16.8 Redemption and Reformation

William Shakespeare put it well in The Merchant of Venice, “The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed: it blesseth him that that gives and him that takes…”. Mercy and how it relates to teaching is the focus of this note.

While not all situations may warrant a consideration of mercy, there are situations where mercy might be a good thing to offer, and it depends on the context. In this note, we will explore situations where things are not 100% black and white, where blind obedience to a rule does not always make sense, where the spirit and intent of the guiding principles is not always well-stated in the carved-in-stone rule, where second chances are justified, and where the redemption and reformation of a deserving student is worth the effort.

Mercy does not mean that a student gets a free ride or gets away with something. Mercy for one does not mean that this is uniformly unfair to others. It depends on how the mercy is dispensed. There are also ways to anticipate the types of mercy that might be warranted in a course and build in some mechanisms that can be activated as needed, and mechanisms that can be fair to all. Furthermore, it is ok in our opinion, to have strings attached to mercy and have conditions that need to be met for the mercy to be dispensed.

Note, any student receiving a measure of mercy needs to have demonstrated a level of mastery in the course that warranted the ‘final’ assessment. Marks are not just given out without cause, and any mercy must be justifiable with evidence. Marks should not be at the whimsy of the instructor!

Why show or consider mercy? It is because students are not perfect, students will make errors in judgement, students will misread instructions, students will forget things, students might be affected by other students’ actions, students might have a bad night’s sleep, and so on. Junior students are more likely to be less perfect; until they learn the expectations and learn what happens when the student does not do what is expected. For example, the junior student might be following the accepted behavior at their high school, and get a rude awakening when the same behavior is frowned upon at the post-secondary level. If mercy will help with behavioral modification or provide a learning moment that will avoid a future problem, then the consideration of mercy is warranted. The consideration must take into account malicious conduct, conscious game-playing, repeat offences, and the student’s attitude; factors that might determine whether or not the student is worthy for mercy. The consideration must also take into the reality of the situation. Is it reasonable and feasible for the student to satisfy the associated conditions without creating more issues? The scheme must allow for success and not designed to fail.

It is possible to simply explain matters to a student in a rational way and hope that the student will listen and modify their behavior. This might happen in some cases. It is also possible that any behavior modification will require a reward mechanism or other form of incentive; e.g., a chance to recover lost marks.

Suggestions…

• Always remember that the instructor’s goal is to have the student learn and to know what the student has learned. As long as the mark at the end of the term can be rationalized based on the course’s objectives and what the student actually learned, we are good.
• To reduce the need for big dosages of mercy, have a sufficient number of smaller assessments so that the students have ample opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned. A few large assessment will always be problematic.
• To reduce ambiguity when dispensing mercy, have sufficient individual assessments when there are significant team assessments. Be able to identify and assess who deserves mercy and who does not.
• Be open to alternative assessment methods in case there is a mismatch. Not every student can exhibit mastery the same way and a form of mercy can be the alternative test method. For example, a verbal dialog may be able to identify what a student really knows when a written assessment failed to. A written description is not the only way to demonstrate mastery. This is not unreasonable and is one of the options that should be considered under accessibility and accommodations.
• Have a plan in place for the course. It is likely that certain things will happen and it is best to have thought about them in advance. Perhaps not every term, but it is likely that there will be at least one dysfunctional team out of ten, that someone will have a very bad night and have to submit an assessment the next day that really does not reflect what the student can really do. If you have sufficient assessments, you can figure out who is trying to manipulate the situation and who actually might know the material and was improperly assessed.
• Where appropriate include options and alternative schema in the course outline and make the options available to all.
• Have an incentive scheme as part of the redemption strategy, logic alone will not suffice for behavioral modification.
• Make sure that the student has to put extra effort in if it makes sense. Mercy need not be free, and the student might value the mercy factor if they actually have to earn it.

Co-dependencies & The Necessary and Hopefully Sufficient

• The instructor has to be willing, if necessary, to do the ‘right’ thing.

• The instructor has to be willing, if necessary, to bend, fold, and stretch a rule or two.
• The instructor has to be willing, if necessary, to put the extra effort in to do the right thing; e.g., extra optional assessment for all students.
• If the issue is about knowing the material or not, the options should be at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Allow the student the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned. For example, if a student claims to REALLY know something, instead of having the student do another problem or typical assignment, ask them to write a two-page explanation of the concepts with examples; suitable for explaining to a five-year-old or an elderly relative.
• If the issue was about interpretation and execution, create the situation where the student can demonstrate that they understand and interpret instructions, and then execute appropriately. In this case, ask the student to also document their thought processes, how they decoded the instructions, etc. Have the student to explicitly reflect upon the process.
• The mercy component should provide incentive to the student to address whatever shortcoming led to the student’s situation. The student should be self-aware, mindful, and have a reflection element. They need to understand the cause and effect aspects if they are to address them.
• The mercy component should provide a map forward for the student. If possible, they need to learn the skills (deliberate practice if necessary) to avoid a similar situation in the future.
• There should be closure with the student at the end of term. A discussion about the lessons learned, why you were lenient, and what you hope the future will hold for the student.

Further reading

• Ikpa, T.S. (2007). Balancing Restorative Justice Principles and Due Process Rights in Order to Reform the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law and Policy, 24, pp. 301-325.