We read “Exammanship and the Liberal Arts: A Study in Educational Epistemology”, by William G. Perry, Jr. This led to an interesting discussion about authenticity, in terms not only of exam taking or writing papers, and gaining knowledge, but also of the teacher being able to truly appreciate the work done by the students. One teacher present told some stories of how, as a student, she had ‘got by’ in difficult exams that she knew she did not comprehend (e.g. statistics) by doing something quite unorthodox in terms of the way she answered the question, (she wrote an extended philosophical contemplation of the merits and demerits of the inductive versus deductive methods of reasoning, rather than attempting to engage in the statistical calculations) and received an ‘A’ for it. So, we might ask, do grades truly reflect the level of learning – moreover sustained learning – in any particular subject area?
Another teacher present talked about how she asks her students to do some free writing about a reading, to try to gauge their preliminary understanding of a complex text, and this was likened to Didion’s statement about “How do I know what I think until I see what I write?”
But it was thought in general that much education is geared to test taking with the impact of the No Child Left Behind policy, in which the stakes are elevated. Also there is a concern that students being taught how to write might find it formulaic, which might prevent it from being authentic. On the other hand, though, would following the formula of making connections actually open up the possibility to students of discovering exciting new ideas, which indeed feels very authentic, both in terms of the ideas themselves and the emotional charge that accompanies their discovery?
We asked how we can grade for authenticity, and it was initially thought that this can not be easily measured. However, as the conversation progressed, it was suggested that our grading criteria can indeed measure authenticity by looking at the position that the paper adopts, as stated in the thesis. Also it was thought that all teachers appreciate an authentic paper when they come across it, as it is the sort of paper that flows, and that the teacher does not even realize he or she is reading it. In other words, it is a genuine expression of belief, rather than a mechanically executed homework assignment. Essentially, then, an authentic paper is not only one which demonstrates complete comprehension of the texts it analyses, but also one which is injected with feeling and positive emotion.
Some teachers present suggested that it was easier for a student to demonstrate passion and involvement in a 201 course than in Expos, since students have to take a position in their research, after having debated the research question from different angles. Even so, though, we agreed that there are some 201 students who wear blinkers, and approach their research with a preexisting assumption, and then only read materials which prove that their assumption was correct, as in a student trying to prove that video games lead to violent behaviour. Their assumption therefore remains unchallenged, and a lot of complex layers and counter-arguments ignored. This generally turns into more of a report than a research paper.
We agreed that Perry’s essay was interesting in that the ‘cow’ approach, (as he terms it), which was one only of perfect summary, might lead the previously ‘A’ student down the path to receiving an ‘NP’. The question then becomes one of what do we value? Do we prefer to reward big thinkers, who may be lacking a foundation for their thoughts, simply because they have tried to think originally, and because we are bored with the minutiae of regurgitation? This then leads us to ask, how do we reward at the university; should we be impressed by summary and regurgitation, or do we look for analysis as demonstrating that the student is learning how to think for him or herself?
But is the binary opposition of ‘bull’ (Perry’s other term) versus ‘cow’ (which roughly translates to ‘freedom to think originally’ versus ‘summary’) that Perry sites, an oversimplification? Should we instead be considering discovery of knowledge versus summary? Or summary versus opinions which are not backed up by textual support? We asked, too, if all ‘A’ papers are the same, or are they distinctive in their own manner? It was suggested that all ‘A’ papers have complications, and perhaps surprise us in pleasing ways, but given this they will all be different as they are each from the unique point of view of the student.
We talked a little longer about the ‘A’ paper, and one teacher said she had always thought that the ‘A’ paper should dazzle, but then went on to wonder if she was ‘blinded by the light’, and whether therefore the dazzle could mask the truth. This even led us to question whether Perry’s essay, on which our discussion was based, was itself authentic, and whether the scenario he paints at the start of the work, of a student taking an exam in a class in which he did not belong, was completely fabricated, in which case the rest of the ensuing argument could carry no weight. However, several of us believed in the authenticity of the original scenario.
Conversation swung again to what exactly is meant by authenticity. If it is related to being meaningful and searching for truth, we asked how can we differentiate between truth and bias, as in the concerns about global climate change, or other environmental or political matters? One teacher went on to say how two students could use exactly the same quotes, but interpret them completely differently. And we, as teachers, will also bring our own interpretation along as well, and thus judge students accordingly, which could lead to a divergence as to what grade we think a paper merits.
Certainly we want students to get in touch with what they truly believe when writing their papers, but of course we can’t make them swear that they really believe what they write. This led to a discussion of the advantages of the debate form, and of asking students to play Devil’s Advocate, to stretch them, and take them away from the comfort of only talking about prior beliefs, thereby possibly helping them to discover a new position.
