Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832321003604961
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Teacher as Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of
Grades Versus Learning
Gerard Farias , Christine M. Farias & Kent D. Fairfield
To cite this article: Gerard Farias , Christine M. Farias & Kent D. Fairfield (2010) Teacher as
Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of Grades Versus Learning, Journal of Education for Business,
85:6, 336-342
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832321003604961
Published online: 13 Feb 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 272
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:39
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 336–342, 2010
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832321003604961
Teacher as Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of Grades
Versus Learning
Gerard Farias, Christine M. Farias, and Kent D. Fairfield
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jersey, USA
Students are socialized to value grades, sometimes more than learning. Although many teachers
are devoted to a learning-centered approach, others signal by their actions a deep-set interest
in grading. The authors used a 2 × 2 matrix to analyze potential matches and mismatches
between teacher orientation and student orientation. The implications of the mismatches are
discussed. The authors suggest dealing with the dilemma by making learning and grading
mutually supportive, thus creating a more effective learning environment.
Keywords: grading, learning, teaching
Business education in general and MBA programs in particular have been the subjects of increasing criticism in recent years (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). One possible
element that generates these criticisms is the small extent to
which teaching focuses on learning and to which students
see this learning as relevant when they enter the workforce.
Do faculty in business schools focus on developing lifelong
learners? Do faculty prepare students to address complex and
unpredictable problems that are very likely to emerge in their
future?
The relationship between students and faculty generates
tensions between the roles they play and their expectations
of each other. It is common to hear comments among faculty that students are reluctant buyers of the service faculty deliver and they really care only about their grades and
not about learning. Similarly, students have expectations of
faculty and perceptions about their motivations. These mutual perceptions, though gross generalizations, significantly
influence faculty–student relationships and are likely to be
counterproductive.
In this article we observe that teachers and students commonly adopt different orientations to learning—they tend
to be learning- or grade-oriented (Frymier & Weser, 2001).
We explore the potential matches and mismatches between
teacher and students orientations to learning and the tensions
and dilemmas the mismatches generate. We suggest some
Correspondence should be addressed to Gerard Farias, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Silberman College of Business, Management Department, 285 Madison Avenue, M-MS1-05, Madison, NJ 07940, USA. E-mail:
gfarias@fdu.edu
ways to address these tensions and dilemmas and enhance
the experience for both students and teachers.
Based on our experiences, this article has its roots in business education. The level of analysis is the classroom and the
focus is on the relationship between the teacher and student
in the context of a course. In addition, we draw some inferences that may be applied to the school and university levels
of analysis.
Traditionally, teaching is often conceptualized as if only
the teacher mattered (Frymier and Weser, 2001) and, typically, the essential motivator for students is the fear of a poor
grade. Kohn (1993) argued that students are socialized into
being grade oriented in middle and high school and by the
time they get to college this orientation is deeply embedded
and difficult to change. In college, students often find out
who the easy graders are and which courses have minimal
work before signing on for classes. In contrast, we focus on
the learner-centered approach to teaching in which the balance of power shifts towards the learner, the emphasis is on
reflection and deep understanding, and learners take on the
responsibility for learning.
ENHANCING THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
When interviewed by Anding (2005), Quinn asserted that
transformational teaching is not necessarily linked to style
or pedagogy. Rather, transformational teachers create a great
learning environment, whatever their style. They are committed to making a difference and demonstrate a willingness
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
and commitment to challenge ordinary students to do extraordinary things.
Singham (2005) exhorted teachers to rid their classes
of authoritarianism. He argued that, required legal issues
notwithstanding, the language in a syllabus, for instance, is
often indicative of the position of power teachers take in
their relationship with students. In his analysis of syllabi,
Singham noted that the large number of rules specified are
a reflection of a lack of trust between the student and the
teacher. He was concerned that “trust, respect and good judgment are being squeezed out by an increasingly adversarial
relationship between teachers and students” (p. 53). Singham was also deeply concerned that the primary purpose of
the student–teacher relationship—namely learning—is being
lost in the process. In effect, both Quinn and Singham called
for closer and more trusting relationships with students.
Lea, Stephenson, and Troy (2003) explored student empowerment in their empirical study of student response to
learner-centered teaching. They advocated more communication from the outside in rather than the inside out. Their
findings indicate that students are in favor of the model, but
have misgivings about the availability of resources to make
it happen. Similarly, Comadena, Hunt and Simonds (2007)
found that immediacy, clarity, and caring by teachers enhanced their effectiveness.
One of the most debated models to improve the quality
of education is the student-as-customer approach which has
its roots in the application of Total Quality programs to education (Parsell, 2000; Scrabec, 2000). This approach is expected to result in greater alignment with and responsiveness
to student needs. Opponents (e.g., Parsell) argue that this approach results in a dilution of the quality of education. There
are some variations of how the student-as-customer approach
is interpreted. Although most criticisms have taken the terms
literally and likened it to a consumer of a product, others,
(e.g., Whitsed, 2004) have suggested that the term signifies
a shift to becoming more student-centric. Yet others (e.g.,
Sharrock, 2000) have argued that students are customers,
clients, citizens, or subjects, depending on the context and
person they are interacting with within the academic and
administrative setting.
Criticisms of the model of student-as-customer notwithstanding, these are genuine attempts to improve not only the
educational experience, but also the overall experience of the
student on campus. They are also another manifestation of
the themes of empowerment and trust of students that we
discussed previously.
Ferris (2002), acknowledging that teachers have more
knowledge and experience, recommend that faculty and students take on the roles of senior and junior partners respectively. The partnership model emphasizes the importance
of collaboration even while noting that there is a hierarchical relationship between the teacher and the student. In the
partnership model the student (junior partner) is required to
respond to the instructions of the teacher (senior partner).
337
However, the teacher as a senior partner takes on the responsibility for and is committed to the success of the student
as a junior partner. The student as junior partner is expected
to use the opportunity to learn. The partnership places the
responsibility for success on both the student and the teacher
and this mutual responsibility is expected to engender greater
learning.
Similarly, Parsell (2000) advocated the teacher as educational manager and student as learning worker generating
learning as a product. She suggested that long-range goals
and strategies be jointly developed to help create an environment in which good teaching and effective learning are
the highest priority. She proposed assessment systems that
incorporate early signals and developmental feedback to emphasize learning over evaluation.
The XB approach (Putzel, 2004) is another noteworthy
effort to shift the emphasis on learning. Putzel adopted an
action learning perspective, structuring the class to look like
an organization and empowering his students to take control
of their own learning. Students took on the role of managers,
and each student had multiple roles to play that included
teaching, organizing, and evaluating. The teacher performed
the role of a senior manager and intervened only when appropriate. Genuine mistakes were considered a major learning
opportunity.
The fundamental theme from the literature reviewed focuses on the need to develop better relationships between
teachers and students and the need for them to work together
for mutual success. Better relationships are built in an environment of trust in which students and teachers can engage
in open dialogue for mutual learning. It is in an environment
of trust that teachers can and will empower their students
to manage their own learning. Because of the structure of
education, teachers are in a position of power and it will
take special effort on their part to build these relationships.
Teachers need to make the first move.
It is somewhat surprising that with centuries of experience
with education, and millions of students taught, the search for
a more effective model continues. Weimer (2002) argued that
it is difficult to move over to a learning-centric environment
for many reasons. According to her, teachers tend to enjoy the
position of power and the importance it gives them. Moving
over to a learning orientation requires empowering students.
Many teachers associate empowerment with a loss of power
and control. She indicated that this sense of control is an
illusion in any case because fundamentally only students
control their learning, and teachers perform the important
role of facilitation.
Although the need for education to become more learner
centered clearly exists, there is a need to consider other roles
that teachers in particular perform that is directly linked to
and affects the learning experience. One of these roles is the
teacher as a judge involved in grading. Grading is the most
significant source of power to the teacher. Teachers set the
criteria for grading and engage in the evaluation of students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
338
G. FARIAS ET AL.
In the student’s mind, this fact is probably paramount and
greatly influences the relationship between the teacher and
the student. Any attempts at a shift towards a learner-centered
environment needs to be considered in the context of grading
as well as its impact on student–teacher relationships.
As stated previously, Kohn (1993) argued that most students are socialized into being grade oriented early in life.
They are graded through their school years and this is how
their progress is communicated to their parents. Teachers
need to couple this with the university environment that these
students step into. Here again, structurally a major part of the
academic decision making is centered on grades. Because
grades and a grade orientation are so much a part of the
educational system, teachers need to examine the alignment
of grades and grading systems in the context of a learnercentered environment so many wish to create.
According to Kohn (1993), grading may really be a disservice to the learning objective, making the educational experience more grade centric than learning centric. Indeed,
teachers have all heard those questions from students: “Is this
going to be on the test?” “How many pages should I write?”
“Do we really need to know this?” “Can I do something for
extra credit?” “I worked really hard on this, I deserve a better
grade.” All these questions and comments are indicative that
students are more concerned about grades than learning. In
fact, Weimer (2002) argued that students, parents, faculty,
and society focus more on grades than on learning.
This leads to the most challenging dilemma for teachers:
Does the teacher play the role of a judge or serve as a partner
in students’ learning? The answer surely depends on how the
teacher executes the role, but it also hinges on the orientation
taken by the students in the class. Their orientation covers a
range of possibilities.
STUDENT ORIENTATION TO LEARNING
Frymier and her colleagues (Frymier & Weser, 2001;
Williams & Frymier, 2007) discussed the tensions between
grade and learning orientations among students. Each of
these orientations has implications for how students receive
and react to their learning environments. Learning-oriented
students are more focused on the classroom as a source of new
knowledge and information and grade-oriented students are
more likely to view the classroom as a place in which they are
tested. Both orientations have their impact on student–teacher
relationships and on student learning.
Although students themselves deal with the tension between grades and learning, some focus more clearly on one
rather than on the other. The underlying disposition toward
grades or learning may be traced to the way that students react
to, or encode, grades received. Dweck (1986; Dweck, Chiu,
& Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) has found in children
and in adults two adaptive patterns of behavior. One is the
adaptive mastery orientation, and the other is a maladaptive,
helpless orientation. An individual’s orientation was further
discovered to arise from different implicit theories of ability.
One theory is the incremental notion that an individual’s ability is malleable and able to be enlarged, whereas the other
is an entity theory of ability, which describes the conception of an individual’s ability as essentially fixed. Her early
work showed that those people holding the incremental notion were more inclined to adopt learning goals, in which
the individual regards goals as a way of increasing competence. Adherents to entity notions of ability were more likely
to adopt performance goals, in which the individual regards
goals as a means of determining abilities. Where people believe that their abilities are more malleable and developable,
they construe outcomes as resulting from their own behavior.
Those holding the entity theory attribute outcomes to factors
related to their fixed abilities. Such students would regard
grades as an explicit scorecard of how smart they are, not a
motivating force to deepen their learning.
Other scholars more recently have distinguished two kinds
of performance goals. VandeWalle’s (Brett & VandeWalle,
1999; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001) research has shown that some
performance goals are intended to prove an individual’s abilities compared to others, whereas others can be described
as avoid goals to avoid negative judgments. Students operating from a proving orientation would accept their grades
as a marker of their knowledge. Those inclined to an avoiding orientation would likely be the students who are late in
submitting assignments or completing them reluctantly or
not at all. Partially confirming Dweck’s (1986; Dweck et al.,
1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) assertions, VandeWalle and
colleagues have found that learning goals are correlated to
high performance in settings such as undergraduate education (VandeWalle et al., 2001) as well as a training course
(Brett & VandeWalle) and even sales performance (VandeWalle et al., 1999). These same researchers have suggested
that although proving goals sometimes get played out similarly to learning goals in terms of an individual’s effort and
tending to strive to refine an individual’s abilities, they still do
not correlate as strongly to overall performance. Even if they
did produce a certain effort, students operating with proving
goals are focusing on the grades themselves and probably not
enhancing their knowledge in the way that engenders critical
thinking and lifelong learning. These researchers also found
that avoiding goals does not lead to improvement goals, effort, or self-efficacy, and do not correlate to performance
levels.
TEACHER AND STUDENT ORIENTATION TO
LEARNING TAKEN TOGETHER
At present, teachers may vary as to how much they are oriented to the importance of learning or evaluation and assessment through grading. Likewise, we described previously
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
Learning
Alignment
Partnership in learning
Mutual support
Developmental feedback
Grades are leverage for
learning
• Transformational
•
•
•
•
•
1
Teacher
Orientation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
Evaluation
Low potential for
alignment
Hierarchical (teacher);
student hopes for
development
Feedback through final
grades
Transactional
3
Low potential for
alignment
Developmental (teacher);
student just wants a grade
Developmental feedback
attempted; student does
not pay attention.
2
4Alignment
Hierarchical
Grades are judgmental;
student does not see
beyond the grade
Transactional
Learning
Grade
Student Orientation
FIGURE 1
Student and teacher orientations to learning.
that students vary in similar fashion between the goal of
learning as opposed to a preoccupation with grades. This
suggests a 2 × 2 matrix, shown in Figure 1. Note that research has focused on the learning and grading orientations
of students. In Figure 1 we apply these orientations to teachers also. Although in reality the relationship between students
and teachers is a lot more complex than it appears in Figure 1, we simplified it in the present article for reasons of
parsimony and simplicity.
We propose that although there may be many reasons for
the difficulty in introducing effective learner-centered approaches to the classroom, one of the key reasons is the lack
of alignment between student orientation and teacher orientation. The horizontal axis of the matrix represents student
orientation. As described in the previous section, we set up
the poles of student orientation into either the grading or
learning focus, with most students on the grading end of the
continuum. On the vertical axis we represent teacher orientations as being either learning or evaluation focused. We
do acknowledge that the grading and learning orientation
for students and the learning and evaluation orientations for
teachers may be on different dimensions and that they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. These dimensions therefore
represent a simplification of reality, which is useful to help
explain and resolve the dilemmas faced in moving toward
learner-centered teaching.
Quadrant 1 of Figure 1 represents an ideal situation. There
is alignment, with both the teacher and student adopting
learning as a value. There is an opportunity to be truly transformational, as noted by Quinn (Anding, 2005). Note that
grades are seen as an opportunity to learn. Quadrant 4 also
represents an alignment, albeit not a good one in our opinion. Occupants of this quadrant have a good transactional
relationship. However, there would be little learning. There
is a danger that occupants may experience a false sense
of security—students can get good grades and faculty can
339
get good evaluations. Quadrants 2 and 3 represent misalignments. Both students and teachers are frustrated in these situations. Students and teachers view each other with different
frames and hence the potential for miscommunication is very
high. The lack of alignment may tend to push occupants of
both these quadrants towards Quadrant 4. Learning-oriented
students (in Quadrant 3) would soon recognize teacher power
and hence move toward Quadrant 4. Learning-oriented teachers are faced with the dilemma of trying to be learner centered
whereas their students who are more concerned with grades
would try to move to Quadrant 1. However, our own experience suggests that such a move is not easy.
It should be clear in this article that we are strong advocates for the learning perspective. If we had to choose
between learning and grades, we would choose learning as
more valuable than grading (learning > grading).
However, we believe that grades assigned with a developmental perspective in which students can respond to feedback
can help cause shifts to Quadrant 1. We believe that the most
effective learning environment is one in which learning and
grading work together. Thus, we would argue the following:
learning + grades > learning > grades.
One primary means of supporting performance in others
is through developmental feedback. Much research has been
done on the value of feedback (e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor,
1979; London, 2001; Parsell, 2000). However, Kluger and
DeNisi (1996) pointed out that the way feedback is delivered
is crucial in determining whether it really contributes to improved performance. It is well known that critical feedback
to some people does not encourage better performance at all
but rather can trigger discouragement and withdrawal.
To the extent that students in Quadrants 2 and 3 of
Figure 1 tend to view their capability as relatively fixed and
not developable, see academic success as beyond their control, and experience a low level of self-efficacy, they would
tend toward dysfunctional reactions to critical feedback. The
work of Cohen, Steele, and Ross (1999) speaks to this situation. They explored the impact of critical feedback on
college students accompanied by invoking high performance
standards as well as assuring students that they were capable
of reaching those high standards. Two studies of Black and
White students found that such feedback was more effective
than just critical comments alone and more effective than
critical comments coupled with positive comments. Effectiveness was measured by students’ post hoc reports of motivation to improve as well as identifying with the (writing)
skill involved, particularly for Black students. Although the
focus of the studies was to explore the impact of stereotype
bias among Black students, they attributed the positive impact of this skillful feedback to the dynamics of self-efficacy
and implicit theories discussed in the present article. They
pointed out that the implicit message embedded in an assurance of a student’s capability to do better is that his or
her capability is indeed malleable and subject to improvement (it is also consistent with Quinn’s experience [Anding,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
340
G. FARIAS ET AL.
2005]). Thus, the best feedback to grade-oriented students
provides detailed, critical comments, invokes high standards,
and assures students that they are capable of achieving those
standards.
By implication, students who are simply grade centric may
see the possibility of moving to the left-hand column and becoming learning centric. That, of course, opens them up to
be more receptive to a teacher’s more learning-centric emphasis. Such an argument is also congruent with the body of
research around the Pygmalion effect, which was first identified in education (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) and has been
widely replicated in work settings (e.g., Eden, 1990, 1992;
Eden & Shani, 1982; Livingston, 1969). These studies have
showed how positive expectations of teachers (or managers),
even conveyed unconsciously, have a powerful positive effect
on students (or employees’) performance.
SOME RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR
THE LEARNING-CENTERED CLASS
3.
4.
We propose some recommendations on how to create a climate that generates a more learning-centered class.
1. Establish learning activities that exemplify collaboration between the teacher and student. Collaboration
and evaluation may send mixed messages to students.
It is therefore necessary to frame all activities that
contribute to grades from a learning perspective. Most
students see assignments as serving the needs of the
teacher. They often ask what the teacher would like
to see, how many pages, etc. We suggest trying to rename these assignments. For instance, you may call
them “learning opportunities”. Our own experience
with changes in terminology has been limited. However, it does give teachers the opportunity to emphasize
that the work should be focused on learning and not on
satisfying teacher expectations.
2. Have students do reflections and journals, which can
be a good learning opportunity for both teachers and
students. They help students reflect on and write about
concepts when the coverage is recent. They provide
feedback to teachers on students’ understanding of
concepts and hence help clarification and discussion.
This idea is not new. Huba and Freed (2000) emphasized the importance of reflection to enable learning.
There are some important points to consider here. Reflections and journals should be written soon after
the learning event—preferably before the next class.
If received sufficiently before the next class, it gives
the teacher an opportunity to clarify concepts and acknowledge particularly interesting insights. Application journals help students understand concepts in the
context of their own experience. They help students
5.
6.
make connections with reality and everyday life adding
value to the learning.
Request feedback early and regularly and formalize it
on a weekly basis if possible. This request for feedback
reinforces the collaborative strategy and demonstrates
that the teacher is also a willing learner in the process. It is important to summarize this feedback to
the class and respond with specific actions. Response
does not mean agreement, it is an acknowledgement
that the feedback has been given, received, and considered. Sometimes we convene a Class Quality Council
outside of class to elicit specific comments and suggestions for improving the class. Other times anonymous surveys pick up ideas that may not come out in
oral discussions. When suggestions come out individually, identifying and acknowledging by name student
contributions makes a difference to learning and the
learner. It builds partnership, trust and respect. Learning is a two-way process—teacher to student, student
to teacher, and student to student.
Use the grading process to motivate students. Assign
grades as deserved. However, give rich and constructive feedback with detail on projects and other learning
opportunities that you create. Reaffirm the high standards that exist and reassure students that they can do
better to achieve them. One means to enable them to
do better is a policy of revise and resubmits—however,
make sure that revisions are well justified by the students and not just conforming to feedback and the need
to get a higher grade. From a pragmatic point of view,
we have found that electronic submissions work well
with giving detailed feedback. Inserting comments or
simply highlighting and commenting with text boxes
helps make detailed and useful comments. It also helps
both teacher and student develop an electronic portfolio of learning opportunities during the course of the
semester, which are useful sources of learning.
Treat students like responsible adults (Huba & Freed,
2000). Teachers should provide opportunities early in
the student–teacher relationship for students to develop their own goals and objectives for learning.
Self-examination and written reflection by the student
would provide the opportunity for the student to review their predetermined goals and objectives, compare their actions with their expectations and make
necessary adjustments to their learning or seek help.
This provides the opportunity for the teacher to individual work with each student and strengthen student
teacher collaboration and promote trust and interest in
learning, thus moving towards Quadrant 1.
Promote collaboration between students and facilitate
opportunities for them to work together. We have facilitated the identification of effective study partners to
enable more team-oriented learning. These efforts have
helped to improve the performance of our students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
7. Set up small learning groups of students who share
comments on the week’s assigned readings over an
electronic discussion group (Fairfield, 2004). This allows everyone in a 4–6-person group to get the perspective of peers. The teacher should review the comments
before class and integrate some of them into the lecture. This integration honors by name the valid insights
of students, which can be particularly powerful with
introverted students who are more reluctant to share in
class.
8. Have the students prepare lectures and present some
of the material to the class in a seminar fashion. This
increases involvement by those assigned to do the lectures and contributes to mastery of at least part of the
course content. It also gives speakers confidence as
they are respected for their newfound expertise. Students in the audience give feedback, which enables
those people to feel they are valid judges of how the
material was conveyed. This approach contributes to a
more egalitarian feel in the class.
9. Have part of the class participation grade based on evaluations of classmates. It is preferred to have midterm
feedback, including responses to such areas as “Behavior I would like to see you do more of/do less of/start
doing.” The feedback at the end of the term includes
these verbal comments as well as student grades of
their peers.
CONCLUSIONS
We believe there is a lot of room for improvement in our
educational system. Learner-centered teaching offers a great
opportunity to move forward because it helps improve the
relationship between students and teachers. The tensions and
the dilemmas that emerge from the different orientations
teachers and students have towards education accentuate the
need to create the conditions where students and teachers,
both, move in the direction of Quadrant 1 of Figure 1. We
have suggested some ways in which teachers can move in
this direction. Although there are many larger and systemic
issues to address, we strongly believe that the classroom is
an excellent place to begin.
REFERENCES
Anding, J. (2005). An interview with Robert E. Quinn. Entering the fundamental state of leadership: Reflections on the path to transformational
teaching. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 487–495.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content
as predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 863–873.
341
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma:
Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–1318.
Comadena, M., Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2007, August). The effects of
teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation,
affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24,
241–248.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychology Review, 95, 256–273.
Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and
other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly,
3, 271–305.
Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy,
leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
194–199.
Fairfield, K. D. (2004, June). What’s this got to do with me? Electronic
discussion groups to promote learning before classroom sessions. Paper
presented at the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Redlands,
CA.
Ferris, W. P. (2002). Students as junior partners, professors as senior partners, the B-School as the firm: A new model for collegiate business
education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 185–
193.
Frymier, A., & Weser, B. (2001, October). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior.
Communication Education, 50, 314–326.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college
campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
64, 349–371.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–
284.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. New York: Hougton Mifflin.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies
in Higher Education, 28, 321–334
Livingston, J. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 47, 81–89.
London, M. (2001). How people evaluate others in organizations. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Parsell, G. (2000). Students as customers. Medical Education, 34, 328–329.
Putzel. R. (2004). XB: A learning organization. Retrieved May 22, 2010,
from http://academics.smcvt.edu/rputzel/index.htm
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher
expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Scrabec, Q. (2000). A quality education is not customer driven. Journal of
Education for Business, 75, 298–301.
Sharrock, G. (2000). Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on life after George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 22, 149–164.
Singham, M. (2005). Away from the authoritarian classroom. Change,
May/June, 51–57.
VandeWalle, D. (2001). Goal orientation: Why wanting to look successful
doesn’t always lead to success. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 162–171.
342
G. FARIAS ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1999).
The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
249–259.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, S. P., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 629–640.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitsed, N. (2004). Learning and teaching. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 21, 128–140.
Williams, K., & Frymier, A. (2007, August). The relationship between student educational orientation and motives for out-of-class communication.
Communication Research Reports, 24, 249–256.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Teacher as Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of
Grades Versus Learning
Gerard Farias , Christine M. Farias & Kent D. Fairfield
To cite this article: Gerard Farias , Christine M. Farias & Kent D. Fairfield (2010) Teacher as
Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of Grades Versus Learning, Journal of Education for Business,
85:6, 336-342
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832321003604961
Published online: 13 Feb 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 272
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:39
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 336–342, 2010
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832321003604961
Teacher as Judge or Partner: The Dilemma of Grades
Versus Learning
Gerard Farias, Christine M. Farias, and Kent D. Fairfield
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jersey, USA
Students are socialized to value grades, sometimes more than learning. Although many teachers
are devoted to a learning-centered approach, others signal by their actions a deep-set interest
in grading. The authors used a 2 × 2 matrix to analyze potential matches and mismatches
between teacher orientation and student orientation. The implications of the mismatches are
discussed. The authors suggest dealing with the dilemma by making learning and grading
mutually supportive, thus creating a more effective learning environment.
Keywords: grading, learning, teaching
Business education in general and MBA programs in particular have been the subjects of increasing criticism in recent years (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). One possible
element that generates these criticisms is the small extent to
which teaching focuses on learning and to which students
see this learning as relevant when they enter the workforce.
Do faculty in business schools focus on developing lifelong
learners? Do faculty prepare students to address complex and
unpredictable problems that are very likely to emerge in their
future?
The relationship between students and faculty generates
tensions between the roles they play and their expectations
of each other. It is common to hear comments among faculty that students are reluctant buyers of the service faculty deliver and they really care only about their grades and
not about learning. Similarly, students have expectations of
faculty and perceptions about their motivations. These mutual perceptions, though gross generalizations, significantly
influence faculty–student relationships and are likely to be
counterproductive.
In this article we observe that teachers and students commonly adopt different orientations to learning—they tend
to be learning- or grade-oriented (Frymier & Weser, 2001).
We explore the potential matches and mismatches between
teacher and students orientations to learning and the tensions
and dilemmas the mismatches generate. We suggest some
Correspondence should be addressed to Gerard Farias, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Silberman College of Business, Management Department, 285 Madison Avenue, M-MS1-05, Madison, NJ 07940, USA. E-mail:
gfarias@fdu.edu
ways to address these tensions and dilemmas and enhance
the experience for both students and teachers.
Based on our experiences, this article has its roots in business education. The level of analysis is the classroom and the
focus is on the relationship between the teacher and student
in the context of a course. In addition, we draw some inferences that may be applied to the school and university levels
of analysis.
Traditionally, teaching is often conceptualized as if only
the teacher mattered (Frymier and Weser, 2001) and, typically, the essential motivator for students is the fear of a poor
grade. Kohn (1993) argued that students are socialized into
being grade oriented in middle and high school and by the
time they get to college this orientation is deeply embedded
and difficult to change. In college, students often find out
who the easy graders are and which courses have minimal
work before signing on for classes. In contrast, we focus on
the learner-centered approach to teaching in which the balance of power shifts towards the learner, the emphasis is on
reflection and deep understanding, and learners take on the
responsibility for learning.
ENHANCING THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
When interviewed by Anding (2005), Quinn asserted that
transformational teaching is not necessarily linked to style
or pedagogy. Rather, transformational teachers create a great
learning environment, whatever their style. They are committed to making a difference and demonstrate a willingness
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
and commitment to challenge ordinary students to do extraordinary things.
Singham (2005) exhorted teachers to rid their classes
of authoritarianism. He argued that, required legal issues
notwithstanding, the language in a syllabus, for instance, is
often indicative of the position of power teachers take in
their relationship with students. In his analysis of syllabi,
Singham noted that the large number of rules specified are
a reflection of a lack of trust between the student and the
teacher. He was concerned that “trust, respect and good judgment are being squeezed out by an increasingly adversarial
relationship between teachers and students” (p. 53). Singham was also deeply concerned that the primary purpose of
the student–teacher relationship—namely learning—is being
lost in the process. In effect, both Quinn and Singham called
for closer and more trusting relationships with students.
Lea, Stephenson, and Troy (2003) explored student empowerment in their empirical study of student response to
learner-centered teaching. They advocated more communication from the outside in rather than the inside out. Their
findings indicate that students are in favor of the model, but
have misgivings about the availability of resources to make
it happen. Similarly, Comadena, Hunt and Simonds (2007)
found that immediacy, clarity, and caring by teachers enhanced their effectiveness.
One of the most debated models to improve the quality
of education is the student-as-customer approach which has
its roots in the application of Total Quality programs to education (Parsell, 2000; Scrabec, 2000). This approach is expected to result in greater alignment with and responsiveness
to student needs. Opponents (e.g., Parsell) argue that this approach results in a dilution of the quality of education. There
are some variations of how the student-as-customer approach
is interpreted. Although most criticisms have taken the terms
literally and likened it to a consumer of a product, others,
(e.g., Whitsed, 2004) have suggested that the term signifies
a shift to becoming more student-centric. Yet others (e.g.,
Sharrock, 2000) have argued that students are customers,
clients, citizens, or subjects, depending on the context and
person they are interacting with within the academic and
administrative setting.
Criticisms of the model of student-as-customer notwithstanding, these are genuine attempts to improve not only the
educational experience, but also the overall experience of the
student on campus. They are also another manifestation of
the themes of empowerment and trust of students that we
discussed previously.
Ferris (2002), acknowledging that teachers have more
knowledge and experience, recommend that faculty and students take on the roles of senior and junior partners respectively. The partnership model emphasizes the importance
of collaboration even while noting that there is a hierarchical relationship between the teacher and the student. In the
partnership model the student (junior partner) is required to
respond to the instructions of the teacher (senior partner).
337
However, the teacher as a senior partner takes on the responsibility for and is committed to the success of the student
as a junior partner. The student as junior partner is expected
to use the opportunity to learn. The partnership places the
responsibility for success on both the student and the teacher
and this mutual responsibility is expected to engender greater
learning.
Similarly, Parsell (2000) advocated the teacher as educational manager and student as learning worker generating
learning as a product. She suggested that long-range goals
and strategies be jointly developed to help create an environment in which good teaching and effective learning are
the highest priority. She proposed assessment systems that
incorporate early signals and developmental feedback to emphasize learning over evaluation.
The XB approach (Putzel, 2004) is another noteworthy
effort to shift the emphasis on learning. Putzel adopted an
action learning perspective, structuring the class to look like
an organization and empowering his students to take control
of their own learning. Students took on the role of managers,
and each student had multiple roles to play that included
teaching, organizing, and evaluating. The teacher performed
the role of a senior manager and intervened only when appropriate. Genuine mistakes were considered a major learning
opportunity.
The fundamental theme from the literature reviewed focuses on the need to develop better relationships between
teachers and students and the need for them to work together
for mutual success. Better relationships are built in an environment of trust in which students and teachers can engage
in open dialogue for mutual learning. It is in an environment
of trust that teachers can and will empower their students
to manage their own learning. Because of the structure of
education, teachers are in a position of power and it will
take special effort on their part to build these relationships.
Teachers need to make the first move.
It is somewhat surprising that with centuries of experience
with education, and millions of students taught, the search for
a more effective model continues. Weimer (2002) argued that
it is difficult to move over to a learning-centric environment
for many reasons. According to her, teachers tend to enjoy the
position of power and the importance it gives them. Moving
over to a learning orientation requires empowering students.
Many teachers associate empowerment with a loss of power
and control. She indicated that this sense of control is an
illusion in any case because fundamentally only students
control their learning, and teachers perform the important
role of facilitation.
Although the need for education to become more learner
centered clearly exists, there is a need to consider other roles
that teachers in particular perform that is directly linked to
and affects the learning experience. One of these roles is the
teacher as a judge involved in grading. Grading is the most
significant source of power to the teacher. Teachers set the
criteria for grading and engage in the evaluation of students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
338
G. FARIAS ET AL.
In the student’s mind, this fact is probably paramount and
greatly influences the relationship between the teacher and
the student. Any attempts at a shift towards a learner-centered
environment needs to be considered in the context of grading
as well as its impact on student–teacher relationships.
As stated previously, Kohn (1993) argued that most students are socialized into being grade oriented early in life.
They are graded through their school years and this is how
their progress is communicated to their parents. Teachers
need to couple this with the university environment that these
students step into. Here again, structurally a major part of the
academic decision making is centered on grades. Because
grades and a grade orientation are so much a part of the
educational system, teachers need to examine the alignment
of grades and grading systems in the context of a learnercentered environment so many wish to create.
According to Kohn (1993), grading may really be a disservice to the learning objective, making the educational experience more grade centric than learning centric. Indeed,
teachers have all heard those questions from students: “Is this
going to be on the test?” “How many pages should I write?”
“Do we really need to know this?” “Can I do something for
extra credit?” “I worked really hard on this, I deserve a better
grade.” All these questions and comments are indicative that
students are more concerned about grades than learning. In
fact, Weimer (2002) argued that students, parents, faculty,
and society focus more on grades than on learning.
This leads to the most challenging dilemma for teachers:
Does the teacher play the role of a judge or serve as a partner
in students’ learning? The answer surely depends on how the
teacher executes the role, but it also hinges on the orientation
taken by the students in the class. Their orientation covers a
range of possibilities.
STUDENT ORIENTATION TO LEARNING
Frymier and her colleagues (Frymier & Weser, 2001;
Williams & Frymier, 2007) discussed the tensions between
grade and learning orientations among students. Each of
these orientations has implications for how students receive
and react to their learning environments. Learning-oriented
students are more focused on the classroom as a source of new
knowledge and information and grade-oriented students are
more likely to view the classroom as a place in which they are
tested. Both orientations have their impact on student–teacher
relationships and on student learning.
Although students themselves deal with the tension between grades and learning, some focus more clearly on one
rather than on the other. The underlying disposition toward
grades or learning may be traced to the way that students react
to, or encode, grades received. Dweck (1986; Dweck, Chiu,
& Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) has found in children
and in adults two adaptive patterns of behavior. One is the
adaptive mastery orientation, and the other is a maladaptive,
helpless orientation. An individual’s orientation was further
discovered to arise from different implicit theories of ability.
One theory is the incremental notion that an individual’s ability is malleable and able to be enlarged, whereas the other
is an entity theory of ability, which describes the conception of an individual’s ability as essentially fixed. Her early
work showed that those people holding the incremental notion were more inclined to adopt learning goals, in which
the individual regards goals as a way of increasing competence. Adherents to entity notions of ability were more likely
to adopt performance goals, in which the individual regards
goals as a means of determining abilities. Where people believe that their abilities are more malleable and developable,
they construe outcomes as resulting from their own behavior.
Those holding the entity theory attribute outcomes to factors
related to their fixed abilities. Such students would regard
grades as an explicit scorecard of how smart they are, not a
motivating force to deepen their learning.
Other scholars more recently have distinguished two kinds
of performance goals. VandeWalle’s (Brett & VandeWalle,
1999; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001) research has shown that some
performance goals are intended to prove an individual’s abilities compared to others, whereas others can be described
as avoid goals to avoid negative judgments. Students operating from a proving orientation would accept their grades
as a marker of their knowledge. Those inclined to an avoiding orientation would likely be the students who are late in
submitting assignments or completing them reluctantly or
not at all. Partially confirming Dweck’s (1986; Dweck et al.,
1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) assertions, VandeWalle and
colleagues have found that learning goals are correlated to
high performance in settings such as undergraduate education (VandeWalle et al., 2001) as well as a training course
(Brett & VandeWalle) and even sales performance (VandeWalle et al., 1999). These same researchers have suggested
that although proving goals sometimes get played out similarly to learning goals in terms of an individual’s effort and
tending to strive to refine an individual’s abilities, they still do
not correlate as strongly to overall performance. Even if they
did produce a certain effort, students operating with proving
goals are focusing on the grades themselves and probably not
enhancing their knowledge in the way that engenders critical
thinking and lifelong learning. These researchers also found
that avoiding goals does not lead to improvement goals, effort, or self-efficacy, and do not correlate to performance
levels.
TEACHER AND STUDENT ORIENTATION TO
LEARNING TAKEN TOGETHER
At present, teachers may vary as to how much they are oriented to the importance of learning or evaluation and assessment through grading. Likewise, we described previously
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
Learning
Alignment
Partnership in learning
Mutual support
Developmental feedback
Grades are leverage for
learning
• Transformational
•
•
•
•
•
1
Teacher
Orientation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
Evaluation
Low potential for
alignment
Hierarchical (teacher);
student hopes for
development
Feedback through final
grades
Transactional
3
Low potential for
alignment
Developmental (teacher);
student just wants a grade
Developmental feedback
attempted; student does
not pay attention.
2
4Alignment
Hierarchical
Grades are judgmental;
student does not see
beyond the grade
Transactional
Learning
Grade
Student Orientation
FIGURE 1
Student and teacher orientations to learning.
that students vary in similar fashion between the goal of
learning as opposed to a preoccupation with grades. This
suggests a 2 × 2 matrix, shown in Figure 1. Note that research has focused on the learning and grading orientations
of students. In Figure 1 we apply these orientations to teachers also. Although in reality the relationship between students
and teachers is a lot more complex than it appears in Figure 1, we simplified it in the present article for reasons of
parsimony and simplicity.
We propose that although there may be many reasons for
the difficulty in introducing effective learner-centered approaches to the classroom, one of the key reasons is the lack
of alignment between student orientation and teacher orientation. The horizontal axis of the matrix represents student
orientation. As described in the previous section, we set up
the poles of student orientation into either the grading or
learning focus, with most students on the grading end of the
continuum. On the vertical axis we represent teacher orientations as being either learning or evaluation focused. We
do acknowledge that the grading and learning orientation
for students and the learning and evaluation orientations for
teachers may be on different dimensions and that they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. These dimensions therefore
represent a simplification of reality, which is useful to help
explain and resolve the dilemmas faced in moving toward
learner-centered teaching.
Quadrant 1 of Figure 1 represents an ideal situation. There
is alignment, with both the teacher and student adopting
learning as a value. There is an opportunity to be truly transformational, as noted by Quinn (Anding, 2005). Note that
grades are seen as an opportunity to learn. Quadrant 4 also
represents an alignment, albeit not a good one in our opinion. Occupants of this quadrant have a good transactional
relationship. However, there would be little learning. There
is a danger that occupants may experience a false sense
of security—students can get good grades and faculty can
339
get good evaluations. Quadrants 2 and 3 represent misalignments. Both students and teachers are frustrated in these situations. Students and teachers view each other with different
frames and hence the potential for miscommunication is very
high. The lack of alignment may tend to push occupants of
both these quadrants towards Quadrant 4. Learning-oriented
students (in Quadrant 3) would soon recognize teacher power
and hence move toward Quadrant 4. Learning-oriented teachers are faced with the dilemma of trying to be learner centered
whereas their students who are more concerned with grades
would try to move to Quadrant 1. However, our own experience suggests that such a move is not easy.
It should be clear in this article that we are strong advocates for the learning perspective. If we had to choose
between learning and grades, we would choose learning as
more valuable than grading (learning > grading).
However, we believe that grades assigned with a developmental perspective in which students can respond to feedback
can help cause shifts to Quadrant 1. We believe that the most
effective learning environment is one in which learning and
grading work together. Thus, we would argue the following:
learning + grades > learning > grades.
One primary means of supporting performance in others
is through developmental feedback. Much research has been
done on the value of feedback (e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor,
1979; London, 2001; Parsell, 2000). However, Kluger and
DeNisi (1996) pointed out that the way feedback is delivered
is crucial in determining whether it really contributes to improved performance. It is well known that critical feedback
to some people does not encourage better performance at all
but rather can trigger discouragement and withdrawal.
To the extent that students in Quadrants 2 and 3 of
Figure 1 tend to view their capability as relatively fixed and
not developable, see academic success as beyond their control, and experience a low level of self-efficacy, they would
tend toward dysfunctional reactions to critical feedback. The
work of Cohen, Steele, and Ross (1999) speaks to this situation. They explored the impact of critical feedback on
college students accompanied by invoking high performance
standards as well as assuring students that they were capable
of reaching those high standards. Two studies of Black and
White students found that such feedback was more effective
than just critical comments alone and more effective than
critical comments coupled with positive comments. Effectiveness was measured by students’ post hoc reports of motivation to improve as well as identifying with the (writing)
skill involved, particularly for Black students. Although the
focus of the studies was to explore the impact of stereotype
bias among Black students, they attributed the positive impact of this skillful feedback to the dynamics of self-efficacy
and implicit theories discussed in the present article. They
pointed out that the implicit message embedded in an assurance of a student’s capability to do better is that his or
her capability is indeed malleable and subject to improvement (it is also consistent with Quinn’s experience [Anding,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
340
G. FARIAS ET AL.
2005]). Thus, the best feedback to grade-oriented students
provides detailed, critical comments, invokes high standards,
and assures students that they are capable of achieving those
standards.
By implication, students who are simply grade centric may
see the possibility of moving to the left-hand column and becoming learning centric. That, of course, opens them up to
be more receptive to a teacher’s more learning-centric emphasis. Such an argument is also congruent with the body of
research around the Pygmalion effect, which was first identified in education (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) and has been
widely replicated in work settings (e.g., Eden, 1990, 1992;
Eden & Shani, 1982; Livingston, 1969). These studies have
showed how positive expectations of teachers (or managers),
even conveyed unconsciously, have a powerful positive effect
on students (or employees’) performance.
SOME RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR
THE LEARNING-CENTERED CLASS
3.
4.
We propose some recommendations on how to create a climate that generates a more learning-centered class.
1. Establish learning activities that exemplify collaboration between the teacher and student. Collaboration
and evaluation may send mixed messages to students.
It is therefore necessary to frame all activities that
contribute to grades from a learning perspective. Most
students see assignments as serving the needs of the
teacher. They often ask what the teacher would like
to see, how many pages, etc. We suggest trying to rename these assignments. For instance, you may call
them “learning opportunities”. Our own experience
with changes in terminology has been limited. However, it does give teachers the opportunity to emphasize
that the work should be focused on learning and not on
satisfying teacher expectations.
2. Have students do reflections and journals, which can
be a good learning opportunity for both teachers and
students. They help students reflect on and write about
concepts when the coverage is recent. They provide
feedback to teachers on students’ understanding of
concepts and hence help clarification and discussion.
This idea is not new. Huba and Freed (2000) emphasized the importance of reflection to enable learning.
There are some important points to consider here. Reflections and journals should be written soon after
the learning event—preferably before the next class.
If received sufficiently before the next class, it gives
the teacher an opportunity to clarify concepts and acknowledge particularly interesting insights. Application journals help students understand concepts in the
context of their own experience. They help students
5.
6.
make connections with reality and everyday life adding
value to the learning.
Request feedback early and regularly and formalize it
on a weekly basis if possible. This request for feedback
reinforces the collaborative strategy and demonstrates
that the teacher is also a willing learner in the process. It is important to summarize this feedback to
the class and respond with specific actions. Response
does not mean agreement, it is an acknowledgement
that the feedback has been given, received, and considered. Sometimes we convene a Class Quality Council
outside of class to elicit specific comments and suggestions for improving the class. Other times anonymous surveys pick up ideas that may not come out in
oral discussions. When suggestions come out individually, identifying and acknowledging by name student
contributions makes a difference to learning and the
learner. It builds partnership, trust and respect. Learning is a two-way process—teacher to student, student
to teacher, and student to student.
Use the grading process to motivate students. Assign
grades as deserved. However, give rich and constructive feedback with detail on projects and other learning
opportunities that you create. Reaffirm the high standards that exist and reassure students that they can do
better to achieve them. One means to enable them to
do better is a policy of revise and resubmits—however,
make sure that revisions are well justified by the students and not just conforming to feedback and the need
to get a higher grade. From a pragmatic point of view,
we have found that electronic submissions work well
with giving detailed feedback. Inserting comments or
simply highlighting and commenting with text boxes
helps make detailed and useful comments. It also helps
both teacher and student develop an electronic portfolio of learning opportunities during the course of the
semester, which are useful sources of learning.
Treat students like responsible adults (Huba & Freed,
2000). Teachers should provide opportunities early in
the student–teacher relationship for students to develop their own goals and objectives for learning.
Self-examination and written reflection by the student
would provide the opportunity for the student to review their predetermined goals and objectives, compare their actions with their expectations and make
necessary adjustments to their learning or seek help.
This provides the opportunity for the teacher to individual work with each student and strengthen student
teacher collaboration and promote trust and interest in
learning, thus moving towards Quadrant 1.
Promote collaboration between students and facilitate
opportunities for them to work together. We have facilitated the identification of effective study partners to
enable more team-oriented learning. These efforts have
helped to improve the performance of our students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
GRADES VERSUS LEARNING
7. Set up small learning groups of students who share
comments on the week’s assigned readings over an
electronic discussion group (Fairfield, 2004). This allows everyone in a 4–6-person group to get the perspective of peers. The teacher should review the comments
before class and integrate some of them into the lecture. This integration honors by name the valid insights
of students, which can be particularly powerful with
introverted students who are more reluctant to share in
class.
8. Have the students prepare lectures and present some
of the material to the class in a seminar fashion. This
increases involvement by those assigned to do the lectures and contributes to mastery of at least part of the
course content. It also gives speakers confidence as
they are respected for their newfound expertise. Students in the audience give feedback, which enables
those people to feel they are valid judges of how the
material was conveyed. This approach contributes to a
more egalitarian feel in the class.
9. Have part of the class participation grade based on evaluations of classmates. It is preferred to have midterm
feedback, including responses to such areas as “Behavior I would like to see you do more of/do less of/start
doing.” The feedback at the end of the term includes
these verbal comments as well as student grades of
their peers.
CONCLUSIONS
We believe there is a lot of room for improvement in our
educational system. Learner-centered teaching offers a great
opportunity to move forward because it helps improve the
relationship between students and teachers. The tensions and
the dilemmas that emerge from the different orientations
teachers and students have towards education accentuate the
need to create the conditions where students and teachers,
both, move in the direction of Quadrant 1 of Figure 1. We
have suggested some ways in which teachers can move in
this direction. Although there are many larger and systemic
issues to address, we strongly believe that the classroom is
an excellent place to begin.
REFERENCES
Anding, J. (2005). An interview with Robert E. Quinn. Entering the fundamental state of leadership: Reflections on the path to transformational
teaching. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 487–495.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content
as predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 863–873.
341
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma:
Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–1318.
Comadena, M., Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2007, August). The effects of
teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation,
affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24,
241–248.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychology Review, 95, 256–273.
Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and
other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly,
3, 271–305.
Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy,
leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
194–199.
Fairfield, K. D. (2004, June). What’s this got to do with me? Electronic
discussion groups to promote learning before classroom sessions. Paper
presented at the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Redlands,
CA.
Ferris, W. P. (2002). Students as junior partners, professors as senior partners, the B-School as the firm: A new model for collegiate business
education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 185–
193.
Frymier, A., & Weser, B. (2001, October). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior.
Communication Education, 50, 314–326.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college
campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
64, 349–371.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–
284.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. New York: Hougton Mifflin.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies
in Higher Education, 28, 321–334
Livingston, J. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 47, 81–89.
London, M. (2001). How people evaluate others in organizations. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Parsell, G. (2000). Students as customers. Medical Education, 34, 328–329.
Putzel. R. (2004). XB: A learning organization. Retrieved May 22, 2010,
from http://academics.smcvt.edu/rputzel/index.htm
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher
expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Scrabec, Q. (2000). A quality education is not customer driven. Journal of
Education for Business, 75, 298–301.
Sharrock, G. (2000). Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on life after George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 22, 149–164.
Singham, M. (2005). Away from the authoritarian classroom. Change,
May/June, 51–57.
VandeWalle, D. (2001). Goal orientation: Why wanting to look successful
doesn’t always lead to success. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 162–171.
342
G. FARIAS ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:39 11 January 2016
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1999).
The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
249–259.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, S. P., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 629–640.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitsed, N. (2004). Learning and teaching. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 21, 128–140.
Williams, K., & Frymier, A. (2007, August). The relationship between student educational orientation and motives for out-of-class communication.
Communication Research Reports, 24, 249–256.