The problem with grade differentiation: from affirmative to transformative change

Robust, transparent and just assessment practice are at the heart of higher education, both in terms of our role in certification and in promoting learning. Despite the critical role of assessment in the daily activities of higher education, in this seminar I will argue that we continue to work with a system full of contradictions, and with that, inevitably poor practices. There are two tensions at work. Firstly, between our professional commitment to criterion-based marking, and the huge, hegemonic pressures to rank performance and outcomes. Secondly, between our professional commitment to assessing learning outcomes, and the fact that learning outcomes, as phrased according to all the guidelines on good practice, never ask for howmuchness: they are either met or not met, and so why do we spend so much time adding numbers and differentiated grades? This is not simply an argument for ungrading, an idea that is again creating quite a bit of interest in the higher education literature. Ungrading is a slippery and contested term, which is why I choose to write about the problem of grade differentiation, because while less catchy, it is a more accurate way to describe the phenomenon that needs to be examined. Using the work of critical theorist, Nancy Fraser, and her distinction between affirmative and transformative change, this seminar will discuss the ways in which the majority of ungrading literature reflects affirmative change at best; the amelioration of certain perceived problems, rather than addressing their root causes. In contrast, I will argue for a transformative change agenda that seeks to overturn practices of grade differentiation that are inconsistent with the knowledge being assessed, have no efficacy or trustworthiness, and are unjust in their impact on students.