The Weakest Link

I just came across a concept that was foreign to me, but has totally rocked my world... conjunctive grading. The idea is a student cannot compensate for the lack of one skill by doing really well in another skill (basically, preventing a student from averaging an F and A to earn a final grade of C). The logic behind this is based on the idea that grades communicate content mastery, and averaging scores in the traditional way masks the student's true level of mastery.

To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about this yet. There is part of me that says, "Wow, that's awesome!" and there's part of me that says, "Um, is that reasonable?" The part that appeals to me the most is the idea that each major concept is considered separately. If I am working toward proficiency in a subject, say geometry, I want to ensure each student has proficiency in every major concept within geometry. I also appreciate the idea that a student cannot hide failure in one area by being proficient in another. Each main idea or concept is viewed independently, which gives a much more complete view of a student's true content mastery.

The part I struggle with is what happens to conjunctive grading when you use it within our current system of grading. We work in an education system that requires a student's content mastery to be boiled down to a single letter grade (not a system I totally agree with, but not one that is not likely to change any time soon). Because of this, conjunctive grading still must be consolidated into a single mark, the weakest link. In order to determine a student's overall grade in the course, the concept on which he/she performs the worst is the one that dictates his/her overall grade. In other words, your overall grade is only as strong as your weakest concept grade. Something about that doesn't sit well with me. 

In an attempt to reconcile this uneasy feeling, I tried to think of real-world examples that either supported or refuted this type of evaluation. For example, if I am a painter (as in artist, not house) do I fail in painting if I can do everything well except mix colors? Does this ruin the overall painting? Possibly. But maybe that's not a good example. Maybe it is more along the lines of being able to paint in the style of the impressionists but not as a surrealist. Does this mean I have no talent as an artist? I would think not. Let's forget art and consider a different example, such as carpentry. If I can use a screwdriver, hammer, tape measure, etc. but not a level, do I fail as a carpenter? I would think so, for who wants a crooked house? Examples from both sides come to mind, leaving me no clearer on the conclusion.

After all that I am no closer to reconciling my feelings about conjunctive grading. However, I would contend this issue is not with the conjunctive grading itself, but the system in which it is being utilized. If we were allowed to keep our concept grades separate, never having to combine them into a single overall letter grade, I would be much more at ease with the idea. But until then, I am not sure I can wholeheartedly endorse a conjunctive grading system.

Alternatives in the Meanwhile

1. Break my subject into major concepts, providing each concept an overall grade. Check out this blog for some more about this idea.
2. Average the concept grades to produce a final grade, thereby giving each concept equal weight and showing students and parents areas that need more work and areas in which the student is excelling.

Just to provide a little more information for those wanting to delve deeper into the grading dilemma, here is a great post about standards-based grading, a 4-point grading system and how that can be converted to the traditional percentage system. This is more along the lines of how I grade, and the post has some excellent and thought-provoking questions to consider.