Classroom Research: Assessing Intellectual Growth
Method
Two
skilled, but disinterested, readers were assigned the task of comparing the
content of Papers I and IV for each student in the course. In order to assign
values to the paper pairs, the readers were given a detailed rubric that
describes what was meant by each of three possible categories. Below I
will describe each category briefly by citing the key descriptors from the
rubric immediately following the category name from the rubric. The
discussion that follows each category shows more specifically what I mean by
each category name using student work to exemplify that category.
Rubric
Intellectual growth (score symbol, +): “A positive score will indicate the student has made significant cognitive development vis-à-vis the main course goal (to critique the way the capitalist-consumerist business world constitutes society’s values). . . . Papers that demonstrate intellectual/cognitive growth will represent a complication of thought [and] be considerably more determined, influenced, or impacted by [other] factors.”
Of the sixteen paper pairs the readers compared, eleven demonstrated intellectual growth in terms of increased complexity and sophistication with respect to the course topic. As an example, let us compare essay 906102, “The Business World’s Influence on Society” and essay 906437, “The Impact of the Media,” two papers written by the same student.
Essay I, “The Business World’s Influence on Society,” offers an extremely general thesis (“The capitalist-consumerist business world is so influential that it can be argued that it shapes society and the beliefs that encompass it as a whole.”). The paper that follows, however, focuses on advertising, exploring some of the tactics it employs to increase sales. The question of how the business world might impact society’s values remains a dim shadow hovering in the background of the essay, while most of the text probes the tactics of Madison Avenue in a critical manner.
In Paper IV, “The Impact of the Media,” the student discusses the same general sector of the economy, but in a much more sophisticated way. First, the thesis (“The press plays a large role in shaping society’s perceptions through the way it chooses to describe reality”) offers a focused argument that responds much more directly to the paper’s prompt. It shows that the student has not only identified a specific sector of the economy that is responsible for shaping society’s values, but goes on to consider how the media actually accomplish this feat. The body of the paper supports the thesis first by showing how the media represents events or situations to create the desired public perception and thence opinion. The essay then turns to discuss how the media are owned by big businesses with the ultimate goals of creating as much capital as possible. Finally, the student concludes that in a capitalist-consumerist economy, the media will always necessarily work in the interest of the profit machine, whether or not this benefits the public and regardless of ethical considerations of accurate reporting. This essay not only addresses the course topic in a much more detailed and interesting way; it also probes more deeply into the topic, using subtler and more sophisticated examples and arguments to discuss its point. Hence, this paper pair demonstrated intellectual growth.
No intellectual growth (score symbol, 0): “A neutral score will indicate no growth in the student’s engagement toward the main goal of the course.”
Both readers remained ambivalent about one student’s work (Paper I = essay 216101, Paper IV = essay 216430), assigning it a 0 score, indicating no growth. The root of the problem for this student seemed to be an inability to synthesize ideas into a coherent essay.
In essay I, the student tries to link the ideas of sex and
consumerism. The thesis reads, “From pop singers to Barbie dolls to
diet pills, many young girls’ attitudes toward being women is shaped by the
commercial world of businesses who care more about profit than the self-esteem
of their young consumers.” The specificity of this statement promises
an interesting essay, but unfortunately, the rest of the paper struggles to
support the main idea in an effective way. Paragraphs are formed around
discreet examples that do not connect well to each other or to the main idea of
the essay. Assertions lack appropriate evidence and often remain unexplained.
The result is an unreflective essay that essentially holds the advertisement
industry responsible for selling the products of corporate
Paper IV attempts a different approach to the course inquiry question, but does not add any sophistication or depth to the topic. Just as before, the thesis of the paper, “Many works of the Pop Art movement reflect and critique consumerist values by exaggerating the portrayal of commodification in the business world,” suggests an innovative response to the assignment prompt and the potential for a most engaging essay. Despite this ambitious opening, however, the paper suffers from the same difficulties as Paper I. Observations are made without interpretation; ideas are presented discreetly, without connection to other ideas or the paper as a whole; and assertions are made without explanation or evidence. Like Paper I, this longer essay takes a critical stance toward corporate America, this time by discussing how the Pop Art movement portrays commodification as its hallmark of modernity; yet there is little movement toward an understanding of how society’s values are affected by Pop Art or commodification. The student has taken on a new topic for the essay, but has not made any significant advance in sophistication or complexity. Hence, this paper pair received a “no growth” score.
Negative growth (score symbol, -): “A negative score will indicate negative growth, evidenced by a decrease in insight and sophistication from paper one to paper four.”
One student’s work (Paper I = essay 613101, Paper IV = essay 413413) demonstrated negative growth to both readers. In Paper I, the student works with the idea that the business world urges us, through the lure of more, to worship the god of efficiency, even though such worship often results in a paradoxical inability to enjoy the more we attain. The development and discussion of this main idea is by no means exemplary, but the main idea as represented in the thesis suggests an interesting argument with some sophistication and complexity behind it.
In Paper IV the student seems to get so frustrated and confused that the paper dissolves into incoherence and disconnected thoughts. Largely this paper can be described as a frustrated exploration of the ethical dilemmas that arise when economic realities conflict with moral precepts. By the end of the paper, the student seems to have arrived at a position of sinister moral relativism (“No one has a clear conscience anyway, except a complete fool.”) while at the same time denying that conclusion (“It could be conclude [sic] that the thesis of this paper is a defense of moral relativism. However, this would be shortsighted.”). In other words, the student sees a dark world that presents us with situations that are hopelessly complex and for which all solutions are predicated on ethically compromising self-interest.
While the awkwardness and frustration in Paper IV are likely signs of overall cognitive development according to Perry’s scheme (student moving out of the more stable stage of duality into the awkward stage of early multiplicity), the student’s engagement with respect to the course inquiry question is demonstrably less complex and sophisticated than in Paper I. In effect, the student seems so frustrated at the moral relativism the paper explores that the student fails to address the course inquiry question as directed by the prompt in any meaningful way, much less in a more sophisticated or nuanced fashion than essay I. Hence, this student received a minus score, indicated negative intellectual growth.