The few times where you do have to take such a test—like the GRE or a certification exam—you will have studied hard for it if you want to do well. There's no reason to use the same methods in a class when there are far more authentic and engaging ways to demonstrate mastery and effort.

Assigning the same value to two vastly different outcomes can be totally fine IF you've made it clear to the student what their strengths and weaknesses are. I don't see how that's doing a disservice to the institution or the society. Education is there to better individuals…if both these students got better during the course, then you have succeeded. You cannot grade them on the same standard and hope they will keep their love of learning, because the second-grade level writer will fail and may not want to continue in their education as a result. What have you achieved in that case? You've nipped a learner in the unrealized bud. That's not the reason for education in the first place.

I can understand wishing one didn't have to grade them at all. There are many schools in which this is the case, and many of them produce highly-qualified graduates. Students study what they want to study and their natural curiosity provides motivation. Do I think all schools could be this way? Maybe someday, but in the meantime, we can certainly take some small steps towards that goal. Read a little Alfie Kohn for more thoughts on the pitfalls of grading and rewards in general…there are many to watch out for.

I would also say that those students who can "breeze" through their courses (for whatever reason—probably they have parents who value education highly, went to a good high school, have unusually high natural aptitude, etc.) could have trouble down the road if they don't have any courses which account for effort, for the opposite reason: they assume that their natural abilities will always be enough, and if they have to put in a lot of effort, they might not think it's worth it. When they run into challenges down the road, like at a job, they may not have cultivated the effort ethic that other students have.

And besides, if the courses really are attuned to effort, they can require different students to perform at different levels. This way, the high-achievers won't be able to breeze through…they'll be expected to do more. Is that fair? In one way, no, because students are held to different standards. But in another way it's MORE fair (because students are at different ability levels already) and more effective at promoting learning, because all students are challenged just the right amount.

Bottom line: What do we want students to get out of their college experience? It's complex!

A. It's silly to grade "creativity" in the first place. Your courses should be pass/fail, based on your subjective evaluation of the student's creativity as you define it, instead of being GRADED (i.e. different levels of competency).
B. If you assign the same value to the writing of someone who has been writing since age 5 and who is producing writing worthy of the New Yorker as the writing of someone who has applied tremendous "effort" and who writes at 2nd grade level, you are doing a disservice to both individuals, your institution and the society.
C. A great actor is evidently great, even if he/she has a shitty attitude, Give them an "F" for effort/attitide, if you want. But a bad actor is still a bad actor, even if they earn an "A" for their affort.

Talking to the students is essential. But also note that students tend to overestimate the time they do take on the work they do. An hour of concentration is less effective when it's punctuated with Facebook, texting, chatting with friends…. but folks (even professors!) sometimes go by what the clock says–an hour has passed–than what they've achieved. Last, ten hours of effort that take place in the ten hours immediately before the class start to get something turned in is qualitatively different than ten hours of thoughtful reflection and thinking critically. Students who get high marks know this; students who know this don't complain about how hard they worked but didn't get the grade they wanted.

This was another very informative post.

As a college instructor, on-ground and online, I’m always interested in articles like this – and this leads me to my first question. Why did the study focus on performance and effort? In other words, why was effort part of the equation? The reason why I ask is that most students (from my experience) know that points are earned and I emphasize that through the use of a rubric.

You’ve asked: How could you be in class, do the homework, regularly participate and not master the material? – There are many reasons for this and it comes down to this: effort does not equal mastery. Students may lack reading comprehension skills and have other under-developed skillsets.

Perhaps instead of a “discussion of that topic begins with a definition of effort, or a description of what it takes to learn something” we should focus on skills needed to learn?
Dr. J

When we give a student a grade in a class (which is necessary!), it MUST signify that they know the material. If we begin passing students because they "tried", their degree simply means that they tried in college. It no longer means that they know the material necessary to enter the work force.