"Sometimes I’m stuck trying to figure out why I don’t think a solution is Exemplary. This risks becoming an “I know it when I see it” situation, which is not a standard at all."
This really resonates with me. Maybe because there just is a know-it-when-we-see-it "magic" in exemplary work. Most times the magic can be objectified, but maybe not always? But we want "exemplary" to be repeatable and learnable, not just inspiration striking at the right moment.
Maybe it comes down to defining the characteristics of it? So, class presentations are exemplary if (in addition to successful) a connection is made with prior learning and questions from the audience are successfully fielded. This task is exemplary if...stuff specific to the task (without giving things away). That part is HARD.
I guess my goal in trying to use exemplary is to teach the what and how of exemplary so it becomes repeatable. Way way easier said than done.
Definitely easier said than done! I think that highlighting exemplary work in class (e.g. specifically calling out excellent parts of a presentation) is important. But making that part of a grade is harder, and I think usually unnecessary.
While Math is distinctly different from Rhetoric and Composition studies, I'm wondering if you'd ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Much of the middle of the book's 400+ pages deals with the author's (Robert Pirsig's) struggle to determine what constituted "quality" in the realm of writing (as well as other areas). Your "enigma of Exemplary" reminds me of Pirsig's own struggle.
"Exemplary" or "Expert" level work in my math classrooms were awarded for students who could solve a complex performance task using two distinct strategies. Students also needed to show how the two strategies were connected and discuss this connection. The philosophy is that to solve a complex task, arrive at a valid answer and to prove your approach using calculations and representations should be celebrated. But, if a student could then explore a separate strategy, maybe one that was more efficient, or simply distinct from the first, we are now allowing the scoring to inspire deeper thinking about the mathematical concept we are asking a student to explore. When students can solve the same problem multiple ways, they are building a flexible and creative mastery of mathematics. To me, this pushes students towards becoming a mathematical expert. Do this regularly, and the mathematician you have inspired will be truly, "Exemplary".
This makes a lot of sense for classes where it would apply. In my upper-level electives, it's not always feasible or even possible to find a meaningfully different method. I do think that individualized challenges fill a similar role, and also the option -- when it makes sense -- for me to insist that students need to find a different approach that's simpler, more concise, etc.
In the Common Ground Collaborative, sometimes in partnership with smart thinkers like Jay Tighe, we're on a similar journey. Like you, we favor 4 point rubrics:
Level One: tends to reference 'not yet able to' language
Level Two: tends to reference 'with support is able to' language
Level Three: tends to reference language like, ' clearly has acquired the conceptual understanding and competencies necessary to...'
Level Four: Tends towards, 'creates new applications for' 'unique ideas about....'. We also like 'is now supporting others in...'.
For our Disciplinary Learning Maps we tend to use Emergent, Evolving, Expert, Extending
For our new Meta-Disciplines like Learning to Learn, we tend to use: Novice, Apprentice, Expert, Innovator.
Hope that's interesting and please keep up this important work.
What if we don't use "exemplary" as a grade, but write a comment complimenting the student on their work and saying a few words about why we think it is exemplary? Do students not find this as motivating as an exemplary "grade"?
This is my preferred solution most of the time (see under "Exemplary can be confusing" where I mention this exactly). But that doesn't address the situation where I want to be able to emphasize excellence in grade criteria.
Ah yes, I missed that. But I am still wondering why one would want to incorporate "exemplary" in the grading criteria and if it has something to do with motivating the students to strive for excellence as opposed to stopping at "good enough".
"Sometimes I’m stuck trying to figure out why I don’t think a solution is Exemplary. This risks becoming an “I know it when I see it” situation, which is not a standard at all."
This really resonates with me. Maybe because there just is a know-it-when-we-see-it "magic" in exemplary work. Most times the magic can be objectified, but maybe not always? But we want "exemplary" to be repeatable and learnable, not just inspiration striking at the right moment.
Maybe it comes down to defining the characteristics of it? So, class presentations are exemplary if (in addition to successful) a connection is made with prior learning and questions from the audience are successfully fielded. This task is exemplary if...stuff specific to the task (without giving things away). That part is HARD.
I guess my goal in trying to use exemplary is to teach the what and how of exemplary so it becomes repeatable. Way way easier said than done.
Definitely easier said than done! I think that highlighting exemplary work in class (e.g. specifically calling out excellent parts of a presentation) is important. But making that part of a grade is harder, and I think usually unnecessary.
Hello David,
While Math is distinctly different from Rhetoric and Composition studies, I'm wondering if you'd ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Much of the middle of the book's 400+ pages deals with the author's (Robert Pirsig's) struggle to determine what constituted "quality" in the realm of writing (as well as other areas). Your "enigma of Exemplary" reminds me of Pirsig's own struggle.
I have not, but it's now on my list. Thank you!
"Exemplary" or "Expert" level work in my math classrooms were awarded for students who could solve a complex performance task using two distinct strategies. Students also needed to show how the two strategies were connected and discuss this connection. The philosophy is that to solve a complex task, arrive at a valid answer and to prove your approach using calculations and representations should be celebrated. But, if a student could then explore a separate strategy, maybe one that was more efficient, or simply distinct from the first, we are now allowing the scoring to inspire deeper thinking about the mathematical concept we are asking a student to explore. When students can solve the same problem multiple ways, they are building a flexible and creative mastery of mathematics. To me, this pushes students towards becoming a mathematical expert. Do this regularly, and the mathematician you have inspired will be truly, "Exemplary".
This makes a lot of sense for classes where it would apply. In my upper-level electives, it's not always feasible or even possible to find a meaningfully different method. I do think that individualized challenges fill a similar role, and also the option -- when it makes sense -- for me to insist that students need to find a different approach that's simpler, more concise, etc.
In the Common Ground Collaborative, sometimes in partnership with smart thinkers like Jay Tighe, we're on a similar journey. Like you, we favor 4 point rubrics:
Level One: tends to reference 'not yet able to' language
Level Two: tends to reference 'with support is able to' language
Level Three: tends to reference language like, ' clearly has acquired the conceptual understanding and competencies necessary to...'
Level Four: Tends towards, 'creates new applications for' 'unique ideas about....'. We also like 'is now supporting others in...'.
For our Disciplinary Learning Maps we tend to use Emergent, Evolving, Expert, Extending
For our new Meta-Disciplines like Learning to Learn, we tend to use: Novice, Apprentice, Expert, Innovator.
Hope that's interesting and please keep up this important work.
What if we don't use "exemplary" as a grade, but write a comment complimenting the student on their work and saying a few words about why we think it is exemplary? Do students not find this as motivating as an exemplary "grade"?
This is my preferred solution most of the time (see under "Exemplary can be confusing" where I mention this exactly). But that doesn't address the situation where I want to be able to emphasize excellence in grade criteria.
Ah yes, I missed that. But I am still wondering why one would want to incorporate "exemplary" in the grading criteria and if it has something to do with motivating the students to strive for excellence as opposed to stopping at "good enough".
Hi Kate, indeed, "Exemplary" can motivate (some) students to strive for excellence.