• Cloyd Barnwell's Phrasing of the Validity Claim
• Jeanne's Rephrasing of the Claim in Academic Discourse

The issue of testing is one fraught with affect. On the one hand, educators retreat behind the barriers of "standards," and on the other, students retreat behind cries of injustice. Each is a justifiable perspective, but there is no totalizing answer. One of the dilemmas here is that the academy for so long has sought some universal truth about learning. There is none. We learn throughout our lives, in the most unexpected ways, and we coordinate our learning to produce the most unexpected lifeworlds.

Exams are a very special form of testing, used generally to certify competence. What on earth does that mean? It means that when we give an exam, we are attempting to certify, to verify a person's knowledge within a given field. So, if sociologists in the real world should be able to discuss intelligently the theories of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, an exam would ask the candidates to discuss a selection of the theories of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. We would compare those answers to those we would expect our professional sociologists to give, and place the examinee somewhere on a continuum from "knows little to nothing" all the way to "knows at a level similar to those of professionals".

---

---

Cloyd Barnwell's Phrasing of the Validity Claim

On May 15, 2000, Cloyd Barnwell wrote:

Hi Jeanne,
I just read Exams! Exams! Exams!, and I found it to be very interesting. You spoke of teachers becoming immune to giving out grades to students, which makes them structurally violent. I agree with your report. I can tell from my experience that some teachers do not want to give or disappoint students with bad reports on their performance. I understand the process of this evaluation, but I would like to see more teachers resort to your methods. I know there are people who criticize the way you grade or the way your class is structured, but the way I perceive your system, is that the students must show interest. Then, ask questions along with comments to show you that they are interested. After all of this, the teacher will determine the grade of the student.

For instance, in my English 350 class, I had worked really hard this semester to improve my writing and the teacher knows that after this class I will continue the process. My point is that, I think from my effort I deserve an A+, but from my performance I am going to receive a B-.

Thanks for listening, Jeanne. Cloyd Barnwell.........

---

---

Jeanne's Rephrasing of the Claim in Academic Discourse

On Thursday, May 25, 2000, jeanne responded:

Thank you, Cloyd, for sharing your perceptions. I am impressed at how well you reported this data.

• You started with the file you were reading. So I knew where you were on the site.
• You found a point in that file that was a good starting point for what you wanted to tell me: good faith on the part of teachers. So you began with a point of agreement. Good negotiating skill.
• You even said, "I agree," and then gave the evidence on which you based your agreement: personal experience. Good argument technique.
• The suggestion you offered to solve the dilemma was non-violent assessment of learning, which is the technical name for what I do. So you offered a suggestion. Good negotiation.
• Then you recognized the disadvantages of the solution, acknowledging that not all agree with it. Good argumentation, and good academic discourse.
• Having set the social context, you then made your arguments in favor of non-violent assessment by describing the process as you understand it in your own words. Good technique to show grasp of a construct. Also shows confidence in your own understanding.
• Your analysis of non-violent assessment places "student interest" at the focal point. I think that's a good analysis. It reflects Alfie Kohn's concern for intrinsic motivation in our learning.
• Then you move your argument back to a situation that leaves you less than comfortable: a course in which your certification results do not reflect well the effort you put into that certification. This is a good concluding piece that comes back to your earlier solid recognition of the social context of the college. Which grade is primary? Which grade is fair? The grade that places your English writing on a continuum that covers the whole range of writing skills? Or the grade that reflects your effort? Are we grading you as a fungible worker to be snapped up, ready-stamped by the corporate or government world? Or are we grading you as a unique learner in a society that can be no better than the realized potential of its members?
• Yes, there is extraordinary bias in the last sentence. I just hate being treated as fungible, and stamped as "prime" or "not prime" beef. "Fungible" may only be recognized as pejorative, if you have a large vocabulary, but it is pejorative. The "stamping of beef" connotes the most callous categorization, the grading of meet from killed cattle. These pejoratives are contrasted with "unique," with "learner," (not "student," since that brings in pejorative connotations in an academic context), and "realized potential." That's bad academic writing, folks. I could have suppressed the affect, made the argument, and let the reader conclude without my passion. Notice that Cloyd did not use pejoratives, did not resort to emotional appeals. Good academic writing, Cloyd.

  The only clue that Cloyd gives that he might share my bias is in that last phrase: "Thanks for listening, Jeanne." And that brings us full circle, back to structural violence. If our project does nothing more than provide a forum in which someone is listening in good faith, then the project has started us along the road to non-violence.

  Every great thinker I admire has suggested that "awareness" of both "self" and "other" is the point at which non-violence must begin. (Notice I threw in "admire" as an escape clause, since consideringRorty and Heidegger, I think Heidegger might disagree with me, but I don't "admire" his disagreement. Or maybe Heidegger just wouldn't mind the violence.

• Cloyd's expression of thanks for a project that is "aware," that "listens in good faith," is an expression of a validity claim, albeit a tenuous one. And I think this is typical of how validity claims come to be expressed in public discourse. The need for "awareness," for the just "hearing of the validity claim" is there. But, faced with the overwhelming power of institutional authority which recognizes only the certification claim, it's hard to present the claim for recognition of effort, of other "learning," less easily quantified and categorized. This is the point at which Dear Habermas has insisted that legitimacy in public discourse demands that those with experience in discourse come to the aid of those who are tentatively making validity claims, well founded in the affective domain, but poorly founded in the more esoteric cognitive domain. In plain English, since I speak academic discourse, a part of what legitimacy demands of me is that I come to the aid of new colleagues, like Cloyd, to help them around the language of academic discourse to best explain their claims in the interest of justice.

  To this end, let me suggest that Cloyd has presented an excellent claim: that grades should reflect more than paper and pencil tests of competence in highly categorized, and consequently, structurally violent social systems. Cloyd has suggested that more sophisticated measures of learning should reflect the internalization of a willingness to learn, the effectiveness of incorporation of present learning into a knowledge base, a more effective use of a zero-point, so that present, not prior, learning is measured, and that such measures be used non-violently to serve the learner, as well as the hypothetical employer, as feedback and guidance into a satisfying role as a member of this society.

---

---