have a long-standing negative impact on the school’s intellectual life.
The solution to participation grades is quite simple. First and foremost, providing clear guidelines and rubrics for participation assessment is paramount. These should outline the specific criteria for earning credit, emphasizing quality over quantity of contributions. Such guidelines can serve as a compass for both teachers and students, ensuring a fair and consistent approach across different classes and departments.
Additionally, implementing a standardized timeline for participation grades is crucial. This would establish a predictable rhythm for students, preventing last-minute surprises and allowing students to proactively manage their engagement throughout the course.
The current system is untenable and the cause of much grief, but with a few quick minor changes, the administration can restore the integrity of participation grades and provide the student body with invaluable transparency.
