This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 09 December 2014, At: 09:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

Teaching About Ideology ThroughGrading RubricsAlfred MuellerPublished online: 15 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Alfred Mueller (2009) Teaching About Ideology Through Grading Rubrics,Communication Teacher, 23:2, 66-70, DOI: 10.1080/17404620902780213

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404620902780213

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching About Ideology ThroughGrading RubricsAlfred Mueller

Objective: To provide students with a practical understanding of the effect that ideology

has upon their everyday lives

Courses: Persuasion, Rhetorical Theory, Communication Theory, Organizational

Communication and any other course that wishes to address the concept of ideology

Rationale

Ideology is a critical concept to convey in many upper-level communication courses.

Yet, as Morgan and Kirby (2004) attest, it is also one of those concepts that yield

many confused expressions among our students. As anyone who has attempted to

instruct undergraduates in ideology knows, at a certain point in the theoretical

discussion sometimes one actually can see the students’ minds disengage, delegating

to their bodies the mechanical task of capturing keywords on paper.

Sadly, critical reading strategies are often not helpful. As an instructor of rhetorical

theory, persuasion, and organizational communication, the author can attest to the

students’ frustration with reading even secondary accounts available in textbooks.

Attempts to explore related themes such as alienation sometimes succeed only in

muddying the theoretical waters further. Consequently, meaningful discussion of

contemporary theorists such as Alvesson & Deetz (1996), McKerrow (1989), Mumby

(1989), or McGee (1980) seems an ideal at times. What students want is a practical,

hands-on experience of ideology that enables them to grasp the concept as a practical

concern.

Complicating the matter further is the fact that the term ‘‘ideology’’ is itself loaded.

For example, a Marxist approach to the subject yields a perspective of ideology as a

false consciousness that serves a dominating power. However, at the same time, other

theories of ideology argue that the motives impelling one to adopt a particular

Alfred G. Mueller II (Ph.D., U of Iowa) is an assocciate professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at the

Mont Alto campus of the Pennysylvania State University. The author wishes to thank the editor and the

anonymous reviewers for their advice and assistance during the editorial process. Correspondence concerning

this article should be directed to the author at agm6@psu.edu.

ISSN 1740-4622 (print)/ISSN 1740-4630 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/17404620902780213

Communication Teacher

Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2009, pp. 66�70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

25 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

ideological stance remain hidden. Still other theoretical approaches to ‘‘ideology’’ are

presented as value-neutral, as in such constructions as ‘‘American political ideology’’

or ‘‘Communist ideology.’’

Since Marxist approaches to ideology are the ones most often presented in

textbooks for our field, if for no other reason than to provide a historical basis for the

concept, the activity described here approaches the term ‘‘ideology’’ in a way that is

sympathetic to a Marxist perspective. At the same time, since students want to

experience ideology as a practical concern, the activity uses grades*a typical concern

of many students today*as the basis for the exercise. Because the activity exposes

them to an everyday occurrence of ideology, the participants learn just how

fundamentally ideology can affect their lives. In particular, the exercise illustrates

such important ideological principles as cultural hegemony, naturalization, ideolo-

gical state apparatuses, and power.

The Activity

Preparation

The author structures the semester such that the topic of ideology is addressed two to

three class periods before a written assignment is due for evaluation. Although the

author has not applied this exercise in advance of an oral presentation, there is no

aspect of the exercise that would preclude an oral assignment substituting for a

written one. To simplify the description of the exercise for the reader, however, this

article will assume that a written assignment is used.

Placing the exercise two to three meetings in advance of the due date ensures that

most students are working actively on it. Each student has a copy of the assignment

description and the criteria for evaluation. Additionally, the writing assignment has

been discussed to some significant degree in class before this exercise is administered.

The assignment. On the scheduled day, the instructor offers a basic overview of the

concept of ideology, covering the theories most relevant to the course. The instructor

then divides the class into teams of five or six students each. S/he offers the students

the opportunity to devise new grading rubrics for the upcoming writing assignment,

discussing briefly the rationale for and process of creating a rubric for a course. Teams

must construct specific, measurable criteria for at least the grades of A, C, and F. If

time permits, the groups may then consider rubrics for B and D. At the author’s

institution, written copies of any substantive changes to course policy statements or

grading systems made during the course of a semester must be presented in writing to

the Dean of Academic Affairs. Therefore, the instructor also informs the groups that a

copy of the final rubric will be submitted to the Dean. In places where such a policy

does not exist, the instructor should note that a copy of the rubric will be filed with

the Department Head, Division Head, or other appropriate academic official.

Instructors should answer basic questions about rubrics but should refrain from

commenting on the decision-making process as it develops within each group. The

exception is to prod some groups on occasion by asking individual members to

Communication Teacher 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

25 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

clarify elements of their developing rubrics. For example, one group in the author’s

organizational communication course defined an A-quality literature review as

having ‘‘exceptional grammar and style.’’ The author asked the group what

‘‘exceptional’’ meant. The spokesperson of the group then defined ‘‘exceptional’’ as

‘‘less than three errors per page.’’ In no way should the instructor force teams to

quantify their rubrics. Instead, instructors should only ask what general terms signify

to the group. If the group is unable to articulate a meaningful answer, only then

should an instructor encourage the group to discuss the issue further.

When the groups have finished their discussions or the time allotted for this

portion of the exercise expires, the groups should detail their different rubrics for the

instructor, explaining the rubrics’ elements as needed. The instructor should note the

main features of each grade rubric on the chalkboard, an overhead transparency, or a

PowerPoint slide, creating an aggregate rubric for each grade discussed. At the end of

this exercise the class should be presented minimally with aggregate rubrics created

for the grades of A, C, and F.

As described here, the activity requires one standard period of 75 minutes. If a

50-minute period is used for the course, the instructor may choose to lecture on

ideology in one class period and use the next period for the exercise. In the author’s

75-minute period, 20 minutes will be devoted to theory discussion, five minutes for a

basic explanation of how to create a rubric, 20�25 minutes for the students to work in

groups on their rubrics, 10�15 minutes for creating aggregate rubrics, and 15 minutes

for debriefing. Although various institutions use the plus and minus system with

letter grades, most groups will have difficulty developing rubrics for A, C, and F

grades in a 25-minute block of time. Assigning such fine gradations as B�, B, and

B� will therefore not prove effective for this exercise.

Debriefing

Using the remainder of the class period, the instructor should point to the striking

features of the aggregate rubrics. In the five years that the author has used this

exercise, invariably groups have made failing the writing assignment almost

completely avoidable. For example, when the author last presented this exercise,

the student groups defined an F as ‘‘failing to submit the assignment on the due date,’’

‘‘writing only one page of material,’’ and ‘‘containing plagiarized material.’’ At the

same time, they make it highly improbable that anyone will earn an A. From the same

undergraduate class, an A-quality writing assignment was defined as ‘‘containing no

errors of grammar or style,’’ ‘‘employing only primary sources,’’ ‘‘engaging in a

thorough discussion and analysis of each source used in the paper,’’ and ‘‘being of

publication quality.’’

Invariably C emerges as the most likely grade. The author’s groups, for example,

defined a C-quality writing assignment as ‘‘meeting the minimal page-length

requirements,’’ ‘‘having less than ten errors in grammar and style per page,’’ and

‘‘covering theories relevant to the topic.’’ Even when they are given relative carte

blanche in designing the rubric, students succeed only in dispossessing themselves of

68 Communication Teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

25 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

the likelihood of earning anything but an average grade. This repeatable phenomenon

illustrates the principle of cultural hegemony: Grades as everyday academic practices

provide the foundation for a system of domination.

Instructors should note any group efforts toward silencing attempts to move

beyond standard rubrics during the assignment phase of the activity. Such attempts at

silencing illustrate the principle of naturalization. For example, on one occasion in

the author’s class, a female student blurted out, ‘‘I should get an A for how sexy I

dress when I hand in the paper.’’ Almost immediately her group chastened her for

offering such an ‘‘inappropriate’’ criterion for a grading rubric. A short discussion

about naturalization ensued during the debriefing phase, considering the questions,

‘‘Who determines what is appropriate and inappropriate? And how do those

determinations silence people?’’

The instructor should also ask students to reflect on the sources they relied upon

when deciding on the different criteria. Often students will admit that they referred

back to their own experiences in elementary or secondary school, to the grading

systems used in other courses in which they are enrolled, to the instructor’s set of

rubrics for the writing assignment, or to a nebulous set of ‘‘basic rules’’ of good

writing that they learned in composition classes. These types of responses serve as

useful openings for a discussion of the principle of ideological state apparatuses.

On the first occasion when the author used this exercise, some students admitted

during the debriefing phase that the thought of an authority figure other than the

instructor needing to review the final rubrics made them approach the exercise ‘‘more

seriously.’’ When the author used the exercise a second time, the institutional policy

was discussed during the assignment phase of the activity and the instructor noted

that the Dean of Academic Affairs would review any changes the class made to the

grading system. The same student responses regarding the elevated level of

seriousness with which they approached the activity emerged during the debriefing

phase and have continued to emerge each time the author used the activity. This type

of response lends itself to a discussion of the principle of power. Therefore,

instructors are again encouraged to mention during the assignment phase that a copy

of the final rubric will be filed with the appropriate academic official at their

institutions.

Those instructors who may be teaching ideology for the first time in their courses

or who would prefer to have a few questions to fall back upon during lulls in the

debriefing phase may find the following discussion prompts useful. Concerning

the principle of cultural hegemony, one may ask: What function do grades serve in

society? What assumptions do you make about different grades that you receive in

classes? In what other areas of life besides academics are grades used? Concerning the

principle of naturalization, one may ask: How are grades made to appear normal in

our society? Does our society attach any myths or binary oppositions (e.g. intelligent/

stupid) to grades? What classes of people or types of experiences are silenced through

the use of grades? Concerning the principle of ideological state apparatuses, one may

ask: What, if anything, did your parents tell you about grades during your life? Did

you ever get any special benefits from businesses for having particular types of grades?

Communication Teacher 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

25 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

What did your elementary, middle, and high school teachers tell you about grades?

Concerning the principle of power, one may ask: Who has the power to assign grades?

Do students have any power to affect the grades they receive? Does anyone else have

the power to affect the type of grade a student receives?

Appraisal

This exercise provides students with an everyday occurrence of ideology as it typically

manifests itself in their lives. When the exercise is complete, students find that they

are complicit in their own domination. Suddenly the concepts presented in

the theoretical discussion that preceded the exercise take on a new immediacy. The

students begin to discuss the concepts in meaningful ways, opening an intellectual

space for the instructor to introduce the work of contemporary scholars.

Additionally, instructors can explore with their students whether or not it is

possible to extricate oneself from ideology. A Marxist perspective would admit that

such a move is possible. Theorists such as Karl Mannheim (1936) and Jurgen

Habermas (2003) certainly espouse such a view. However, not all schools of thought

concerning ideology would agree. The student who suggested using a rubric that

accommodated the style of her dress, according to those schools of thought, was

simply replacing one ‘‘powered’’ system with another. Thus, the debriefing period

provides instructors a venue to discuss the implications of any of the theoretical

schools they desire.

As a result of such discussions, the students walk away from the exercise still

critically engaged with the idea of ideology. Weeks after the activity, it is not

uncommon for students to relate their identifications of ideology at work in other

classes, their workplaces, or other aspects of life. But ultimately what makes this

activity especially gratifying is that, as a result of the students’ participation in it, they

begin to appreciate why ideology is such a critical concept in communication studies.

References and Suggested Readings

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Postmodernism and critical approaches to organizations. In S.

Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 191�217). London:

Sage.

Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The ‘‘ideograph’’: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 66, 1�16.

McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56,

91�111.

Morgan, J. M., & Kirby, E. L. (2004). Performing and resisting scripts of submission to illustrate

critical theory. Communication Teacher, 18, 82�86.

Mumby, D. K. (1989). Ideology and the social construction of meaning: A communication

perspective. Communication Quarterly, 37, 291�304.

70 Communication Teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

25 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014