The concept of “fail fast, fail often” has become a popular mantra in the world of engineering and technology. The idea is to value the process of trying and learning from failure rather than striving for perfection from the start. This mindset is not only prevalent in the tech industry, but it is also being embraced in classrooms, encouraging students to take risks and learn from their mistakes.
As a teacher, the word “failure” often brings to mind the dreaded grade of 60 percent. For students, receiving a failing grade can be a source of stress and anxiety, as it signifies not meeting a required standard. The topic of grading and failure has been a hotly debated issue at many schools, especially in light of the challenges presented by the pandemic.
In my own experience as an educator, I have witnessed firsthand the divide among faculty and students regarding grading policies. The debate between traditional grading methods and mastery-based grading has created tension within the school community, with individuals taking sides like fans of rival sports teams.
Recently, I found myself confronted with this conflict in my own classroom when I began co-teaching a course on Design at Human Scale with a colleague. While my co-teacher, Brendan, favored a mastery-based grading approach in which students could retake assessments until they demonstrated mastery, I remained more traditional in my grading methods, assigning grades based on the percentage of correct answers on assessments.
Navigating these differing philosophies on grading was a challenge, as I struggled to reconcile my attachment to traditional grading with the benefits of a more flexible and student-centered approach. While I had reservations about the subjectivity of my grading system, I found it difficult to let go of what I knew and believed to be effective.
In my engineering classes, where creativity and iteration are key components of the curriculum, I often found myself grappling with the subjective nature of grading. Projects in my class are designed to evolve through a process of trial and error, with failed prototypes serving as valuable learning opportunities for students.
For example, in a project involving the creation of fidget spinners, students start with simple prototypes made from paper and gradually work their way up to more complex designs using materials like cardboard and laser-cut products. This iterative process encourages students to embrace failure as a natural part of the learning journey and to use it as a stepping stone towards growth and improvement. As an educator, I have always struggled with the subjectivity of grading. I found myself aiming for higher grades, which led me to realize that engineering had become an “easy A” subject for me. This was surprising, considering how traditionally challenging engineering courses are known to be at the university level.
I wanted to align my grading practices with the “fail fast, fail often” mentality that I taught my students. This desire prompted me to make changes in my approach to grading, starting with a new design course that I was teaching. Collaborating with my colleague Brendan, we designed a new system that focused on key learning objectives: design, iteration, tools and software, and community.
In this new system, students were asked to submit evidence of their learning in each of these categories for each project. Brendan and I would review the evidence and determine if the students had demonstrated growth. If the evidence was lacking, students were given the opportunity to resubmit their work. This approach shifted the focus from grading the final product to grading the students’ reflection on their growth and learning process.
By using a table that correlated the number of pieces of evidence to a grade scale, we were able to translate the students’ reflections into numerical grades. This system helped to remove the subjectivity from grading creative work and instead focused on how well students justified their design choices.
While the system is not perfect and still has room for improvement, I am pleased with the results so far. It has allowed me to be more objective in my grading and has encouraged students to take ownership of their learning. Embracing the idea of “failing fast and failing often” has been a valuable lesson for both me and my students.
Through co-teaching this course and being open to new approaches, I have experienced professional growth and a shift in my perspective on grading. I have learned that success comes from being open-minded, curious, and willing to iterate on my own practices. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to grading, but by being open to change and willing to try new things, we can create a more effective and meaningful learning experience for our students.
