{"id":15664,"date":"2013-09-24t08:30:36","date_gmt":"2013-09-24t13:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/?p=15664"},"modified":"2013-09-24t05:57:38","modified_gmt":"2013-09-24t10:57:38","slug":"teaching-writing-learning-last-week-grading-is-teaching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/2013\/09\/teaching-writing-learning-last-week-grading-is-teaching\/","title":{"rendered":"last week’s “t.w.l.” conversation on teaching writing: “grading is teaching”"},"content":{"rendered":"

by nancy chick, cft assistant director<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

scott juengel <\/strong><\/a>(english) talked about \u201cmanaging the paper load:\u00a0 grading writing efficiently and effectively<\/strong>\u201d with approximately 30 faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students on september 18. this lunchtime gathering was the second in the \u201cteaching. writing. learning.<\/a><\/strong>\u201d series of conversations on teaching writing.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>although he\u2019s been at vanderbilt for some time, he came from an institution where he taught a large course that gave him 75 papers during each grading period.\u00a0 (he split the grading load for 300 students with his three tas.) based on his experiences with that course and his subsequent courses at vanderbilt, he offered four principles or assumptions that determine his unconventional approach to \u2018managing the paper load\u2019 and \u2018grading writing efficiently and effectively.\u2019<\/p>\n

first, he asserted that \u201cgrading is teaching<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 rather than thinking of it as a separate activity, he approaches his grading and commenting on students\u2019 essays as an essential part of instruction.\u00a0 he also sets aside time for grading in the same way that he does for class preparations, and he designs in-class activities to reflect and practice moves he looks for in his students\u2019 papers.\u00a0 this last point echoes richard lloyd\u2019s (sociology) comments about the relationship between in-class discussions and student writing at last month\u2019s \u201cteaching. writing. learning\u201d<\/a>: \u201cthe quality of class discussions is reflected in predictable ways in the writing i get from students.\u201d \u201c<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
word cloud of nancy chick's notes on scott's opening remarks<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

second, he challenged us to reconceptualize \u201cefficiency\u201d when it comes to managing the paper load:\u00a0 \u201cefficiency need not be measured solely in time<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 while it still takes him no less than 30 minutes to grade any given paper, he notes that his attention to thoughtful, engaged reading and commenting on his students\u2019 work \u201ccuts down on my own emotional toll.\u201d returning graded papers feels more like continuing a respectful conversation with each student, rather than delivering a blow to their egos.\u00a0 as a result of taking his responses to their work this seriously, he also gets far fewer grade complaints, suggesting that his students understand and honor his grading standards.<\/p>\n

third, despite our best intentions of engaging our students during class time, \u201cour comments on their papers might be the moment we have their fullest attention<\/strong>.\u201d until they have a graded essay in front of them, our discussions of good writing make less of an impact.\u00a0 [this is one of the primary arguments for assigning ungraded diagnostic writings very early in the semester.]\u00a0 scott uses these moments of intense engagement\u2014when students most see that \u201csomething of substance hangs in the balance\u201d\u2014to focus on the students\u2019 ideas and arguments and offers this feedback in the form of a single-spaced, one-page letter<\/span>.\u00a0 (see his samples at the “t.w.l.” research guide.<\/a>) later, in response to a question, he pointed out that engaging primarily with the students\u2019 ideas in these letters\u2014rather than a line-by-line set of criticisms or corrections\u2014means they don\u2019t take long to write.<\/p>\n

finally, in describing his letters to students, he illustrated that he \u201cthinks of his response to student papers as a model in itself<\/strong>\u201d\u2014with complete sentences, details and actual quotes from their essays to support his observations and evaluations, and other traits of effective writing he expects from his students. in response, students include cover letters with their revisions or subsequent writings as \u201cmeta-reflections\u201d that help them \u201cown the process of revision\u201d by responding directly to his letter and to their own choices in writing. [this kind of self-evaluation and -analysis of their own learning is widely supported by the research on metacognition, or monitoring their own thinking. for more information, see the cft\u2019s guide on metacognition<\/a>.] \u00a0he also described his use of \u201cthe discourse of potential,\u201d acknowledging that \u201call papers have promise<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 [i imagine this kind of thoughtful, optimistic treatment of their work is one of the reasons he doesn\u2019t get pushback from students at grading time.]<\/p>\n

after these opening remarks, i shared a handout<\/a> with a sample of a minimal approach to grading surface or mechanical issues in writing and introduced the r<\/span>esearch showing that students often don\u2019t read and interpret our feedback on papers in the ways we think or want.\u00a0 (scott\u2019s approach to \"\"<\/a>feedback as a conversation with students is one of the ways around this challenge.)\u00a0 elizabeth covington from the writing studio reinforced scott\u2019s comments and practices that help students understand that writing is a process, such as the epistolary conversation that begins with the students\u2019 first writing, as well as the continuity in expectations of behavior between the way students discuss in class, read their texts, and write their essays. [emily king (english) from the previous \u201ct.w.l.\u201d session<\/a> also talked about this foundational concept.]\u00a0 melinda brown from the library connected to grading student writing by focusing on the citations: because the majority of research is now done online, students\u2019 citations should reflect these origins of their sources.\u00a0 if they cite primarily hard copies (unless the assignment obviously calls for using hard copies), it\u2019s worth noting that either the work isn\u2019t original or students don\u2019t understand the citation process and style. susan barone of the english language center asked us to keep in mind that international students spend a great deal of time on their essays and on trying to understand our feedback, and that for some of them, ours is \u201ctheir first experience with academic writing,\u201d so we can\u2019t assume they come in knowing our expectations. [nor should we assume that any students come in knowing our expectations.]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
derek bruff's sketchnotes<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

participants asked about managing grading time, the use of rubrics (especially those with numerical grades associated with the criteria), and the logistics of scott\u2019s grading process.\u00a0 some discussed the use of audio feedback to student writing, as well as managing expectations that \u201cevery paper starts<\/em> in the b- or c+ range.\u201d<\/p>\n

for an additional glimpse into the conversation, see cft director derek bruff\u2019s sketchnotes<\/span><\/a> (preview right).<\/p>\n

for follow-up help, advice, or conversation, please contact us for the following types of consultations:<\/em><\/p>\n