Teenie's Grading Dilemma
So ChrisTeenie's having a grading dilemma--having 100 comp students and a small salary sucks. I only have 75 students right now, but I'd like to share what's going on in my mind, regarding the grading dilemma.
I understand about the teacher-review/drafting process--it works. The best way for students to learn to write more effectively is to see you transform their own cruddy papers right before their eyes. Then you hold their hands, individually, while they learn to do it on their own. But that takes about 20-30 minutes per student per paper until they get the hang of it. I do not have that kind of time or stamina.
So here's what I've done this semester. I let them revise every paper--but, my papers are SHORT: 3 full pages is both the minimum and ideal length, and we're doing five of them this semester. We do a peer review in class and the first time I see the damn things is when I grade them.
At first I was disheartened because so many (almost all) of my students opted to revise the first paper. But now the number of revisers has dropped off significantly--I'd say about a third of each class is opting to revise. That's reasonable. Of course, revisions mean that I grade the paper again--but I feel like I'm only taking the time on the ones who really care, instead of wasting time teaching those who *don't care* something they *don't want* to know--which is what could happen with mandatory conferencing about papers.
My Beloved List
A few weeks ago I devised a paper-grading checklist that contains all the things that ususally go wrong in the papers (an error list), along with a blank for "Your Unique Errors". I have to customize this sheet for each paper assignment by adding specific explanations alongside the standardized error list--for example, the standardized error may say, "Weak Analysis" and I add, "How do textual elements build pathos? Be specific." Customization takes about 15 minutes initially and then the form is ready for all the classes.
This form has allowed me to cease grading revisions holistically. I know how rotten that sounds. But a holistic initial grade is all I really care to do; after my initial read, I pigeonhole the errors into my checklist, save it, print it for em on intimidating red paper, and move on. I've noticed that when more than 4 problems are noted on the checklist, the student usually does a *true* revision, and then I do, of course, have to regrade it holistically, but I don't really mind in that case.
The list eliminates the frustration that comes with writing something like, "Yes, but HOW does this information influence the reader?" seventy-five times. Now all I have to do is type "10" into the reduction column on my checklist next to "Too much summary, not enough analysis; HOW does all this information influence the reader?" Whoa! I typed it down once...and now all it takes is two keystrokes to alert the student to the fact that they're having this problem!! Wow!! This wipes out the 1 - 4 minutes spent writing comments on drafts, which adds up.
I know my checklist is not revolutionary; many, many professors have considered such a list. But casual conversation has revealed to me that although lots have considered it, few have enacted it; when it comes down to using a list, fear moves in: "What if my list is flawed? What if I'm doing the students an injustice by grading this way? I'd better just do this the old-fashioned way."
75 papers x 4 minutes of writing-comments-time per paper = 5 hours.
Boy, am I glad I'm NOT doing it the old-fashioned way anymore. I'm not kidding when I say I've cut my grading time of initial drafts by a third (that writing time adds up, as you can see), and my grading time of revisions by at least half.
The papers don't seem to be suffering, and the blanket approach of the sheet seems to be causing students to view the comments as relevent to the paper as a whole. Whereas writing "weak analysis" on page 2 of a draft seems to improve the analysis only on that page--if at all--putting "10" in the deduction column next to "weak analysis" seems to result in an overall (if slight) improvement to *all* the analysis. Replacing that "10" with "7" for the revised grade shows them how much they improved, if any, in a way that seems to be easy for them to understand.
I grade the paper holistically the first time I grade it (10 minutes of reading/thinking/entering stuff into the grade-sheet time per paper x 75 papers = 12.5 hours). But if I present my grading critique to the students with a holistic face, in the form of a few handwritten lines throughout the paper and at the end, they seem to have less understanding of their weaknesses than if I present the problems to them in an itemized, formal, work-order sort of way.
Is this the sort of thing I should be endorsing, as an official of higher education, from a philosophical - pedagogical - theoretical standpoint? Should I be concerned about what message this sends to students about the writing process? Blah blah? I don't care. For me, the bottom line is that I spend less time grading (a LOT less time) and it seems to be aiding the students in their performance. I think the word "praxis" was the most valuable word I ever learned. Combine ideals and theory with the grimy yucky of what works and sometimes you synthesize something nice.
Many times you grade a paper and it sucks. You think to yourself, "Damn. The analysis and thought patterns are so weak in this paper, but if it at *least* had proper sentence structure, puncutation, and topic sentences, I could give it a 70 instead of a 50." You write something about sentence structure, punctuation, and topic sentences throughout the paper and at the end--for the revision, what do you get? Just the puctuation fixed--and only then the instances that you marked as examples! Itemize it in a chart, and by virtue of its *seperate identity* from the paper, it seems to apply to the whole thing instead of just sections of it. Suddenly Suzie Suckpaper has managed to clean up her act enough to earn a passing grade. The same thing works in other directions; the student who has perfect form sees in unambiguous red-and-black that he's losing lots of points for oversummarization, etc.
So, there's my big grade rant! I expect that some of you may have opinions on all this...perhaps more informed or differently informed than mine.
So ChrisTeenie's having a grading dilemma--having 100 comp students and a small salary sucks. I only have 75 students right now, but I'd like to share what's going on in my mind, regarding the grading dilemma.
I understand about the teacher-review/drafting process--it works. The best way for students to learn to write more effectively is to see you transform their own cruddy papers right before their eyes. Then you hold their hands, individually, while they learn to do it on their own. But that takes about 20-30 minutes per student per paper until they get the hang of it. I do not have that kind of time or stamina.
So here's what I've done this semester. I let them revise every paper--but, my papers are SHORT: 3 full pages is both the minimum and ideal length, and we're doing five of them this semester. We do a peer review in class and the first time I see the damn things is when I grade them.
At first I was disheartened because so many (almost all) of my students opted to revise the first paper. But now the number of revisers has dropped off significantly--I'd say about a third of each class is opting to revise. That's reasonable. Of course, revisions mean that I grade the paper again--but I feel like I'm only taking the time on the ones who really care, instead of wasting time teaching those who *don't care* something they *don't want* to know--which is what could happen with mandatory conferencing about papers.
My Beloved List
A few weeks ago I devised a paper-grading checklist that contains all the things that ususally go wrong in the papers (an error list), along with a blank for "Your Unique Errors". I have to customize this sheet for each paper assignment by adding specific explanations alongside the standardized error list--for example, the standardized error may say, "Weak Analysis" and I add, "How do textual elements build pathos? Be specific." Customization takes about 15 minutes initially and then the form is ready for all the classes.
This form has allowed me to cease grading revisions holistically. I know how rotten that sounds. But a holistic initial grade is all I really care to do; after my initial read, I pigeonhole the errors into my checklist, save it, print it for em on intimidating red paper, and move on. I've noticed that when more than 4 problems are noted on the checklist, the student usually does a *true* revision, and then I do, of course, have to regrade it holistically, but I don't really mind in that case.
The list eliminates the frustration that comes with writing something like, "Yes, but HOW does this information influence the reader?" seventy-five times. Now all I have to do is type "10" into the reduction column on my checklist next to "Too much summary, not enough analysis; HOW does all this information influence the reader?" Whoa! I typed it down once...and now all it takes is two keystrokes to alert the student to the fact that they're having this problem!! Wow!! This wipes out the 1 - 4 minutes spent writing comments on drafts, which adds up.
I know my checklist is not revolutionary; many, many professors have considered such a list. But casual conversation has revealed to me that although lots have considered it, few have enacted it; when it comes down to using a list, fear moves in: "What if my list is flawed? What if I'm doing the students an injustice by grading this way? I'd better just do this the old-fashioned way."
75 papers x 4 minutes of writing-comments-time per paper = 5 hours.
Boy, am I glad I'm NOT doing it the old-fashioned way anymore. I'm not kidding when I say I've cut my grading time of initial drafts by a third (that writing time adds up, as you can see), and my grading time of revisions by at least half.
The papers don't seem to be suffering, and the blanket approach of the sheet seems to be causing students to view the comments as relevent to the paper as a whole. Whereas writing "weak analysis" on page 2 of a draft seems to improve the analysis only on that page--if at all--putting "10" in the deduction column next to "weak analysis" seems to result in an overall (if slight) improvement to *all* the analysis. Replacing that "10" with "7" for the revised grade shows them how much they improved, if any, in a way that seems to be easy for them to understand.
I grade the paper holistically the first time I grade it (10 minutes of reading/thinking/entering stuff into the grade-sheet time per paper x 75 papers = 12.5 hours). But if I present my grading critique to the students with a holistic face, in the form of a few handwritten lines throughout the paper and at the end, they seem to have less understanding of their weaknesses than if I present the problems to them in an itemized, formal, work-order sort of way.
Is this the sort of thing I should be endorsing, as an official of higher education, from a philosophical - pedagogical - theoretical standpoint? Should I be concerned about what message this sends to students about the writing process? Blah blah? I don't care. For me, the bottom line is that I spend less time grading (a LOT less time) and it seems to be aiding the students in their performance. I think the word "praxis" was the most valuable word I ever learned. Combine ideals and theory with the grimy yucky of what works and sometimes you synthesize something nice.
Many times you grade a paper and it sucks. You think to yourself, "Damn. The analysis and thought patterns are so weak in this paper, but if it at *least* had proper sentence structure, puncutation, and topic sentences, I could give it a 70 instead of a 50." You write something about sentence structure, punctuation, and topic sentences throughout the paper and at the end--for the revision, what do you get? Just the puctuation fixed--and only then the instances that you marked as examples! Itemize it in a chart, and by virtue of its *seperate identity* from the paper, it seems to apply to the whole thing instead of just sections of it. Suddenly Suzie Suckpaper has managed to clean up her act enough to earn a passing grade. The same thing works in other directions; the student who has perfect form sees in unambiguous red-and-black that he's losing lots of points for oversummarization, etc.
So, there's my big grade rant! I expect that some of you may have opinions on all this...perhaps more informed or differently informed than mine.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home