Work in Progress: Grading through a Capability Lens

Stewart Thomas; Sarah Appelhans; Michael S Thompson; Rebecca Thomas; Philip Asare; Alan Cheville

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Inclusive Dialogues and Adaptations in Engineering Education: Navigating Uncertainty and Leveraging AI for Student Success
Tagged Divisions: Equity and Culture & Social Justice in Education Division (EQUITY)
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/48493

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Stewart Thomas Bucknell University orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-1475

visit author page

Stewart J. Thomas received the B.S. and M.Eng. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky in 2006 and 2008, respectively, and the Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina in 2013. He has served on the organizing committee for the IEEE International Conference on RFID series since 2014, serving as the Executive Chair in 2022, with research interests in areas of low-power backscatter communications systems and IoT devices. He is also interested in capabilities-based frameworks for supporting engineering education. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Bucknell University in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Lewisburg, PA USA.

visit author page

biography

Sarah Appelhans Lafayette College orcid.org/0000-0002-7313-3504

visit author page

Sarah Appelhans is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Studies at Lafayette College. She earned her PhD in Cultural Anthropology at the University at Albany (SUNY) where she conducted research on the cultural factors that contribute to inequalities in engineering. As a postdoc at Bucknell University, she was the resident ethnographer in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, exploring applications of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach in engineering education. Her current book project, On the Bleeding Edge: Gender, Immigration and Precarity in Semiconductor Engineering, investigates the intersections of gender, race/ethnicity, and immigration status among semiconductor engineers.

visit author page

biography

Michael S Thompson Bucknell University orcid.org/0000-0002-3444-8503

visit author page

Stu is an associate professor and chair of the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Bucknell University, in Lewisburg, PA. While his teaching responsibilities typically include digital design, computer-related electives, and senior design, his focus

visit author page

biography

Rebecca Thomas Bucknell University orcid.org/0000-0003-2426-4759

visit author page

Rebecca Thomas is the inaugural director for the Pathways Program at Bucknell University, where she oversees the rollout of Bucknell’s ePortfolio initiative. She is also a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering where she instructs the first-year design course for ECE majors. She holds a B.S. and M.Eng. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Louisville and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from North Carolina State University.

visit author page

author page

Philip Asare University of Toronto

biography

Alan Cheville Bucknell University

visit author page

Alan Cheville studied optoelectronics and ultrafast optics at Rice University, followed by 14 years as a faculty member at Oklahoma State University working on terahertz frequencies and engineering education. While at Oklahoma State, he developed courses

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

The purpose of this WIP research paper is to briefly consider the basis of higher education’s current grading system and to discuss an implemented grading structure based on a human development framework which was part of a cultural shift within the department. The letter-grade marking system is relatively new compared to the institution of higher education and brings with it a secondary effect of an “A” ranking conveying significant value and meaning to the interpreter. Students (and faculty) bring their own interpretation of what it means to be an ‘A’ student and connect this to their personal identity. The shift to letter-based grades coincided with influx of capital into American universities and an industry need for more research. Providing such letter-based sortings is often a required part of the instructional contract with most university structures. Grading systems at their best may provide helpful developmental feedback to learners and reward valued behaviors, but they are also punitive and contribute to shame and feelings of alienation or un-belonging. Grading itself is a strong voice of the faculty. While a curriculum guides the overall experience of students, grades themselves are the “coin of the realm” in terms of directly conveying students what faculty value. These weightings of various activities and what work is and is not graded tacitly tell students where faculty expect students to spend their time and effort. Who can be an engineer is then restricted to those who show aptitude in predefined outcomes and can successfully navigate the grading structures given to them. We ask if it is possible to grade across a curriculum in a way that increases opportunities for student agency and can convey to students the multi-faceted nature of being an engineer. While technical skills and knowledge are important, they are only one aspect of being an engineer. We introduce an attempted grading structure that includes six factors of engineering development used across each assignment within a first year engineering course. This change informed ongoing efforts to align grading approaches that place value on student agency in student development and informed an educational model based on the Capability Approach.

Citation
Format

Thomas, S., & Appelhans, S., & Thompson, M. S., & Thomas, R., & Asare, P., & Cheville, A. (2024, June), Work in Progress: Grading through a Capability Lens Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/48493

TY - CPAPER
AB - The purpose of this WIP research paper is to briefly consider the basis of higher education’s current grading system and to discuss an implemented grading structure based on a human development framework which was part of a cultural shift within the department. The letter-grade marking system is relatively new compared to the institution of higher education and brings with it a secondary effect of an “A” ranking conveying significant value and meaning to the interpreter. Students (and faculty) bring their own interpretation of what it means to be an ‘A’ student and connect this to their personal identity. The shift to letter-based grades coincided with influx of capital into American universities and an industry need for more research. Providing such letter-based sortings is often a required part of the instructional contract with most university structures. Grading systems at their best may provide helpful developmental feedback to learners and reward valued behaviors, but they are also punitive and contribute to shame and feelings of alienation or un-belonging. Grading itself is a strong voice of the faculty. While a curriculum guides the overall experience of students, grades themselves are the “coin of the realm” in terms of directly conveying students what faculty value. These weightings of various activities and what work is and is not graded tacitly tell students where faculty expect students to spend their time and effort.
Who can be an engineer is then restricted to those who show aptitude in predefined outcomes and can successfully navigate the grading structures given to them. We ask if it is possible to grade across a curriculum in a way that increases opportunities for student agency and can convey to students the multi-faceted nature of being an engineer. While technical skills and knowledge are important, they are only one aspect of being an engineer. We introduce an attempted grading structure that includes six factors of engineering development used across each assignment within a first year engineering course. This change informed ongoing efforts to align grading approaches that place value on student agency in student development and informed an educational model based on the Capability Approach.
AU - Stewart Thomas
AU - Sarah Appelhans
AU - Michael S Thompson
AU - Rebecca Thomas
AU - Philip Asare
AU - Alan Cheville
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work in Progress: Grading through a Capability Lens
UR - https://peer.asee.org/48493
ER -