As incoming first-year students make their tours of Grounds and begin to think about their first semester courses, an introductory calculus course is a common selection to fulfill quantification requirements. However, what eager students may not be aware of is the growth-based grading system which is being tested in these courses, specifically MATH 1190 and 1210. In this model, a randomly selected half of the class concentrates on mastering specific mathematical skills — rather than acing exams, growth-based students aim to meet particular criteria in assessment “targets.” Although this innovative approach promises to revolutionize the way success is measured, its implementation presents significant challenges which have tangibly disadvantaged students along the way.
The growth-based grading model was largely developed by American psychologist Carol Dweck, whose research promoted a surge of feedback-oriented approaches to grading focused on training academic capabilities. Dweck’s studies allowed academic institutions to confidently embrace growth-based grading as professors began implementing the schemes in their classes. Most recently, the math department has joined this trend by having students focus on mastering individual mathematical skills and providing multiple chances to showcase their understanding.
Given that this new approach significantly differs from traditional grading methods, the University Department of Mathematics is focused on first collecting reliable evidence of student success before a complete transition. That impulse is important because it shows the department is headed in the right direction and is correctly focused on taking an informed approach to an otherwise complicated task. As a result, the department has been dividing all calculus I courses between traditional and alternative learning styles. Even though both sections are in the same class with the same professor, they are incredibly distinct.
For the selected growth-based students, their semester begins with a completely unexpected syllabus that they must quickly adapt to — a stark change for the majority of students who have never experienced a grading system like this before. Teaching assistants, who have taken the course before, therefore serve as the closest contact for these students. However, there is no assurance that the TA supporting a growth-based student was actually a growth-based student themselves. Nor is there any amount of training that can replicate an experiential understanding. Given that the primary resources available to students in the department are incapable of attending to the needs of half of their classes, it is evident that a significant inequality exists between the two sections 一 one half receives the full, invaluable support that the University’s teaching professionals offer, while the other is left with limited resources that may be insufficient for comprehensive assistance.
Individual success is only one part of the issue, however. From a broader perspective, this slow-rolling of experimental change has a harmful impact on the overall cohesion and vitality of the classroom. This dynamic inside the classroom presents an issue, as professors must cater to two different groups of students. For growth-based students, an upcoming exam represents an opportunity to improve skills from past chapters. Their questions in class may focus on previous concepts, but for traditionally graded students, those inquiries may have no relevance. These professors likely do not have the tools to deal with these differences without breaking academic cohesion inside the classroom.
While the department’s pursuit of curricular innovation is commendable, the implementation approach raises serious ethical concerns. At its heart, this remains an experiment for the math department. Dividing students into traditional and growth-based systems without their consent turns them into test subjects. That is the fundamental problem with the rollout of the current protocols — they appear to be premature and overly experimental which risks negating the promises of alternative learning. Rather than experiencing a fully realized system designed to transform how students engage with learning and grading, students are instead divided and experimented on, missing out on the potential benefits of growth-based grading.
Considering these factors, it is evident that this experiment has a negative effect on the academic journeys of students in MATH 1190 and 1210. If the math department wants to continue its experimental methods in moving toward growth-based learning, some change is necessary. Students should have the option to opt into, and out of, these classes. To that end, the math department may be better suited developing classes dedicated to growth-based learning while continuing traditional classes for those who feel more comfortable in them. This way, they understand what they are signing up for and can mentally prepare for that transition. Moreover, there should be an increased focus on training the professors, teaching assistants and other resources on how to aid students subjected to the new grading rubric.
The math department should be commended for pursuing academic development and their commitment to student success. Although it seems like a minor change on paper, the new system is intended to completely transform the way that students think about learning, and it needs to be treated as the drastic shift that it is. Before this model can be the blueprint for growth-based grading schemes across the University, the math department needs to reevaluate their approach to implementing the new methods in existing classes and work to optimize the outcome for all students.
Lucy Duttenhofer is a viewpoint writer who writes about academics for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | YesterdayWhile VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
SCHENBERG: Our foreign students and colleagues deserve better
2 days agoI pray that we will not persecute now and atone later.
FREED: Do not be fooled — the Trump administration is not fighting antisemitism
By Dan Freed | 3 days agoGiven the tenuous connection to battling antisemitism, we are left to assume that the Trump administration is actually interested in censoring a certain set of departments which promote multiculturalism and global literacy.
