The Grading Curve and the Moral Ascent: A Virtue Centered Approach to Improving Student Scores

Intégrité: A Faith and Learning Journal Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 2020): 20-33

The Grading Curve and the Moral Ascent: A Virtue-Centered Approach to Improving Student Scores

D. Glenn Butner, Jr. Assistant Professor of Theology and Christian Ministry Sterling College

Though commonly used, the grading curve remains a controversial aspect of assessment in higher education due to its effects on the learning process and student/teacher relationships. Typically, a grading curve is used in one of two circumstances. In the first, a curve is meant to combat grade inflation on assignments or tests in courses where a significant percentage of students attain a high score. Redistributing scores across a wider range fights against grade inflation, but the outcome is sure to hurt student satisfaction, reducing grades to a rare commodity instead of indexing them to concept and skill mastery, and distracting students from mastery of a subject by causing them to focus on comparisons with peers instead (Lang 141; Breese 108–9). The second use of curves is meant to solve the opposite problem, providing an opportunity for more students to pass a class in circumstances where a significant percentage have done poorly on a large assignment or test. However, increasing scores by using a norm-referenced grading curve has been shown to reduce students’ sense of selfefficacy and motivation, while widespread poor performance in an assignment or exam is likely to suggest that the professor should change expectations or teaching methods (Haley; Lang 141). Admittedly, in some circumstances a professor has reasonable expectations for learning outcomes that assessment is gauging, yet the class may perform poorly as a whole to the extent that there is pressure on the professor to reduce expectations to unreasonably low levels, in which case a norm-referenced curve may be more appealing. This article proposes an alternative to using a norm-referenced curve and to lowering learning outcome expectations in contexts where student performance across the class is poor due to factors not obviously related to faculty methods or expectations. In such circumstances, a method I have come to call a retroactive curve may be a viable alternative. Retroactive curves are characterized by three features: 1) retroactive curves increase the score of an assignment based on performance on future assignments of a comparable nature; 2) they are optional, requiring students to “opt in” through some mechanism; and 3) the preferred mechanism for opting in to a retroactive curve is some form of remedial instruction or exercise that addresses the problems leading to poor performance in the assignment to which the curve will apply. Retroactive curves are not curves in the sense that they distribute student scores in the entire class along a bell curve, but they do curve the scores of an individual student over the course of the

semester based on improved performance. I will argue that retroactive curves are pedagogically effective, but more importantly that when properly deployed these curves better meet the objective of forming intellectual and moral virtues in accordance with the goals of Christian higher education. With discussions of faith and learning increasingly emphasizing the role of practices in the classroom (Smith and Smith, Teaching and Christian Practices; Smith, On Christian Teaching), it is important to consider not only the pedagogical effectiveness of a retroactive curve, but also the ways that such curves may play a role in spiritual or moral formation. Here, virtue ethics is a particularly beneficial dialogue partner, so I will use Thomas Aquinas, Stanley Hauerwas, and Alasdair MacIntyre to explore aspects of virtue theory that will both inform the best practice of using a retroactive curve and help to identify aspects of a retroactive curve that may be amenable to developing intellectual and moral virtues. I will begin the article by outlining the basics of the retroactive curve, the circumstances that prompted me to develop such a curve, and limited statistical data concerning their success. Then, I will move to an analysis of the ethics of the retroactive curve by considering the curve in connection with habits, narratives, and community as components of virtue formation.

The Retroactive Curve

I first developed the retroactive curve at Sterling College, a small, Christian liberal arts institution with a required theology and Bible core curriculum. Sterling draws a wide range of students, some quite serious about their faith, and others who know virtually nothing about Christianity, some with a strong academic foundation, and others who are ill-prepared for a college classroom. The retroactive curve was first implemented in a 100-level general education class, Introduction to Old Testament, with a total of fifty-four students enrolled between two course sections. Most students were first year students in their first semester, and the many who were ill prepared for college or who had no personal faith or religious engagement quickly appeared to conclude that they had no hope in the course. The course was during my first semester of teaching in a small Christian liberal arts context, and partly due to these factors, I had found that students struggled more than anticipated on my first midterm in comparison with students at the larger research institution where I had used a similar midterm previously. I did not find the learning goals unreasonable, and I did not want to lower my expectations for fear of failing to provide substantive content for the many who were academically gifted or more serious about their own faith commitments. I saw no obvious pedagogical mistakes that I could correct, nor were any identified in peer review or when I sought feedback from students. Therefore, I implemented a simple version of the retroactive curve with the intent of providing students hope of still passing the class. I worried that a normreferenced curve would communicate that my test was too difficult and would undermine students’ motivation to succeed, as research has indicated (Haley; Ambrose et al. 76–80), but I hoped that a retroactive curve would help students

build the proficiencies that they needed to master content while providing them with a reasonable path toward success in the class. When I returned the midterm, students were informed that their midterm grade would improve based on their performance on the next midterm according to the pattern outlined in table 1. In this instance, I offered to raise the first midterm score matching it to the second midterm, within limits (i.e., a student scoring a 50 and then a 90 would be marked in the gradebook as having a 75 and 90). To be eligible to participate in the curve, students were required to complete additional worksheets with practice exercises and to turn in an exam wrapper which I allowed them to fill out during the class when I returned the first midterm.

This exam wrapper required students to reflect on what they could do to improve their performance on the next exam and also gave them an opportunity to provide feedback on how I was teaching, since part of the problem could have been my pedagogical mistakes. The sheet also provided an opportunity for students to share whether they wanted to meet in person to discuss any of the ideas they shared in the exam wrapper (see appendix). There was a demonstrable difference between the twenty-three students who chose to participate in the curve by completing the remedial worksheet and exam wrapper and those who did not participate. The average score of the participants increased by 1.5 points out of 100, but the average decreased among non-participants by 6.5 points. Moreover, 56.5% of students participating in the curve improved or maintained their score, while only 37.5% of non-participants improved or maintained their score. Half of curve participants whose scores decreased did so by five points or less, while only 20% of non-participants scores dropped by such small numbers. Factoring in that six of ten curve participants whose scores decreased in midterm two had an A or A- on both the first and second midterm, this data seemed promising enough to continue the experiment. I had two leading possible interpretations of the data. First, it may be that students who participated in the retroactive curve were those who were most motivated to succeed in the class and would have outpaced non-participants under any circumstances, retroactive curve or not. This hypothesis did not seem to fit the data. Many of the A students actually dropped in score due to a few difficult questions that stumped most of the class, and several who participated in the

Table 1

FIRST EXAM SCORE: CURVE ON FIRST EXAM IF SECOND EXAM IS HIGHER: F Match second exam (limit: 75) D Match second exam (limit: 80) C-, C, C+ Match second exam (limit:85) B-, B, B+ Match second exam (limit:90) A-, A Match second exam (limit: 95) If both scores are above 95, I will change two reading quizzes to a 100.

curve still got an F, suggesting the possibility of continuing insufficient effort at least among these students. Most of the largest increases in score came from students who performed at worse than C level on both tests. This led me to a second interpretation: it may be that the retroactive curve was helping students improve in concept and skill mastery, but this improvement was somewhat offset by other factors. Perhaps the second midterm was more difficult than the first, or the students had not had enough time to make necessary improvements, or the curve did not provide enough support to maximize benefits from the curve. I chose to focus my efforts on the third possibility. With moderate success in hand, I sought to expand the retroactive curve. I offered the same improvement in score on the second midterm to students who improved their final exam grade. I showed students the data from the first midterm, demonstrating with data the benefits of working to improve their abilities and scores. Students were still required to complete an exam wrapper after the second midterm and remedial worksheets to benefit from the curve, but they were also now required to visit me during office hours for a personalized plan on how to improve their learning. Many students exceeded the minimum requirement here, scheduling several office visits. For that reason, I also offered an optional, supplemental secondary review session for the final exam late one afternoon for any interested students. If working with students was paying off, then the improvement in score for students using the curve between the second midterm and final should continue and perhaps amplify in comparison with the results of the curve between the first and second midterm. The data on the final exam was even more promising. Students who participated in the curve process improved their final exam scores in comparison with the second midterm by an average of 6.4 points, whereas those who did not participate in the curve decreased their final exam scores in comparison with their second midterm by 1.5 points. The net change between the three exams for students opting into the curve was an improvement of 7.9 points, while those who did not participate dropped in score by 8 points. The average score on the final exam for curve participants in the retroactive curve was a high C+, and no participant failed to earn the C- course grade that is necessary to pass a general education course at Sterling College. Perhaps most striking, though, was the impact that the curve had on a student who had opted not to participate in the curve offered between the first and second midterm, during which time his score dropped from a C- to a D-, and he showed little engagement elsewhere in the course. Once he was convinced with data that effort was paying off for other students, he participated in the curve between the second midterm and final exam, even exceeding required office visits, scoring a B+ on the final exam and raising his course score to passing. Since my success in this course, I have implemented several versions of the retroactive curve in different classes (and will be sharing aspects of these experiments later in the article). Curve points awarded, requirements for opting into the curve, and frequency of summative assessment are all possible variables that can be changed, so the curve can be tailored to the needs of a particular faculty member and/or course. My colleagues took note and implemented

variants of the same curve with positive results. For example, Tim Gabrielson deployed the curve in an Introduction to New Testament course taught to thirtynine students with a similar three-exam semester schedule. To participate in this curve, students were required to complete an exam wrapper, based on which he scheduled meetings with students as he deemed them necessary. No remedial worksheet was required to opt into the curve. Students who participated in the curve had a net gain of 7.3 points between the first exam and final exam, while students who did not participate in the curve gained 4.1 points between the two exams. Notably, only 15% of students opting into the curve saw a decline in score between the first midterm and the final, while 38% who did not participate in the curve declined in score. The difference here is apparent, but not as marked as the difference in my pilot classes. This may be due to a decline in remedial work (no worksheet was required and not all students met with the professor), or the numbers could be skewed because one of thirteen students who did not participate in the curve saw an increase of twenty points between the first midterm and final through independent work on their own. I will remark further on factors that may lead the curve to be successful throughout the paper, but at present it should be clear that there is some pedagogical benefit to deploying a curve of this nature. Now, it remains to consider the way a retroactive curve relates to ethical questions of moral formation.

A Retroactive Curve and Moral Formation

While ensuring that students have a pathway to success in concept and skill mastery is important, arguably moral and intellectual formation remains an even higher goal in a Christian liberal arts setting. This is where the retroactive curve far exceeds the benefits of a typical norm-referenced curve, because the former can be situated into the habits, narratives, and communities necessary for moral and intellectual formation in virtue in a manner that norm-referenced curves cannot. I turn now to consider the retroactive curve and moral formation in the context of three aspects of virtue theory.

Virtue and Habit

Few theologians within the tradition have as extensively explored the concept of virtue as has Thomas Aquinas, a perennial source of insight for Protestants and Catholics alike. Aquinas understands virtue as a particular kind of habit, where habit is defined as an acquired disposition toward good or ill (I-II, Q. 49, A. 2). All habits, Aquinas explains, are oriented toward an end, a telos (I-II, Q. 49, A. 2), but the virtues are those habits oriented toward the perfection of a thing’s nature (I-II, Q. 55, A. 1). A virtue, then, is a disposition toward the good end toward which a thing’s nature is directed by virtue of the divine plan for creation. Virtue can be further subcategorized in a number of ways. Colleges and universities should be concerned both with intellectual virtues like wisdom, science, and understanding and moral virtues like temperance, courage, and

justice. As we shall see, both kinds of virtues are helpful dispositions to orient the learner toward the telos of knowledge. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and love are dispositions that are only possible through the supernatural aid of God’s grace, but the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude can be attained without direct divine intervention. Those intellectual virtues that are oriented toward goods knowable through human reason can also be obtained through habitual human action (Aquinas I-II Q. 63, A. 2). Aquinas’s explanation of virtue as acquired habit helps us understand certain moral and intellectual features of learning. A principles-based approach to learning might advocate certain maxims like “it is important to study well for tests,” or “good students prioritize studying over partying.” A given student in a class may accept both principles without thereby being able to successfully balance study and recreational activities, or without studying well. Thomist moral philosophy typically explains such failures in terms of the practical syllogism, a nearly instantaneous, subconscious, and unevaluated form of syllogistic reasoning that governs the daily decisions of moral agents (Westberg 39-41). The practical syllogism begins with the major premise, a moral maxim like “it is important to study well for tests.” A minor premise would then specify a particular circumstance and judgment at hand, for example “re-reading the textbook is studying well.” The conclusion follows: “I should therefore re-read the textbook.” Of course, the practical syllogism is subconscious and rapid, so few if any students would be aware that this sort of syllogistic judgment is being made. Nevertheless, Thomists maintain that such reasoning lies behind many daily activities and decisions. The practical syllogism is governed by virtue, particularly the moral virtue of prudence and the intellectual virtue of wisdom. Wisdom, referring to the habit of making good judgments or choices (Aquinas, II-II Q. 45 A. 2), and prudence, which names the cardinal virtue that disposes us to make judgments and actions that accord with our natural telos, are active in filling out the major and minor premises of the practical syllogism. In this case, prudence and wisdom must discern which moral maxim ought to apply in a given situation (Gilson 234). For example, a student who knows that she ought to prioritize studying over partying may also know that she ought to be a good friend. Which major premise should be selected when she is invited to a party with a socially insecure friend who seeks her company? After all, in this circumstance prioritizing studying may not always coincide with being a good friend. Even if a judgment is rightly made that the circumstance should require studying over supporting an anxious friend at a party, the moral virtue of temperance is necessary to restrain the desire to enjoy the company of friends and instead prepare for an imminent exam. Likewise, a student who accepts the major premise that it is important to study well will still require prudence, wisdom, and the intellectual virtue of understanding applied to how learning works in order to fill in the minor premise. In the above example, the minor premise of “re-reading the textbook is studying well” is in fact a flawed premise, as evidence-based studies suggest that re-reading is not a significantly successful study strategy (Brown et al. 14-16). These examples demonstrate that

a student with the right intention, principles, and motivation may still fall short in their academic pursuits if they lack certain critical moral and intellectual virtues. This exploration of the virtues as acquired habits bears directly on the comparison between a norm-referenced curve and a retroactive curve. Both curves may be used to raise student scores to meet the institutional or personal desire to pass a certain number of students in a class. Pedagogically, the normreferenced curve does not clearly aid student learning. Most importantly, though, the retroactive curve can more easily aid in the development of the virtues necessary for academic success. A norm-referenced curve does not require students to acquire the habits necessary to reach the necessary competencies that a class is seeking to provide. It merely distributes points indiscriminately. On the other hand, by requiring students to opt into participation by completing certain requirements, a retroactive curve can foster the development of these habits under the right circumstances. Here, I find mandatory student meetings an important component of the retroactive curve. I have deployed versions of the curve that require students to meet with me and versions of the curve that do not. When my teaching or writing commitments, or the size of the class, prohibit me from meeting with all students, I have also required meetings with the office of student success. In each instance, personalized meetings can explore decisions, study strategies, and habits that may foster the acquisition of virtue or eliminate it. Having identified concrete steps for a student to take, which may include changes in study habits from ineffective methods, seeking tutoring, or increasing the time spend studying, to name only three examples, the impetus then falls on students to implement and practice these changes, thereby building those habits that are constitutive of the virtues, among a number of technical skills. Of course, I do not mean to imply that the development of virtue is easy or formulaic. There was a student in my pilot class for the retroactive curve who met with me on several occasions. We discussed changes in study strategies and notetaking methods to increase understanding of what forms of studying work, and I spent time trying to instill temperance, in case lack of restraint needed to focus on studying was the problem. By the end of the class, we still had not met the objectives she had set for herself and which she was achieving in other subject areas. However, I was able to continue this process with her in a later class until she reached her desired goals and apparently manifested virtues like wisdom, prudence, temperance, and perseverance. Growth in moral and in intellectual virtue takes time. Another student in the same pilot class still failed the course. I had this student on three other occasions in various courses, and by the fourth occasion the student was in reach of an A for his final grade in the course. Instead, the student calculated his current score and decided not to even try the final paper, recognizing that he would still earn the necessary C. Faculty support and effort through retroactive curves do not guarantee that virtue formation will be complete or without setbacks. After all, faculty themselves likely continue to need development in their own moral and intellectual formation. Despite this, indexing improvement of score to improvement in the quality of work in the course, does foster an environment where the acquisition of virtue is central to the curve itself.

As a final note on retroactive curves and virtue formation, I should mention that I have explored several formats of the retroactive curve in an attempt to maximize its efficacy. In an upper level general education course, I tried for several semesters to offer a curve without any requirements to opt in, believing it was more important to dedicate time to younger students in entry level classes and lacking time to meet individually with all students. I had hoped the incentive of improving scores retroactively would motivate student growth, but I generally did not see improvement of the magnitude that I found in my pilot course or in other courses with a similar curve structure. To the extent that grades are evidence of development in virtue (which is quite debatable), this raises suspicion that the retroactive curve is less effective without requiring remedial tasks or direct support to opt in. Somewhat more successful was a course-wide customized remedial requirement without individual meetings. One semester I noticed that a general education course was doing a poor job on taking notes and on reading quizzes, suggesting the need for remedial work in both areas. Students were therefore required to submit course notes and notes on readings on exam day to benefit from the curve. This version seemed more effective pedagogically, but still inferior to the retroactive curve with personalized meetings. I have also attempted to increase the frequency of curve opportunities. In a 100-level general education course one semester I offered seven quizzes rather than three exams. Recognizing the benefit of interleaved practice, the spaced repetition of studying and practicing certain content that increases retention (Brown et al. 49–50, 64–65), I put a review short answer on each quiz covering content from a previous quiz and increased scores on that previous quiz based on improvement in the short answer question. This forced interleaved review seemed to help some students in concept mastery, but the number of students who repeatedly failed review questions of this sort suggests to me that the underlying development in virtue required personal contact. No doubt some readers of this article (provided I am at all convincing) who try to use a retroactive curve will find their own variations that are more effective than those I have explored.

Virtue and Narrative

Where Aquinas highlights the role of habit in virtue formation, Stanley Hauerwas has explored the role of narrative. Remarking on Lawrence Kohlberg’s effort to correct weaknesses in Aristotle and Aquinas, Hauerwas noted early in his career that “What we need is not a principle or end but a narrative that charts a way for us to live coherently amid the diversity and conflicts that circumscribe and shape our moral existence” (Community of Character 144). This narrative helps to establish our unity of self, allowing us to balance conflicting roles that we may possess in different situations. In the example of a student who has to choose between the principles of being a good friend and prioritizing studying over partying, narrative may play a decisive role. Does the student interpret her situation in the narrative of larger vocational goals or in the narrative of her social status and responsibilities? Hauerwas deems narrative particularly important for Christians. He argues that the discipline of ethics after Kant was oriented around

rules and principles that could be rationally deduced and defended, but there was no place in such contexts for the practices of the Church or the narrative of God’s redemptive acts of salvation (Hauerwas and Wells 34). A retrieval of narrative in ethics makes the biblical story as liturgically performed in the church both relevant and central to ethical formation, but ignoring narrative marginalizes theology. As Hauerwas and Pinches remark, “Jesus did not say if you are to be a follower of his you must develop those virtues that will make you a morally impressive person. Rather he said, ‘Come and follow me’” (29). Hauerwas develops his ethical perspective with a different context and narrative in mind. He is after something far more grandiose than a grading curve in a general education classroom: “Our freedom is dependent on our having a narrative that gives us skills of interpretation sufficient to allow us to make our past our own through incorporation into our ongoing history” (Hauerwas 144). The narrative in mind is the narrative with which we make sense of our entire lives, the stories we use to “locate ourselves in relation to others, our society, and the universe” (Hauerwas 148). Ideally, a Christian will situate this narrative within the even larger narrative of “what Christ did, and what God did in Christ,” that “shapes and inspires disciples to go and do likewise” (Hauerwas and Wells 37). Recognizing the scope of the narrative Hauerwas considers, we should be careful not to diminish excessively his intent. Yet, given that Hauerwas himself is prone to use metaphors like laying brick to describe the small, repetitious actions that build character within the larger narrative of our lives, even smaller aspects of our human experience like a grading curve may influence what narratives we need to develop virtue in a much larger scale. A comparison of the narratives inherent and implied in the normreferenced and retroactive curves again reveals the preferability of the latter. The risk of a norm-referenced curve is that it communicates to students that they do not have the potential to succeed. Instead, they indicate that the instructor has an institutional, contractual obligation to ensure certain pass rates in a class. Such a narrative may produce the desired outcomes in terms of grade distributions, but at great cost. Student motivation is fundamentally goal-oriented, and while some students may have “work avoidance” goals in which a student’s goal is to avoid investing time and effort needed to gain competencies (Ambrose et al. 70–72), in my admittedly limited experience far more students are interested in learning. Sadly, an interest in learning does not automatically result in a student meeting learning objectives, hence the need to address curves. The problem with a normreferenced curve that merely distributes grades along a bell curve is evident in its effect on student expectancies, “the belief that specific actions will bring about a desired outcome” (Ambrose et al. 76), and especially efficacy expectancies, “the belief that one is capable of identifying, organizing, initiating, and executing a course of action that will bring about a desired outcome” (Ambrose et al. 77). Because norm-referenced curves communicate that students are not expected to attain a high score but will be given one administratively, students are not led to expect reward for effort and see limited correlation between practice and mastery. On the contrary, the expectancy is to “game the curve,” simply aiming for superiority over others in the class rather than seeking to improve current skills or

concept mastery. Norm referenced curves diminish efficacy expectancies, and when student efficacy is low, students tend to have low motivation (Ambrose et al. 80).

In contrast with norm-referenced curves, retroactive curves increase efficacy expectancies and thereby motivate students to work harder and to continue to engage in the class. This pedagogical benefit can easily be supplemented with narratives oriented toward virtue formation. When I explain the retroactive curve after the first exam, I am always careful to explain the intellectual virtues as acquired through practice. I then situate the retroactive curve in the context of a narrative about higher education as a form of moral and intellectual development to the glory of God, explaining how the curve is designed to provide students an opportunity to pursue this end. The logic behind allowing some students who perform poorly on an initial exam the opportunity to finish with solid scores comparable to students who did well on all three exams may be unclear. Some students may find such a curve unfair, though I have had none express this to me. Here the parable of the workers (Matt. 20:1–16) can help shape the narrative. In the parable, even those who arrive late to work still receive one denarius, the equivalent of a living wage that was necessary for their basic needs, the same wage earned by those who worked all day. Like this parable (which certainly was not intended to address grading curves), the retroactive curve may similarly provide students the possibility of reaching a basic score needed to advance, provided that they meet learning objectives by the end of the course. I have balanced this opportunity to meet basic needs if work is only satisfactory at later stages in the class by capping the retroactive curve at a C for a student who failed the first midterm, so that there is some means of distinguishing those who have performed at superior level throughout the course. All have a chance to pass, some are rewarded for using their talents more effectively.

Virtue and Community

Alasdair MacIntyre explores the connections between virtue and our social situation in community, further illuminating the nature of virtue formation. MacIntyre notes that intentions are to be evaluated in the context of a setting and timespan—our interpretation of an action is modified as we consider immediate or long-term goals, and as we consider the action in different contexts (206-208). Considering immediate and long-term goals relates to the above discussion of narrative: does a student consider work in the class in terms of the short-term goal of passing a class, the more future-oriented perspective of career preparation, or the goal of virtue formation that will occupy a lifetime? The question of context, though, has so far been underdeveloped in this article, but its consideration is a final necessary step toward evaluating the retroactive curve and virtue formation. Questions of context are essential in MacIntyre’s mind for distinguishing virtue from skill. MacIntyre argues that “someone who genuinely possesses a virtue can be expected to manifest it in very different types of situation” (205). The virtue of prudence, for example, should manifest not only in decisions about

how to balance study responsibilities with other commitments, but in navigating workplace ethics, the use of personal finances, and family relationships, to name only a few situations. A professional skill, on the other hand, does not necessarily translate to such a wide variety of circumstances. The translatability of virtues across contexts requires a united narrative that makes sense of a person’s life in total, but we must also recognize that selfhood is “correlative.” By this, MacIntyre means that our narrative intersects with the narratives of others, such that “[we] are part of their story, and they are part of [ours].” This intersection creates the possibility that we “can always ask others for an account” of our fidelity to the narrative we are inhabiting (MacIntyre 218). The Christian who is shaped by a narrative of discipleship following Christ will be evaluated within the narratives of their parents, friends, colleagues, and classmates, an evaluation (conscious or otherwise) that considers whether the role appropriate for a disciple is being fulfilled in the context of family, friendship, work, or higher education. This correlative aspect means that virtues must translate across various roles into different contexts. Virtue is not only suited to a person’s particular role in one context, but in all contexts. Conversely, the professional skill of managing supply chain software, for example, does not obviously translate to any specific skill in a family setting. If a moral agent’s self-narrative centers on such professional skills, there is likely to be fragmentation of identity in a form that may impede clear pursuit of a goal, hence much recent discussion on the fragmentation and fragilization of identity (Taylor; Maalouf; etc.). A norm-referenced curve seems more likely to nourish skills than virtues. When used to raise the scores of students who perform poorly on tests, normreferenced curves may even conceal a course’s failure in fostering the development of professional skills. The skills of knowing how to pass a particular professor’s exams or how to game the system and reach the desired grade by landing at the right point on a curve relative to other students are not skills that apply beyond that context or that suit any long-term goal. While virtues like prudence, temperance, perseverance, and understanding certainly may prove beneficial in these contexts, a norm-referenced curve reduces the likelihood that they are required to score well in a course and may actively suppress their development for the reasons discussed above. In contrast, the retroactive curve can be crafted to foster the development of virtues that will manifest in a variety of contexts and roles within a community. As I have deployed it, the retroactive curve is linked to other pedagogical tools like an exam wrapper or visit to office hours that require self-reflection and correlative accountability. Simply put, the retroactive curve assumes and requires an interpersonal dimension that is lacking in norm-referenced curves. While grades are automatically changed in a norm-referenced curve without any need for a student to engage a wider learning community, the practices of exam wrappers, mandatory office hour visits, and supplementary study groups all convey the expectation that intellectual virtues require learning communities. These requirements for opting in to retroactive curves provide an opportunity to explain to students the communal nature of virtue formation. Further, the communal aspects of a retroactive curve will be most successful when the

foundation has already been laid to establish a community of learning. For example, in general education courses where I anticipate using a retroactive curve, I also require all students to visit my office hours during the first two weeks, since students exposed to office hours at such an early stage are more likely to return. Similar required participation in study groups, campus tutoring, or library tutorials can further the necessary concept of community. When requirements for opting in to the retroactive curve are personalized to particular students, the roles of professor and student are also highlighted in a manner that makes the contextual manifestation of virtues more obvious. Here again, we see evidence of the superiority of a retroactive curve on virtue formation, though perhaps less pointedly than in terms of habit and narrative.

The Grading Curve and the Moral Ascent

Though assessment is only one small component of course design, and enrollment in courses one small dimension of a student’s life, virtue ethics compels a Christian professor to consider all practices in the classroom as potentially contributing to the moral and intellectual formation of students. When analyzed in relation to habit, narrative, and role in the community, a retroactive curve appears considerably more likely to foster the development of such moral and intellectual virtues as perseverance, temperance, prudence, wisdom, and understanding while having the added benefit of improving learning outcomes. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement in designing retroactive curves; for example, the versions discussed here do not necessarily foster the development of virtue in students that perform above average early in the course. As in moral development, there is always room for pedagogical improvement. Nor do I intend to ignore the possibility that some students may be prompted toward improvement in virtue by the experience of failure in a class. Curves of any sort will be inappropriate in some contexts, and the retroactive curve remains only one pedagogical tool among many. Yet, it is the only tool of any worth that I have developed, and so I share it in hopes that it may serve in other contexts and in other forms as faculty seek to fulfill one telos of Christian higher education: fostering moral and intellectual virtue in a classroom setting.

Appendix: Sample Exam Wrapper

The following elements make up the standard exam wrapper I use after midterm exams. When filled out in class, best results occur when best practices for studying and course participation are displayed to the class on Power Point during the time allotted to complete the exam wrapper.

Name:

Are you pleased with your exam score? (circle one) Yes _____ No

What can you do to improve your exam score on the second exam? (Consider study strategies, work during the course, effort in reading, test taking strategies, etc.)

Are any of these areas something you would like to meet with me about? (circle one) Yes ____ No

If you answered yes, circle what you wrote above that you would like to meet about. I will contact you to arrange a meeting.

What can I do to better prepare you for the next exam?

Works Cited

Ambrose, Susan A., Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K. Norman. How Learning Works: 7 Research–Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass, 2010. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised edition, 5 vols. Christian Classics, 1948. Breese, Clyde W. “On ‘Grading on the Curve.’” The Clearing House, vol. 50, no. 3, 1976, 108-10. Brown, Peter C., Henry L. Roediger III, and Mark A. McDaniel. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014. Gilson, Étienne. Moral Values and the Moral Life: The System of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by Leo Richard Ward. B. Herder, 1941. Haley, James. “To Curve or Not to Curve? The Effect of College Science Grading Policies on Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Perceived Classroom Goal Structures, and Self-efficacy.” Ph.D., Boston College, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:104165. Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. University of Notre Dame Press, 1981. Hauerwas, Stanley, and Charles Pinches. Christians Among the Virtues: Theological Conversations with Ancient and Modern Ethics. University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Hauerwas, Stanley, and Samuel Wells. “Why Christian Ethics Was Invented.” The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, edited by Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells. Blackwell, 2004. Lang, James M. On Course: A Week-by-Week Guide to Your First Semester of College Teaching. Harvard University Press, 2008. Maalouf, Amin. In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong. Translated by Barbara Bray. Penguin, 2007. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 2nd ed., University of Notre Dame Press, 1984. Smith, David I. On Christian Teaching: Practicing Faith in the Classroom. William B. Eerdmans, 2018. Smith, David I., and James K. A. Smith, eds. Teaching and Christian Practices: Reshaping Faith & Learning. William B. Eerdmans, 2011. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007. Westberg, Daniel A. Renewing Moral theology: Christian Ethics as Action, Character and Grace. Intervarsity Press, 2015.