WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.000 music 00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:10.000 It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Asao Inoue. 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:13.000 Asao is Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences 00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:19.000 And the Director of University of Writing and the Writing Center at the University of Washington Tacoma. 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:26.000 His scholarship on writing assessment, race and racism has received numerous prestigious awards. 00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:30.000 His article, Theorizing Failure in U.S. Writing Assessments 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:35.000 Won the 2014 CWPA Outstanding Scholarship Award. 00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:38.000 His coedited collection, Race and Writing Assessment 00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:44.000 Won the 2014 four C's Outstanding Book Award for an edited collection. 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:50.000 His book, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies Teaching and Assessing for a Socially Just Future 00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:55.000 Won the 2017 four C's Outstanding Book Award for a monograph 00:00:55.000 --> 00:00:59.000 And the 2015 CWPA Outstanding Book Award. 00:00:59.000 --> 00:00:64.000 While this is all impressive what is more impressive is the way that his scholarly work 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:10.000 Encourages us all to challenge institutional racism embedded within our practices. 00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:16.000 Given today's political landscape there is perhaps no better moment for us to take up that call 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:21.000 And consider how we can create more inclusive and equitable classroom spaces. 00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:24.000 Please join me in welcoming Dr. Asao Inoue. 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:27.000 applause 00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:30.000 Well thank you and I'm so happy to be here. 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:37.000 I appreciate your hospitality and I've already had some nice conversations already this morning. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:41.000 So I will get started. Well welcome to the talk. 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:47.000 Changing the Rules of the Grading Game Or How Can We Assess So That People Stop Killing Each Other. 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:52.000 I don't know if I'm gonna be able to live up to that title but I'm gonna try very hard. 00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:56.000 I'm honored and grateful to be here today and offer you something. 00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:62.000 I would like to thank Dr. Zobel, and Graziano and Cassidy 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:08.000 For inviting me, making arrangements and everyone else who organized my visit to your wonderful university. 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:12.000 It's nice to be here as I used to live in Monmouth years ago. 00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:15.000 This place has a very warm place in my heart. 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:20.000 I also feel compelled to make a land acknowledgement before I begin. 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:25.000 I wish to thank the, I'm probably gonna get some of these names wrong. My apologies. 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:30.000 The Kalapuya, Molalla, and Chinook indigenous peoples who lived on this land 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:34.000 Around Monmouth and in the Willamette Valley long before White colonial settlers came. 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:43.000 We are all in their debt and I am saddened at the ways in which our government and the people of this area in the past have treated them. 00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:52.000 What I offer today is a discussion of why we must change the rules of the grading game in literacy and writing classrooms. 00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:54.000 I will discuss this in three parts. 00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:62.000 I'll begin by arguing that literacy education at all levels in the U.S. has and continues to function as White racial property. 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:06.000 Then offer a connection to my own life and literacy learning in school. 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:14.000 Finally I'll consider how changing the rules of the grading game in classrooms may have larger implications to society. 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:19.000 That is, can changing how we grade stop people from killing each other? 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:23.000 When grading is done well in writing and literacy classrooms 00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:27.000 It offers opportunities to address the politics of the judgement of language 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:32.000 Which is vital in negotiating any rhetorical situation in and out of school. 00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:35.000 Some call this Critical Pedagogy. 00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:41.000 But I think the minute teachers move to pedagogy, to teaching, to lessons and readings 00:03:41.000 --> 00:03:45.000 Most of us ignore or forget about assessment and grading. 00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:53.000 Or maybe many of us feel that the grading part of a course can be separated from the learning part or the critical part. 00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:57.000 I mean most of us don't grade first drafts anyways, right? 00:03:57.000 --> 00:03:61.000 But that isn't enough if we wish to not be unfair. 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:04.000 I mean if we want to be antiracist 00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:09.000 Or offer more equitable assessment conditions in our classrooms and schools. 00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:13.000 It is often believed falsely that grading is just and institutional necessity. 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:19.000 Something we can ask students to ignore at least while they are learning. 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:23.000 But to attempt to do this is to ignore the way grades work in classrooms. 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:30.000 How they shape many aspects of the entire ecology, how they influence students' and teachers' actions. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:37.000 Not thinking of assessment first or at least simultaneously with pedagogy and curricula is a mistake. 00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:41.000 It leads to inequitable and unfair classrooms. 00:04:41.000 --> 00:04:45.000 What I'm called us today is to change the rules of the grading game. 00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:51.000 Put simply, stop using so called quality or a single standard to grade student writing. 00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:59.000 The goal of the kind of classroom assessment ecology I'm calling for is one that makes the means of grading also its ends. 00:04:59.000 --> 00:04:66.000 Use labor for instance to determine grades not so called quality in your classrooms. 00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:09.000 That's it really. That's all I'm asking for. 00:05:09.000 --> 00:05:17.000 At the end of the day our students' processes of learning, their labors, are all they have and all they can have for their learning. 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:19.000 I know this seems really hokey and undoable. 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:26.000 It sounds like some permissive new age everyone can just be who they are and that's okay kind of philosophy for grading literacy performances. 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:31.000 And maybe it is. But maybe given what literacy really is in the world 00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:36.000 How it moves and changes, circulates in communities, how plural it is 00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:40.000 How all instances of discourse are equally communicative 00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:46.000 How dominant standards in all schools become so because of who gets to make such rules 00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:51.000 Maybe using labor instead of your idiosyncratic sense of what is best or right 00:05:51.000 --> 00:05:59.000 Or correct language use in your classroom is truer to what literacy is and offers students more than a standard. 00:05:59.000 --> 00:05:67.000 Maybe letting multiple ways of languaging in a classroom exist, I mean really exist 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:13.000 In the structures of that ecology not just in our promises to students about their rights to their own language 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:19.000 Can offer students critical distance and access to the politics of language and its judgement in our world. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:25.000 Critical distance to the dominant standards too often imposed, imposed on them through grading. 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:31.000 And maybe using labor to grade is a fairer and more socially just grading practice 00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:38.000 Than one that uses a single standard to judge so called quality of our diverse students' writing for instance. 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:46.000 Maybe we can change the rules of the grading game by using labor and not a standard while allowing multiple standards to exist in the classroom also. 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:53.000 Okay. Let me back up and explain. I know that most teachers who assign writing hate grading it. 00:06:53.000 --> 00:06:58.000 And you know intuitively how bad it is for your students' learning, the grading part. 00:06:58.000 --> 00:06:65.000 It's a distraction that pulls students away from the real dialogues and discussion about their writing that we want to have with them. 00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:10.000 It isn't formative in nature. A grade on a paper is a red herring to most students. 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:13.000 But there is a more sinister problem with grading. 00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:19.000 One that may make some of you uncomfortable because it is going to sound like a personal attack 00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:26.000 Or a reason to be permissive and lax about our standards, standards you likely hold dear. 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:33.000 Standards that are a part of you and are the keys to the academic and civic kingdoms or so you think. 00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:39.000 It may even sound like a way not to prepare our students for future success with language. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:47.000 What I'm about to say may sound like I'm setting up the least prepared students in our classrooms for spectacular failure down the road. 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:53.000 I want to assure you that this is far from what I mean and far from what I've seen in my own classrooms. 00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:57.000 That use only labor to calculate course grades. 00:07:57.000 --> 00:07:64.000 What I'm about to say I say from a compassionate and caring heart, teacher to teacher. 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:12.000 I know your intentions are good but intentions ain't enough in a structurally racist world we live in. 00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:16.000 So what is this more sinister problem with grading? 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:20.000 Grading is a racist and White supremacist practice. There's no way around it. 00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:25.000 Grading is almost always employed in order to do three kinds of things. 00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:35.000 Reads slide. 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:38.000 Reads slide. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:44.000 Each of these purposes for grading in classrooms is detrimental to learning generally and more harmful to many students of color. 00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:49.000 And racial linguistically diverse students who come to our classrooms with habitus 00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:53.000 Or linguistic and bodily and performative dispositions 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:58.000 That do not match the white racial habitus embodied in the standard of the classroom. 00:08:58.000 --> 00:08:65.000 In short the traditional purposes for grading writing turn out to be defacto racist and White supremacist 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:12.000 Because of the dominant White racial habitus that already informs the standards by which all teachers use to grade their students 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:16.000 That they learn in their disciplines. 00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:20.000 Why do you really think we must control, make accountable and measure our students? 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:29.000 Because most do not fit the White racial middle class habitus that we use as a standard the dominant discourse. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:32.000 Let me make very clear about one thing. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:36.000 In our current society and educational systems regardless of who you are 00:09:36.000 --> 00:09:41.000 Where you come from or what your intentions or motives are as a teacher 00:09:41.000 --> 00:09:44.000 If you use a single standard to grade students' language performances 00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:50.000 You are directly contributing to the racist status quo in school and society. 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:55.000 Why? Because language only moves in groups of people. 00:09:55.000 --> 00:09:60.000 And people are racialized in a variety of ways in society and history. 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:07.000 Groups of mostly white males created our school systems and academic disciplines that trained teachers at all levels. 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:10.000 Those men learned their language from other white men and women. 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:14.000 Literacy education in the U.S. is a White institution because the language norms and standards 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:19.000 That moved with those who created and currently maintained those systems 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:23.000 Employ, embody a White racial habitus 00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:28.000 Even if they are not racially White or have White skin privilege. 00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:34.000 This is how language exists and how race is a part of our politics of language. 00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:41.000 While linguistics and other, linguists and other scholars agree that there is no single way to communicate effectively 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:48.000 Judgements of effectiveness an correctness of language are contingent and contextual. 00:10:48.000 --> 00:10:55.000 White people and Whiteness as a set of racial linguistic dispositions and habits or white habitus 00:10:55.000 --> 00:10:65.000 Are the context and contingency for goodness or appropriateness or excellence in writing in schools and most of society. 00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:10.000 This means all standards for good writing are deeply informed by a White racial habitus. 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:14.000 This makes grading by such standards White supremacist. 00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:19.000 I'm not saying that you the teacher are a bad person or are racist. 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:22.000 But by grading by a standard 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:28.000 It does make your grading methods and your grading ecology in your classroom racist and White supremacist. 00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:31.000 So sit with that for a moment. 00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:35.000 I hope it makes you uncomfortable because that's the only way you can grow, 00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:41.000 Change and perhaps find more socially just solutions. 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.000 I've argued elsewhere how this is the case so I won't rehearse those arguments today. 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:50.000 Instead I point to the legal literature on the history of Whiteness as property in the U.S. 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:55.000 To further argue the point that grading by a single standard is White supremacist 00:11:55.000 --> 00:11:59.000 Which sould urge us all to change the rules of the grading game. 00:11:59.000 --> 00:11:65.000 Cheryl L. Harris. Harris' comprehensive legal account of the ways that laws on the courts of the U.S. 00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:10.000 Defined and maintained whiteness as property extends to education and literacy. 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:15.000 Particularly as in the Brown v. Board of Education decisions of '54 and '55 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:21.000 Where, which were an extension of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896. 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:24.000 These judicial decisions hinged on questions of Whiteness as property. 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:28.000 Harris explains in her conclusion about Brown's decision 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:51.000 Reads slide. 00:12:51.000 --> 00:12:58.000 What Harris shows in her discussion over and over is the way Whiteness has functioned and been used as property 00:12:58.000 --> 00:12:63.000 For the benefit of those deemed to be racially White at the time. 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:10.000 Whiteness is the property that even a poor, uneducated or jobless White man can have that has value. 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:12.000 Furthermore Harris argues that quote 00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:16.000 Whiteness and property share a common premise a conceptual nucleus 00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:22.000 Of the right to exclude. Whiteness as property is therefore about exclusion. 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:30.000 This point is critical in educational settings because most all of us proclaim or promote inclusion. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:35.000 Our schools programs even pedagogies proclaim to include racial linguistically diverse students. 00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:41.000 But our grading practices, standards and assessment assumptions function to exclude. 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:47.000 And the direction that this exclusion takes is a radicalized one. 00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:53.000 In Literacy and Racial Justice The Politics of Learning After Brown v. Board of Education, Catherine Prendergast argues convincingly 00:13:54.000 --> 00:13:58.000 That historically in the U.S. the courts have worked from a fundamental premise that quote 00:13:58.000 --> 00:13:61.000 Literacy is first and foremost White property. 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:09.000 She looks closely at the logics and consequences of Brown v. Board of Education, Washington v. Davis and the Regents of University of California v. Bakke. 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:12.000 All of which demonstrate what Prendergrast calls quote 00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:15.000 The economy of literacy as a White property. 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:22.000 Or a dynamic rooted in a figurative or literal White flight in places where people of color begin to accumulate. 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:28.000 She explains this dynamic this way. Literacy standards are perceived to be falling or in peril of falling 00:14:28.000 --> 00:14:36.000 When too many people of color often African American and Latinx are included or present in the place in question 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:41.000 But it be it a school, a police department, a community et cetera. 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:44.000 Where do we find the most calls around literacy crisis? 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:50.000 Schools and community colleges that are made up of increasing numbers of people of color. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:57.000 What do schools and classrooms have at their disposal to remedy such perceptions of falling literacy standards among their students? 00:14:57.000 --> 00:14:60.000 Grading mechanisms and standards. 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:06.000 Remember the primary goals of grading by a standard and this includes placement and other large scale assessments 00:15:06.000 --> 00:15:10.000 Are control and forced accountability and measurement. 00:15:10.000 --> 00:15:17.000 Thus grading is a great way to protect the White property of literacy in schools while never mentioning race. 00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:22.000 It's a great way to maintain the White supremacist status quo without ever being White supremacist. 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:25.000 The red marks and grades on papers and assignments 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:29.000 That signal how White a literacy performance is or seems to be 00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:32.000 Is the redlining practice of the academy. 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:37.000 So if literacy has been and continues to be a White property in the U.S. 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:41.000 And if the nature of White property is the right to exclude 00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:45.000 And if grading by a standard is always about control, accountability and measurement 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:50.000 Then gradin by a single standard is how most if not all schools and writing classrooms 00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:57.000 Exercise the historical right to exclude in order to protect literacy as white property. 00:15:58.000 --> 00:15:65.000 All the while exclaiming and even believing that we teachers are helping our students of color. 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:09.000 And how well has that helping really worked so far? 00:16:09.000 --> 00:16:15.000 Put more directly in all schools grades of quality are the measures of discrimination. 00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:18.000 The methods of exclusion not inclusion. 00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:24.000 Therefore we must change the rules of the grading game in our classrooms 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:27.000 So that our grading mechanisms stop trying to be fair to everyone. 00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:33.000 In other words stop trying to treat everyone as if they're White and start trying not to be unfair. 00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:38.000 Not to be White supremacist which is the default of the system. 00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:43.000 This latter purpose for grading ecologies in classrooms stems from an assumption 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:49.000 That the literacy practices promoted in schools and colleges have and still are conceived of as White property. 00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:53.000 And that the standards and grading practices we all inherit in our disciplines 00:16:53.000 --> 00:16:60.000 Or that are forced upon us by principles and disciplines departments and programs are White supremacist 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:03.000 And function to exclude not include 00:17:03.000 --> 00:17:07.000 Despite most educators' good intentions. 00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:12.000 I'm reminded of the noted eugenicist and advocate for racial segregation Lothrop Stoddard 00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:18.000 And his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color The Threat Against White World Supremacy. 00:17:18.000 --> 00:17:20.000 Stoddard was a White supremacist. 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:25.000 In the book he argues that increasing populations of people of color around the world 00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:28.000 Threaten the White geographic, economic and political center. 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:33.000 White settlements are being taking over he argues by various peoples of color. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:35.000 And this is a bad thing he says. 00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:40.000 Strategically Stoddard notes there are Inner and Outer Dikes. 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:47.000 The Outer Dikes of civilization are those places in the world that contain mostly people of color. 00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:53.000 But the Inner are those places on the globe that are White settlements in which people of color are increasing. 00:17:53.000 --> 00:17:56.000 And those areas must be protected. 00:17:56.000 --> 00:17:61.000 Just like the logic behind redlining to protect real estate property from Black Americans in the U.S. 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:07.000 The White settlements the White property that Stoddard speaks of are understood as critical Inner Dikes 00:18:08.000 --> 00:18:13.000 That need protecting because they are the last defense of the White centers of property. 00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:18.000 Education, schools and literacy in general in the U.S. are Inner Dikes 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:25.000 That literacy teachers of all stripes too often protect from the rising tide of students of color. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:30.000 Stoddard's introduction to this description is instructive 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:36.000 In how it so easily maps to arguments about raising standards and literacy crisis today. 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:40.000 He captures the same basic logic. He says 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:44.000 Reads slide. 00:18:44.000 --> 00:18:48.000 Reads slide. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:52.000 Reads slide. 00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:56.000 Reads slide. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:18:60.000 Reads slide. 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:04.000 Reads slide. 00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:08.000 Reads slide. 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:13.000 Reads slide. 00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:19.000 There is no more fitting analogy to grading by a standard than Stoddard's description of Inner Dikes. 00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:24.000 Schools, colleges and universities today are literally and figuratively White settlements. 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:29.000 Many built on land stolen from indigenous peoples 00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:33.000 Which have become tacitly as Stoddard makes clear a White settlement. 00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:37.000 An inner dike to protect and pass on to the next generation. 00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:40.000 While our terms may be less overtly racialized today 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:46.000 We still talk and think of schools and universities as true bulwarks for standards 00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:52.000 Or as the centers for literacy promotion which is the White property of those settlements. 00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:58.000 In Stoddard's terms this makes educational institutions the race heritage of each generation. 00:19:58.000 --> 00:19:63.000 Or the patrimony to be passed on to the next generation. 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:07.000 And that generation is racially White by this logic. 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:14.000 This makes grading by a standard again the method for protecting and cleaning out the Inner Dike whitening it. 00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:19.000 In short schools are the Inner Dikes of literacy as White property. 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:26.000 Grading is the gun and bayonet which are used against all students to cleanse them, to whiten them or drive them out. 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:32.000 Again the rules for grading must change if we wish to stop trying to whiten the Dike. 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:35.000 When we change the rules for grading dramatically 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:39.000 For instance as when one stops using a standard to grade student performances 00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:45.000 We realize that we must choose something else to use to determine final course grades. 00:20:45.000 --> 00:20:48.000 This makes us mindful of our assumptions about grading. 00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:54.000 Mindful about what we assume a paper or written product demonstrates to us about a student. 00:20:54.000 --> 00:20:59.000 Mindful of where those expectations come from. Mindful of what we think we can see. 00:20:59.000 --> 00:20:66.000 And what textual markers we use that makes present so called quality in a draft. 00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:11.000 It makes us mindful that we use a standard of our own and not someone else's. 00:21:11.000 --> 00:21:17.000 A standard that comes from some group of language users who are racialized already. 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:21.000 And that we do not use something else to calculate grades 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:24.000 Like labor or effort or engagement 00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:29.000 Which arguably are better measures of learning and future success. 00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:32.000 When we are mindful that we grade in particular ways 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:38.000 We have a better chance to pay attention to details about our own practices and how they have happened. 00:21:38.000 --> 00:21:41.000 We have a better chance not to simply whiten the Dike. 00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:48.000 Using labor based grading contracts for instance requires even encourages this kind of mindful attention 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Because the rules of the grading game are so dramatically different from conventional standards based ones. 00:21:54.000 --> 00:21:56.000 Now let me shift gears to the personal. 00:21:56.000 --> 00:21:60.000 This is a kind of counterstory to education by standards. 00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:04.000 If I'm going to argue that your grading practices depend on your racialized White habitus then mine do too. 00:22:05.000 --> 00:22:08.000 I realize I'm also the oxymoronic Haunting Whiteness 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:15.000 As Kennedy, Middleton and Ratcliffe would say in my own discourse in my classrooms and here today. 00:22:15.000 --> 00:22:20.000 This is part of the problematic of writing assessment that led me to changing the rules of my grading game 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:22.000 To labor based grading contracts. 00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:27.000 My own brand of code meshed English like everyone's is a product of my history in schools 00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:32.000 And growing up in poor, Black and Latinx working class areas in Las Vegas. 00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:36.000 I left those discourses behind. Or so I thought. 00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:40.000 The discourse from the Academy, the White middle class discourse I worked so hard to take on 00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:45.000 Seemed to give me access and opportunities that I likely wouldn't have had otherwise. 00:22:45.000 --> 00:22:49.000 But if I'm really honest my own striving for the dominant English I currently practice 00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:53.000 Started with an impulse not to be poor 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:56.000 Not to be seen as stupid, not to be Brown 00:22:56.000 --> 00:22:59.000 Not to be pushed out of the Outer dikes of the US 00:22:59.000 --> 00:22:62.000 I thought I wanted to be White. 00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:09.000 White meant smart. And this was the lesson that all of my writing assessment ecologies taught me in school. 00:23:09.000 --> 00:23:13.000 It was the lesson I got from the grading of my own writing. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:16.000 You see I was raised on Statz Street in north Las Vegas. 00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:22.000 The so called bad part of town, the Black part. A city created by bank's redlining practices. 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:27.000 Everyone in my neighborhood except for one college aged neighbor, my brother and me were Black. 00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:31.000 We lived in roach infested government subsidized housing. 00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:35.000 By the latter years of elementary school we'd moved to a White working class neighborhood 00:23:35.000 --> 00:23:39.000 On the edge of several Latinx communities in the southeast part of Vegas. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:42.000 We moved from an Outer to an Inner dike. 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:48.000 All the while following the carrot of economic success and the promise of upward mobility. 00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:53.000 An upward mobility that was easier for us than our Black neighbors on Statz. 00:23:53.000 --> 00:23:56.000 Not. But easier did not mean easy. 00:23:57.000 --> 00:23:63.000 We were never really accepted in the new community. Inner dikes are socially engineered to Whiten themselves automatically. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:06.000 Our new White working class neighbors in Pecos Trailer Park 00:24:06.000 --> 00:24:11.000 Explicitly told us on many occasions often whenever they had the chance 00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:17.000 That they didn't want people like us living there. They didn't want us Brown folks in the trailer park. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:20.000 Although they used worse language than that. 00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:25.000 But I was determined in all the senses that word can mean. I'm thinking Marxian determination. 00:24:25.000 --> 00:24:29.000 To stay just long enough to leave. To move in the system of dikes. 00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:34.000 What was required was school, learning, literacy, the dominant English. 00:24:34.000 --> 00:24:38.000 This meant good grades. I didn't understand how docile this made me in school. 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:42.000 I didn't understand the internal colonization. 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:49.000 I didn't how grading by a single standard, a White standard in all those classrooms of my youth 00:24:49.000 --> 00:24:53.000 Were sending me one message. Be White or be gone. 00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:56.000 You are not really good enough. 00:24:56.000 --> 00:24:61.000 I loved getting good grades in school. I won't lie. But I hated how I had to get them. 00:25:01.000 --> 00:25:05.000 It was like lying everyday until the lies became me 00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:08.000 Until I couldn't tell anymore what was a lie and what was me. 00:25:10.000 --> 00:25:13.000 While I've gained much from taking on a version of the dominant White habitus 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:21.000 I've also given up or forgotten much of my own working class, ghetto, African American English that I began my schooling with. 00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:26.000 The aspects of my own habitus that I accentuate in my classrooms and scholarly work 00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:33.000 Now are ones of growing up half Japanese and working class, excuse me, working poor. 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:38.000 And of having a mom who would say she is White but I'm not convinced she fully believes it. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:41.000 We have Greek, English and Scottish ancestors on her side. 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:49.000 My mom is not fair skinned or fair haired but fair enough to pass or be White in the US. 00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:54.000 I never was. And yet she never got a college degree, was single most of my childhood 00:25:54.000 --> 00:25:57.000 And worked three jobs so that I could be poor. 00:25:59.000 --> 00:25:63.000 She would say to me Get good grades. Do the extra credit. 00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:09.000 No one asked you how you got your A. A B student is an A student who didn't apply himself. 00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:13.000 She was telling me to labor, to work. 00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:16.000 She was telling me to make them judge me by my labor. 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:20.000 My mom is smart, detail oriented and beautiful in her work ethic. 00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:24.000 She led by example. She labored everyday to exhaustion without complaints. 00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:27.000 Often collapsing on the couch late at night. 00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:30.000 I love my mom and she always showed her love to me. 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:35.000 But she was also stern about grades at school sometimes to the point of unfairness. 00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:39.000 I know it was because she didn't want me to do what she had to do. 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:46.000 To work and work and work and still never have enough money or clothes or food or time with her family. 00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:52.000 The biggest lesson I took to college and career from my mom was a simple motto. 00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:57.000 I may not be smartest guy in the room but I damn well will be the hardest working one. 00:26:57.000 --> 00:26:60.000 In college I made sure I did more work than anyone else. 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:05.000 What I realize now is that I slowly over the years turned this motto into a pedagogy. 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:10.000 Then an assessment practice which would become labor based grading contracts. 00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:15.000 What I also realize now is that I got the first part of my motto wrong. 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:21.000 To be judged the smartest guy in the room means that there's a single standard to judge what smart means. 00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:25.000 That standard's always been a White racial habitus, a White discourse. 00:27:25.000 --> 00:27:30.000 So of course by definition I literally cannot be the smartest guy in the room. 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:34.000 I cannot be a White guy speaking well, to alter the words of Quintilian. 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:41.000 Then there was a point in my adult life when I stopped trying to deny the habitus of my upbringing. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:43.000 The language of the streets of north Las Vegas. 00:27:43.000 --> 00:27:48.000 And I moved to retain enough of the old discourse to use as a critical optic and phonic aperatus 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:53.000 As a way to look and listen for the Haunting Whiteness around me and in me. 00:27:53.000 --> 00:27:60.000 This ability to deny Black discourse and adopt a White discourse is a White privilege I know I have. 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:04.000 One I must acknowledge and interrogate constantly. 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:10.000 I ain't proud of leaving my language of my nurture behind or trying to. A paradox in the problematic. 00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:14.000 Especially when I meet students today who language the way I did back then. 00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:19.000 When my own feedback on their language pressures them toward a White racial habitus. 00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:23.000 Then again, I ain't all White middle class habitus. 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:27.000 I often draw on this in my languaging with students. Another paradox. 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:33.000 I claim my Japanese heritage, my dad's family despite growing up not knowing him at all. 00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:37.000 Another paradox. My mom is Scottish, English and some Greek. 00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:44.000 Imagine that. A Japanese American usually mistaken for Latino, who started in life speaking African American English, living in African American communities 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:47.000 Yet speaking mostly standard White middle class English now. 00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:52.000 And raised by poor working class mom who sees herself as White. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:55.000 Paradoxes. 00:28:55.000 --> 00:28:58.000 Like everyone I code mesh. What I say now is code mesh. 00:28:58.000 --> 00:28:62.000 My work and the labor based grading based contracts is a part of coming to terms 00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:08.000 With my own intersectional, racialized, educational and linguistic history. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:14.000 Knowing these things about me may help you understand just how many grains of salt you should take with what I offer today. 00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:18.000 It should also suggest the ways I honor labor 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:24.000 And how deeply I have felt its importance in my life, classroom and scholarship. 00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:28.000 How it was literally all I had in school. 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:32.000 And so labor based grading contracts form a part of my social justice agenda 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:35.000 In my classroom's antiracist writing assessment ecologies. 00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:40.000 This agenda means I try to create conditions that allow for my writing classrooms 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:43.000 To question meaningfully the White racial habitus 00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:50.000 The standards that determine in the Marxian sense as in creates boundaries and applies pressures in a particular direction. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:56.000 Standards for the judgement for writing and expectations teachers and others have for their languaging. 00:29:56.000 --> 00:29:61.000 I want my students to have real choices in their labors of languaging. 00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:06.000 And how do I do this work knowing that my classrooms are always already situated 00:30:06.000 --> 00:30:14.000 In larger societal institutional ecologies that determine much of how my students act in my classroom? 00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:18.000 Their languages will be graded next quarter or semester. How do I help them through that? 00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:25.000 By changing the rules of the grading game, valuing labor over so called quality 00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:30.000 In order that we might interrogate the nature and politics of judgment. 00:30:30.000 --> 00:30:33.000 All the while practicing reading and writing 00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:38.000 With more confidence, without ranking that comes with grades and numbers. 00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:45.000 Finally let me turn one more time to a larger social justice work outside of our classrooms 00:30:45.000 --> 00:30:47.000 That I hinted at in my opening. 00:30:47.000 --> 00:30:50.000 How do we assess writing so that stop killing each other? 00:30:50.000 --> 00:30:56.000 Can changing the rules of the grading game help us do this? 00:30:56.000 --> 00:30:62.000 I take this idea from Mary Rose O'Reilley's invocation of this question that she gets from Ihab Hassan 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:06.000 In the short 1989 article in which O'Reilley offers the question. 00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:12.000 She ruminates on her teaching life to that point which began in the mid, in the 1960s. 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:19.000 She asks how did I get here? And invokes Jerry Farber's infamous article and book The Student As Inward. 00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:26.000 In Farber's book he describes students as slaves and grades are essential to their slave making docility. 00:31:26.000 --> 00:31:33.000 While I have some problems with the slave metaphor the point of grades as docile making I think is accurate. 00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:40.000 Here's Farber's description which helps us see and hear the exigence that O'Reilley is calling on. He says 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:48.000 Reads slide. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:56.000 Reads slide. 00:31:56.000 --> 00:31:70.000 Reads slide. 00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:22.000 Reads slide. 00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:31.000 Reads slide. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:35.000 O'Reilley's use of Hassan's question is prompted by a growing cynicism in her own teaching. 00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:41.000 One similar to Farber's but directed at teachers not students. 00:32:41.000 --> 00:32:46.000 And her sense that young people in the profession know rather little about the history of what 00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:50.000 To some of us in mid career is still the new pedagogy. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:54.000 The new pedagogy she speaks of is loosely the student centered classroom 00:32:54.000 --> 00:32:58.000 And discussions of power relations in the classroom. 00:32:58.000 --> 00:32:62.000 Pedagogies that look to give up power or some of it. 00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:07.000 Pedagogies that agree with many of labor based grading contracts' basic assumptions. 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:14.000 Pedagogies that look to change the rules of the pedagogy game yet ironically left the rules of the grading game the same. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:20.000 Changing the rules of grading to use labor as with labor based grading contracts 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:26.000 Shows us that in writing classrooms power can move not through standards and teachers' judgements of student writing 00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:29.000 Although teachers still judge writing 00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:31.000 But through students' own labors. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:36.000 These conditions, conditions that I believe are fairer for racial linguistically diverse students 00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:42.000 Open the writing classroom to ask similar questions that Hassan and O'Reilley do. 00:33:42.000 --> 00:33:49.000 And they start by giving standards controlled. Excuse me give up standards by. laughs. 00:33:49.000 --> 00:33:54.000 Standards controlled by teachers. Excuse me. So do standards then in English writing classrooms kill people? 00:33:54.000 --> 00:33:56.000 Maybe a better question is this. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:33:59.000 In a world of police brutality against Black and Brown people in the US 00:33:59.000 --> 00:33:63.000 Of border walls and aggressive and regressive and harmful immigration policies 00:34:03.000 --> 00:34:08.000 Of increasing violence against Muslims, of women losing their rights to control their own bodies 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:11.000 Of overt White supremacy, of mass shootings in schools 00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:16.000 Of blatant refusals to be compassionate to the hundreds of thousands of refugees around the world 00:34:16.000 --> 00:34:22.000 Where do we really think this violence, discord and killing starts? 00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:30.000 What is the nature of the ecologies in which some people find it necessary to oppress or kill others who are different from them? 00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:35.000 Who think or speak or worship differently than them? 00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:40.000 All of these decisions are made by judging others by our own standards 00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:43.000 And inevitably finding others wanting, deficient. 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:49.000 People who judge in these ways lack practices of problematizing their own existential situations. 00:34:49.000 --> 00:34:53.000 They lack in ability to sit easily with paradox. 00:34:53.000 --> 00:34:59.000 They lack the ability to feel how compassionate an act is of judgement 00:34:59.000 --> 00:34:62.000 That puts aside one's own standard, one's own habitus 00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:07.000 In order to try to approximate the habitus of another. 00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:12.000 I don't mean to suggest that there are not some cases where a person is simply mentally ill 00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:16.000 Or an anomaly, the exceptions to the norm. 00:35:16.000 --> 00:35:22.000 I'm saying that there are far fewer cases than we may realize of the exceptions. 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:27.000 Every killing is not an exception. Put together they make the rule. 00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:31.000 If literacies are bound up not just with communication but with our identities 00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:34.000 And the social formations that people find affinity with 00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:37.000 If literacy is bound up with how we understand and make our worlds 00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:46.000 If literacies are bound up to our own habitus our habits and dispositions our values and expectations of others 00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:50.000 Then a world where literacy classrooms use singular standards 00:35:50.000 --> 00:35:54.000 To determine progress and grades of locally diverse students 00:35:54.000 --> 00:35:59.000 A world that holds every student in the classroom to the same White standard of literacy 00:35:59.000 --> 00:35:64.000 Regardless of who they are or where they came from or what they hope for in their lives 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:10.000 Is a world that tacitly provides and validates the rationales and logics of White supremacy. 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:13.000 A world that validates the use of a dominant habitus 00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:19.000 To make all kinds of judgements and decisions about people elsewhere outside of school. 00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:24.000 Pardon the bluntness but conventional grading, the conventional grading game 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:29.000 The standards based grading game creates people who kill other people. 00:36:29.000 --> 00:36:33.000 Our students learn how to judge their world by the practices of judgement they experience. 00:36:33.000 --> 00:36:37.000 Experiencing standards over and over in classrooms validates by repetition the practice. 00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:40.000 If standards are always applied and people are ranked based on them 00:36:40.000 --> 00:36:44.000 If people are denied things because of them in dispassionate ways 00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:48.000 Through the first twelve or sixteen years of one's life, the crucial literacy learning years 00:36:48.000 --> 00:36:51.000 Then I think it is easier to justify judging everyone 00:36:51.000 --> 00:36:55.000 No matter the subject or decision, circumstances or situation 00:36:55.000 --> 00:36:59.000 By a single standard unproblematically. And those judgments lead 00:36:59.000 --> 00:36:63.000 If one pushes the logic far enough to violence and killing. 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:09.000 So how do we asses literacy so that people stop killing each other? Change the rules of the grading game. 00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:12.000 Changing our grading practices encourages grading ecologies 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:17.000 That can interrogate more honestly the problem of grading locally diverse students 00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:23.000 The paradox of teachers who are by necessity steeped in a White racial habitus 00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:26.000 While many of their students are not. 00:37:26.000 --> 00:37:30.000 The problem of how to help students and teacher confront and discuss bravely 00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:35.000 The racialized politics of language and its judgement in front of them and between them. 00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:40.000 Yes. We can confront such paradoxes in the judgement of language 00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:44.000 In our habitus. Then maybe some of the killing will stop. 00:37:45.000 --> 00:37:48.000 O'Reilley concludes her article saying 00:37:48.000 --> 00:37:53.000 The point is you can't just put your chairs in a circle and forget about the human condition. 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:61.000 This human condition is implicated in any classroom where a group of locally diverse or homogenous students come together 00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:04.000 To read, write and engage. 00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:08.000 What is more critical to the human condition as Hannah Arendt reminds us 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:11.000 Than work, labor, action. 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:15.000 No matter how one wishes to define these terms they reference people 00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:22.000 Toiling, exerting, struggling, trying, suffering, succeeding, failing. 00:38:23.000 --> 00:38:28.000 They reference making and historicizing building for others not just for ourselves. 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:34.000 Laboring which may be a good synonym for suffering in the college classroom 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:37.000 Is quintessentially the human condition. 00:38:37.000 --> 00:38:40.000 Maybe this is all flimsy evidence for my claims. 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:45.000 Maybe you can find a way to grade by a single standard without reproducing White language supremacy 00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:48.000 And not protect White literacy as property. 00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:52.000 Maybe you can grade by a standard without Whitening the dike. 00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:56.000 Maybe changing the grading game to use labor is not enough for you 00:38:56.000 --> 00:38:59.000 To give up your standard based grading practices. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:38:66.000 Maybe it is all too much, too radical, too anti White supremacist for you. 00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:11.000 If you. If so you might ask yourself why. 00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:17.000 Why stick with a system that so clearly fails so many in such a strong direction? 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:22.000 Why not be uncomfortable for a time for your students' sake? 00:39:22.000 --> 00:39:27.000 Because a school or program tells you to use a grade or a standard? 00:39:27.000 --> 00:39:29.000 Them schools. 00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:31.000 Who are you obligated to? 00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:37.000 A school, to yourself, to your students? 00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:41.000 What about the lesson that Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Walden? 00:39:41.000 --> 00:39:45.000 Are you not willing to live your grading life deliberately? 00:39:45.000 --> 00:39:50.000 Or do you prefer to live a teaching life in classrooms of quiet desperation? 00:39:50.000 --> 00:39:53.000 If enough of us change the rules of the grading game 00:39:53.000 --> 00:39:56.000 Maybe we might stop some of the killing. 00:39:56.000 --> 00:39:62.000 And that is a social justice project I cannot turn my back on. Can you? 00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:06.000 Thank you. The question is How do students respond to labor based grading contracts 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:11.000 So I've used grading contracts in various forms for the last fifteen or so years. 00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:16.000 In one, two, three, three different institutions, four different institutions. 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:20.000 stuttering. 00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:25.000 All but one of those institutions were predominately not White institutions. 00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:30.000 One was very historically Hispanic speaking institution which was the Fresno State. 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:37.000 Another was mostly African American institution SIUE Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:40.000 And then the one I'm at now which is in Tacoma, UW Tacoma. 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:44.000 So I have found in those places that 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:51.000 Most students that I teach, and when I say most I mean at least eight out of ten 00:40:51.000 --> 00:40:56.000 Are willing to go along with the contract and find that it helps them in the class. 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:61.000 And like it and prefer it in writing classrooms 'cause those are the questions that we ask programatically. 00:41:01.000 --> 00:41:05.000 Like do you prefer it, does it help you in your writing and so forth. 00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:08.000 So we have found that that is the case. The ones who initially 00:41:08.000 --> 00:41:13.000 And I'm saying initially, this is when I used hybrid versions. That is I used a not pure labor base but 00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:16.000 Labor up to a B and then if you wanted the high grade you 00:41:16.000 --> 00:41:21.000 The A category you had to demonstrate some quality based on judgements. 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:29.000 And that. In those cases there, it was the conventionally high performing students. 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:35.000 They tended to be in my classrooms. I think it must have been based on the classes I was teaching at the time, these first year writing classes at the time. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:39.000 They tended to be White females 'cause they were the ones that had a habitus 00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:44.000 That was most closely related to the ones that were most valued in their previous English classrooms. 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:50.000 The best, my best anecdote for this is one student. She was really a good student 00:41:50.000 --> 00:41:58.000 And she came to my class and she was struggling in the class. Didn't. Couldn't. I could tell. I could see the frustration in her face in class in our conversations. 00:42:05.000 --> 00:42:09.000 But there's. Now remember this is a hybrid version so there still kind of was at the end. 00:42:09.000 --> 00:42:16.000 And she came to my office afterwards in the middle of the semester and said. She literally starts like this 00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:19.000 Dr. Inoue, can we stop this circus? 00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:24.000 Those were her words. Can we stop. And I said Whoa, circus, What do you mean? 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:28.000 So what she meant was that she thought the class was total chaos. 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:32.000 She did not. And the reason is because the ground was just taken out from underneath her. 00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:36.000 She had no way to know. She was so used to being validated by grades from teachers 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:39.000 That she didn't know how to be the best student in the room. 00:42:39.000 --> 00:42:43.000 The thing is is that what she was really asking for come to find out was 00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:48.000 How do I do the least amount of work for the most amount of grade, right? laughter. 00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:52.000 Because that's what she was able to do because she was rewarded for being herself. 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:55.000 Which is a wonderful thing in life to be rewarded for being yourself. Right? 00:42:55.000 --> 00:42:60.000 But that wasn't what my class was about, right? It was about we're all gonna work hard. 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:07.000 So we are all. We're gonna. That's. Those are the standards we're going to set for ourselves. 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:12.000 Standards about labor not standards about my perceptions of your quality of work of the product. 00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:16.000 Since then in pure labor based I get none of those questions. 00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:19.000 That is I don't get anyone coming to me asking me to stop the circus. 00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:22.000 Instead what we get are conversations about 00:43:22.000 --> 00:43:29.000 Why do we want to change it this classroom, what are my own goals about this class that I can have that fit this? 00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:34.000 And occasionally, not very often, I would say maybe once every two years maybe 00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:39.000 I get a student or two who says This isn't the class for me. I need to be graded. 00:43:39.000 --> 00:43:45.000 And I say Okay, I'm not, I don't want to force anybody to take a class they don't want to take. Right? 00:43:45.000 --> 00:43:50.000 So, but I do let them know Hey just give me the same amount of faith 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:56.000 You give in the teachers that aren't questioning your notions about how to grade and how to progress in a class. 00:43:56.000 --> 00:43:60.000 Just give me the same respect. I've done research on this. 00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:06.000 And I've. And here's the. And in the contract the first two pages the preamble of it that explain the philosophy and theory behind it 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:11.000 I provide just a little bit of that research in a light way because it's not meant to be an academic article 00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:19.000 But it's meant to be Well I'm not doing this blindly. And I'm not you know a kind of kumbaya you know a hippie, blah blah blah. 00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:24.000 That's not my persona. But I do want to know there is research behind this. I'm not doing this blindly. 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:28.000 And we're going to talk about it, negotiate it and we're gonna come up with our contract together. 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:35.000 Yes, good question. So you're asking about how institutions have responded to labor based grading contracts. 00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:38.000 And I'm thinking you're thinking programmatically, right? Like, 00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:47.000 So at both. At the last place and the place I'm at we had programmatically we had instituted grading, labor based grading contracts in one course in a stretch sequence. 00:44:47.000 --> 00:44:51.000 So our first year writing students have a choice. They can choose the stretch sequence 00:44:51.000 --> 00:44:57.000 Two semesters, or two quarters. At Fresno State it was two semesters. Here it's two quarters. 00:44:57.000 --> 00:44:62.000 Or they can choose the one, the single course which was the one that was existing before I got there. 00:45:02.000 --> 00:45:07.000 So we. So half choose the stretch and half choose the single course. 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:11.000 And so the first course in that stretch is mandatory 00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:15.000 By how we passed it in through senate and everything. 00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:20.000 It's gotta be used using a grading contract and it's a pass fail, credit no credit. 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:26.000 The course after that is a graded course but it, you can use a grading contract but we don't demand that of all teachers. 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:32.000 It turns out that about eighty percent of the teachers who start using it end up using it. 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:38.000 That's the same rate at Fresno State because they preferred the system. 00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:43.000 So in that context I'll use Fresno State as an example. 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:50.000 So when we did this we got questions about grade inflation and well you're just. How do we, you know. They. 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:53.000 The conversation started this way in a faculty senate meeting. 00:45:53.000 --> 00:45:58.000 A Gen Ed professor said I get all these students. I've got a class of 200 and I've got to assign a paper. 00:45:58.000 --> 00:45:62.000 I've got to be very careful with it but I get these papers in there and my students can't write. 00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:08.000 And what. You're the director of writing. You're supposed to. And you're giving out grades with the grading contract. I know the grading contract. I've read some of this. 00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:12.000 And he had. He was quite informed about what grading contracts were. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:16.000 And I said Well what are we talking about here, like how pervasive is this problem? 00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:21.000 I said How many people do you have in your class? He said about 200. I said how many students are we talking about that 00:46:21.000 --> 00:46:25.000 Where you're having these deep problems with their literacy? 00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:27.000 He said About like six. 00:46:27.000 --> 00:46:31.000 And I said it sounds like most of your students are doing just fine, like. 00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:36.000 And so you can maybe funnel your efforts to those six students who might need more help. 00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:40.000 But so what we did then after that. That didn't solve the problem. What I did was 00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:46.000 I took the grade distributions of every college and department at Fresno Sate for the last year including our writing program 00:46:46.000 --> 00:46:49.000 And just simply displayed them. 00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:57.000 What turns out was was that no, it did not change the grade distribution of our program to look different than any other department or program 00:46:57.000 --> 00:46:60.000 Except for two, three exceptions. 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:04.000 But I'll touch on two of them because there's two that are the same. 00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:06.000 The two exceptions were 00:47:06.000 --> 00:47:13.000 The business department, the business college, the college of business and the honors college. 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:18.000 The business college had a bell curve. It was the most. It was the best bell. 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:22.000 And given the nature of the business college we know exactly why that was. 00:47:22.000 --> 00:47:29.000 Those are the expectations and assumptions that the professors went into those courses having at that place. 00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:36.000 Because of the nature of the folks that worked there and the kind of research they did and what their assumptions were going into any group population they might be looking at or studying. 00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:40.000 So they get bell shaped distributions. Everyone else had slopes. 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:45.000 More A's and B's and C's and fewer D's, F's and withdrawals. 00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:49.000 So it looked like this, right? Same with our writing program. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:56.000 The honors college however in the year that we did this study gave out one B and everything else was A's. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:47:60.000 And I said if you're looking for grade inflation you should look at the honors college. 00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:05.000 Now nobody was complaining about the honors college having problems with their grade, right? 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:11.000 And the. I argue that the reason is you have very different assumptions about who those students are 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:16.000 And where they come from, what they're doing. So you don't question the A in an honors college, in an honors class 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:19.000 But you'll question the grade here. 00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:24.000 I said I'd rather think that if there's A's or B's that means there's some good teachers and good students. 00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:29.000 Students are doing work and teachers are doing a good job helping them through that work. 00:48:29.000 --> 00:48:35.000 That may not be always the assumption so I'd think we'd have to like examine the assumptions we make about how we're coming to conclusion about that. 00:48:35.000 --> 00:48:39.000 But that has been. And after that there's been no questions about it. 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:45.000 Both students always seem to prefer the grading contract in every place I've been. 00:48:45.000 --> 00:48:52.000 And there've been no real serious arguments against 00:48:52.000 --> 00:48:56.000 That is no. There's never been a threat for this to go away. 00:48:56.000 --> 00:48:63.000 If fact if anything we've been. There's been more interest in finding out more about how to do them in particular disciplines or 00:49:03.000 --> 00:49:07.000 Or in classes that have certain content that might like a chemistry class 00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:12.000 That might have also some objective tests that they have to give and so forth. 00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:16.000 So then there's some hybrid versions that might be useable, some workarounds 00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:21.000 That we don't really usually have to worry about in humanities classes or literacy classes, literature classes. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:27.000 What was my response to students' resistance in particular this one about the stopping the circus? 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:32.000 Well, we talked through the contract and its philosophy 00:49:32.000 --> 00:49:35.000 And said this is the assumption in our class. 00:49:35.000 --> 00:49:39.000 It's just that you've never had to have this assumption so the rules changed for you. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:45.000 And so I usually, well now I think I've found ways that I'd don't have this privately. It's now a class conversation. 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:50.000 I'll usually draw on the board or show a slide that has a bell curve and a triangle. 00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:57.000 And the triangle is like a pyramid, right. And I say like Where were you on this bell curve distribution in high school? 00:49:58.000 --> 00:49:63.000 Right, so like in terms of your writing? And they'll go Oh, well honors class I get A and B. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:09.000 Of course it was! You're in college that's, those are the kind of requirements to be here for most people. 00:50:09.000 --> 00:50:14.000 So now you take that slice and now you have to make a new distribution over it, right. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:17.000 Do you want me to grade that way, like is that, that's the standard you want? 00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:22.000 And now you're grading against your peers who were also A students in high school. 00:50:22.000 --> 00:50:27.000 The problem is of course that those who get those were at the top of that pyramid. 00:50:27.000 --> 00:50:30.000 Everybody else is down at the bottom fighting for the scraps or whatever's left over. 00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:35.000 And so now that if feels like I've just turned this triangle upside down 00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:39.000 It feels like everybody can get. 'Cause initially they would say Like so 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:45.000 That person can do crappy work and turn in a crappy paper and I turn in a really great paper and we get the same grade? 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:52.000 And I say We're not doing grades but maybe. 00:50:52.000 --> 00:50:57.000 How much labor did you do, right? It's the labor that matters. So it's just a different mindset. 00:50:57.000 --> 00:50:60.000 And we train ourselves in the first week or two 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:05.000 To understand what it really means for us as people in an ecology 00:51:05.000 --> 00:51:09.000 To behave differently when we start to really value labor. 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:15.000 I know from first hand experience that students want their labor valued. 00:51:15.000 --> 00:51:19.000 I mean I'm sure we've all gotten that meeting with a student who was disgruntled for a grade 00:51:19.000 --> 00:51:26.000 And they came and one of the things they said to you after they didn't understand why they got the grade was But I worked so hard on this paper. 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:33.000 Now I'm telling you work hard and you get rewarded for that. Like that's it. That's all you got to do. I will trust you. 00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:38.000 And it does require a different amount, different kind of trust in the classroom. 00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:45.000 So I have to trust that if my students say I did this work, I spent two hours reading or I did this thing, I've got to trust them. 00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:50.000 Just like in conventional systems you have to trust that they're not plagiarizing and turning in something from Wikipedia. 00:51:50.000 --> 00:51:55.000 Now maybe sometimes we don't do that. And I think that's a problem as well. That's a different set of problems. 00:51:55.000 --> 00:51:59.000 But it's a problem. It stems from the same issue, right? 00:51:59.000 --> 00:51:65.000 Why do we not trust our students, because they've cheated in the past or we've known some? 00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:11.000 What I know about brain research is that our brains are more finely tuned to negative feedback. 00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:17.000 Something negative in our because that triggers the flight mechanism to save our lives, right? 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:20.000 The saber tooth tiger that we see or whatever it is, right? 00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:25.000 But our brains still work the same way. So we get to see the negatives. Those six students in the classroom 00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:30.000 Who somehow we can't read their writing because they just, they don't have the skills yet to be able to do this work that we're asking them to do 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:34.000 And we think that's the problem. We've got this pervasive problem. 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:40.000 You don't really have a problem. We don't. What we have is simply a moment shift our paradigms. 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:45.000 Shift our perspective on what we're valuing in the space and students have to do the same kind of shifting. 00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:49.000 They got to learn Oh, my labor can be valued? 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:52.000 And that takes some work in a classroom. 00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:56.000 But not as much as one would think. More students are wiling. 00:52:56.000 --> 00:52:61.000 Yeah, thank you that's a really great. Yeah, problematizing rubrics and our expectations around them. 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:04.000 I love rubrics because they're so COIK. 00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:09.000 If you. Tech writers might know what that is. Clear Only If Known. 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:13.000 stuttering. 00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:15.000 What's a good one? 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:21.000 Say you have a dimension on a rubric about using evidence to support one's claims. 00:53:21.000 --> 00:53:25.000 Maybe it's relevant and sufficient evidence, clear evidence. 00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:29.000 Well what the xx is clear? I mean that's. What's clear to me or relevant to me might not be to you. 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:36.000 Or what. Or maybe that's what I'm trying to do do is show you how this is relevant and you're not seeing it and if you're not able to have that perspective you. 00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:42.000 So my rubrics are very different now and they change dramatically because of that. 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:47.000 But it's always good to look at others outside of my classroom. 00:53:47.000 --> 00:53:53.000 Because they. 'Cause they're a little easier to problematize only because, we my rubric are dimensions based rubrics instead of standards based rubrics. 00:53:53.000 --> 00:53:57.000 Standard based rubrics then will embody that. But it also is. I mean. 00:53:57.000 --> 00:53:63.000 Ask. All you gotta do is say What does that look like, What's the model in your head? Yeah. What's that. 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:10.000 And my followup question is the one that I ask students to take outside of class and come back with is 00:54:10.000 --> 00:54:15.000 Show me what you think that looks like. That is, what's the ideal in your head? 00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:19.000 And without giving them any other instruction 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:24.000 You can find these historical examples and then do some demographic research. 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:30.000 Who are these people, where do they come from, where do they fit racially, gender, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:35.000 And then we can start to begin to see some of how that habitus becomes or gets reenforced and reenforced, right? 00:54:35.000 --> 00:54:42.000 I always give the example of the writer that I tried to frame myself after 00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:48.000 In my early years in college was E.B. White. How ironic his name is E.B. White, isn't it? 00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:52.000 I mean, and I still think he's a wonderful writer 00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:57.000 And I still find his work very good, but E.B. White is very White, right? 00:54:57.000 --> 00:54:62.000 But even I had a difficult time, colonizing myself doing this. 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:08.000 And not, that's not to denigrate any of the fine work that E.B. White did even though I am not a fan of Strunk and White. 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:11.000 Not a fan. That is the most problematic. 00:55:11.000 --> 00:55:16.000 Although maybe good to use in a class like that where you're looking at rubrics and understand standards and problematizing them. 00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:20.000 But yeah, so I like to offer that as an example. So what's your E.B. White? 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:25.000 What's that author and see how it matches up to your history. 00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:32.000 I am not. I've never even lived or been on the East Coast in that Northeast area. 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:36.000 He was in Maine most of his life. I know nothing about his life. 00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:39.000 And yet I think I want to be, which I never could be. 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:44.000 He's asking about whether there's a collection of resources that I have or can provide 00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:48.000 For folks who are interested in things like grading contracts templates of that and such. 00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:54.000 Yes, and in fact I have made a special collection just for you all at this school. 00:55:54.000 --> 00:55:60.000 But you have to get it at the workshop. Although the handout has links to it for these resources 00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:04.000 And that has a URL and it can be shared after the workshop 00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:10.000 To the University and folks can feel free to plagiarize, use it, try and change stuff. 00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:14.000 Whatever you want to use. It's gonna look pretty overwhelming 00:56:14.000 --> 00:56:17.000 Because of the nature of what I have in it. 00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:24.000 Labor logs, and templates, and grading contracts, and charters for compassion and other stuff 00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:30.000 But I would say start with what you feel like you can start with and then move from there. 00:56:30.000 --> 00:56:36.000 I didn't have all of this fully formed. It took me years to of testing and trying things out. 00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:40.000 And my best collaborators were my students. 00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:45.000 I used to say I learn so much from my students every quarter. I really didn't mean that. 00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:50.000 I now really do mean that. Like my students. And that's only changing my stance in the classroom, really. 00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:56.000 And I'm not saying I'm perfect at it but I think having a differently oriented classroom 00:56:56.000 --> 00:56:60.000 Especially when it comes to grades. I have literally nothing over my students. 00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:04.000 I do not have a grade over them. They cannot. They can do what they want to do. 00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:08.000 That is in the sense that they do not have to please me. 00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:13.000 But if I say I don't understand this part in your paper 00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:18.000 what are you doing here with this? Tell me about what was going on there and here's what I was expecting. 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:23.000 Because this is the move that I tend to see in this kind of a paper. 00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:25.000 That's the conversation that we have. 00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:31.000 It's not so what do you want? How do I get the A? It's not that. 00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:37.000 I think that we have to think simultaneously 00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:41.000 about the micro and the macro perspective. 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:45.000 So let's just assume that that's true. 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:50.000 That this would disadvantage because let's say they don't have the dominant English, right? 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:52.000 But there's a problem with that but I'll get to that in a second. 00:57:52.000 --> 00:57:54.000 But let's say that that's true. 00:57:54.000 --> 00:57:60.000 Then what have we done? We've perpetuated a system that we know is already unfair. 00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:04.000 And what we've done really is help this student get by. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:08.000 At what cost, also? And never really giving the student a choice either. 00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:13.000 So I'm not saying that there aren't students who say I want to learn the dominant English in your classroom. 00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:15.000 I want you to help me with that. 00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:19.000 If that is their goal, who am I, that was my goal 00:58:19.000 --> 00:58:22.000 but even if I wasn't that critical about what that meant. 00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:26.000 But I'm not gonna give it to them just as a fact. 00:58:26.000 --> 00:58:30.000 I'm gonna offer them a historicized version of that. We're still gonna problematize those things. 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:35.000 But if that's what you want to learn at this moment and that's what you're prepared to do then OK. 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:42.000 But to the larger question about does this prepare, no the research doesn't show that. 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:48.000 The research doesn't show for instance, let's pretend that we're on a semester system, 00:58:48.000 --> 00:58:52.000 that 15 weeks of my instruction, as good as it is, as great of a teacher as I am 00:58:52.000 --> 00:58:57.000 that I'm changing their 20 year practice of language in 15 weeks. 00:58:57.000 --> 00:58:59.000 And it's highly disciplinary. 00:58:59.000 --> 00:58:65.000 I may not even know what discipline or area of civic life they're going to write in or communicate in. 00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:09.000 I don't know that either. I don't even know what the changes are going to be in five or 10 years. 00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:17.000 Adra Lutchford has liked to say, someone in my field of rhetoric composition 00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:20.000 she used to say 00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:24.000 teaching writing changes about every six years like dramatically. 00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:28.000 So every six years the needs and purposes and everything you do in that classroom changes dramatically. 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:30.000 And I think that's generally true 00:59:30.000 --> 00:59:34.000 that we're not doing the same things today that we did a decade ago or even six years ago. 00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:39.000 If that's the case that's because I think that's how language is in a society of people. 00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:42.000 We're dynamic and we change and so on and so forth. 00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:47.000 The best way I can prepare my students for their future language needs 00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:51.000 is to give them flexible skills that are rhetorically based 00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:56.000 and generalizable to the things they're going to do with language. 00:59:56.000 --> 00:59:60.000 Not specific things: OK do it this way. 01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:04.000 So what that's meant for me is questioning judgement. 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:06.000 How does judgement happen? How do you judge language? 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:09.000 Where do we get our judgements and our assumptions about language from? 01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:14.000 What do you think works right now? What do you think will work in the next classs? 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:17.000 How do we know that? And keep asking those questions. 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:22.000 So just like I have to continually ask myself how am I changing? 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000 What are my communication needs today or tomorrow or for this thing or for that project? 01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:32.000 So I think that I wanna say yes that prepares students. 01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:40.000 I'd rather have a community with a rich linguistic 01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:45.000 pool of discourse than a homogenous one. 01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:50.000 Because like in agriculture all it takes is one virus and the entire orchard's gone. 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:55.000 So the same thing I think applies to language and ideas. 01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:58.000 All we need is one Donald Trump 01:00:58.000 --> 01:00:59.000 and it spoils a lot of stuff. 01:00:59.000 --> 01:00:62.000 Sorry I don't mean to make this that kind of political. 01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:06.000 But I think that's all it takes is one kind of change 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:08.000 or one kind of affirmation within that 01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:14.000 and if the entire discourse is susceptible to it then it's like a disease. 01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:20.000 applause 01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:25.000 music