Module 1: How Will You Evaluate Writing in your First-Year Writing Seminar?
"The way to save time, make every moment count, and integrate grading, learning, and motivation is to plan your grading from the moment you begin planning the course."
—Barbara Walvoord and Virginia Anderson, Effective Grading (2009)
Walvoord and Anderson imply that sound course planning begins with the end in mind. But what, exactly are those ends for Core 110? This module unpacks the first learning outcome of Core 110 in relation to the others, and it shows how you can evaluate student writing effectively and efficiently by creating rubrics before you jump into planning the rest of the course.
The next section illustrates how you can align your grading plans with Core outcomes and, at a deeper level, be responsive to the habits of mind and the skills outlined in The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. Section 2 illustrates different kinds of rubrics you can develop for major writing projects, and section 3 considers how you can efficiently and effectively evaluate minor writing assignments.
1. Learning Outcomes and Your First Year Writing Seminar
Core 110 helps students achieve five outcomes that encourage critical reading and thinking as the basis of effective academic writing.
- Select a writing topic, formulate a purpose, and frame an argument in an appropriately structured essay using proper language, syntax, and grammar.
- Read and analyze a text for comprehension and critical evaluation of its thesis/argument and evidence it marshals in support of that argument.
- Build an essay through multiple drafts, using peer assessment, instructor assessment, and self-assessment, developing revision and editing skills.
- Define and explain the basic concepts of the subject matter of the course, use that knowledge to analyze issues and solve problems, draw connections between ideas, and argue for or against a position, all of which demonstrate an understanding of the grounding of a liberal arts education.
- Practice critical thinking by approaching course content from multiple perspectives through class readings, discussion, and writing assignments.
We have listed the five outcomes here to acknowledge that the first outcome relates to all the others. A student will, for instance, have a hard time selecting a topic if they struggle to “read and analyze a text for comprehension and critical evaluation of its thesis/argument.” Or, to put it positively, if they can easily “define and explain basic concepts of the seminar,” they will be in a better position to formulate a purpose, create a thesis, and structure an argument.
Lest we get too bogged down in all the intersections of critical inquiry and writing, let’s get back to the writing itself and consider all facets of that first outcome, for it gives you the ends toward which writing instruction should move. Not only does each criterion in outcome 1 create a clear expectation for students, each is a clue to the essential activities that students must practice to accomplish your assignments successfully. These criteria also correspond to habits of mind drawn from The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. If we are cultivating these habits of mind, then we know we are all on the right track.
Figure 1 (below) puts beside each criterion essential activities that correspond to it, and how each criterion corresponds to deeper habits of mind that students develop as they become successful writers.
Table 1: How Learning Outcome 1 Influences Assessment and Instruction in Core 110
| Criteria for Outcome 1 | Essential Activities | Habits of Mind |
|---|---|---|
| Select a writing topic | Interpret the writing assignment in light of course readings, discussions, and other learning activities. Brainstorm a diverse range of possible topics and discern which ones most effectively meet the demands of the assignment | Curiosity: use inquiry to develop questions and ideas relevant to the assignment and to issues raised in the seminar. Creativity: take risks by pondering a host of directions related to the assignment. Flexibility: reflect upon, adjust, and abandon topics in light continued inquiry and drafting. |
| Formulate a Purpose | Give readers a reason to read by presenting a problem or question that’s relevant to their concerns. Articulate what readers know, think, or believe before reading, and articulate what readers should know, think, or believe after reading. | Engagement: developing a sense of investment in the project while connecting one’s own ideas to those of others. Metacognition: the ability to reflect on one’s own thinking and values and see their writing choices as having an impact on readers—or not. |
| Framing an Argument | Express a clear assertion that promotes degrees of adherence and the good reasons for embracing that assertion (Thesis) Discover and develop effective details and evidence in support of that assertion; recognize and engage with details and evidence that do not support the thesis plan responses to inconvenient facts. Understand the assumptions and limitations of one’s own argument and develop strategies of counterargument, concession as needed. | Engagement: the ability to find meanings new to oneself or build on existing meanings through new connections. Openness: a willingness to argue a point while having the intellectual humility to acknowledge and encounter other valid points. |
| Structuring an Argument | Generate a sequence of points that follow from the thesis, considering such things as the relative merits of each point or the logical priority of one over another (such as defining a term before using it). Create unified, focused, and well-developed paragraphs. Use conventions for clear beginnings, middles, and endings. | Persistence: commit to exploring in writing a difficult idea, issue, or task. Flexibility: reflect upon and be prepared to modify the structure in light of new understandings of context, audience, and purpose. |
| Editing | Recognize and correct errors in grammar and mechanics, or at least know when and how to ask for help. Discern more and less effective choices regarding diction, word order, and style. | Responsibility: commits to the thousand little things to show respect for self, for the project, and for the reader. Persistence: aware of what one does and does not know, is willing to practice the former and ask about the latter. |
2. Evaluating Writing in Core 110: Of Rubrics, High- and Low-Stakes Writing
Having examined the criteria for writing expressed in the Core 110 learning outcomes, we turn toward strategies that help you plan your grading. We focus first on evaluating what is known as “high stakes” writing—those major papers (usually three or four) that comprise significant portions of a student’s final grade. These are also the projects in which you will take students through at least two drafts (more about that in module 3, “Creating Effective Writing Assignments"). These projects also typically involve high expectations around all five criteria of the first outcome, and it may involve others specific to the assignment or to your own requirements for writing excellence.
We also spend time with plans for “low-stakes” writing assignments—the kind that support short-term ends in the class (like a response to a reading assignment) or provide direction and practice for a major project (such as a tentative thesis statement). You will learn more about low- stakes writing assignments in our next module on designing your first-year seminar. Of course, grading can be as easy as assigning a letter grade to a student’s paper according to your holistic sense of the paper’s overall quality. You probably received such grades yourself on graduate school projects in which the professor gave you a grade, wrote a few sentences at the end, and maybe some corrections or cryptic comments in the margin. There may still be times and places for such a grading procedure, but composition specialists argue that it is insufficient for a course that involves writing instruction, especially for students new to college writing. Not only does a holistic letter grade invite problems of inconsistency, it gives the student very little information on what was expected or how they met those expectations.
Most writing instructors, therefore, plan their grading by constructing rubrics for high-stakes writing projects before going too far into planning the course. Rubrics come in many shapes and sizes, but the principle is simple: describe the criteria that help students understand the expectations, and provide a scheme for assessing quality. While rubrics do not solve all the problems that come with grading papers, they do make life easier on the professor by providing some consistency and a systematic way to convey strengths and weaknesses to each student.
The examples below are suggestive only, but they illustrate different ways of planning your grading. Some elaborate more on the criteria than others. Some assess by a scale involving points, and some provide evaluative terms like (excellent, strong, average, poor, failing).
Although we illustrate general rubrics in examples 1 and 2, strive ultimately for task-specific rubrics as shown in example 3. While general rubrics are great places to start, if one is used over and over again in a course, it sends the message to students that academic writing is only one thing that is graded in one way. The reality is far different, of course. Good writing is responsive to the needs of specific readers in specific situations with specific expectations for genre, form, and tone. Helping students become more flexible requires a balance of criteria that transfer from one assignment to the next and other criteria that respond to the unique demands of each assignment.
So, examine these illustrations with an eye toward the advantages and disadvantages of each, especially in the light of your current grading practices. You can also find more models in chapter 14 of John C. Bean’s Engaging Ideas. We recommend that before you begin serious planning of the course that you create at least a template rubric that you can really see yourself using. And if you can create a rubric for each of your major assignments now, you will put yourself in the best position to create purpose and direction for each day of your course.
Example 1: Rubric for Numeric Assessment
A rubric like this can also be weighted to emphasize features of writing emphasized in the instruction for the assignment. If, for example, your class worked a lot on thesis construction, it can be multiplied by a factor of two, 1.5, or whatever seems appropriate.
| Excellent | Ok | Weak | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose The essay has a clear direction and purpose; its topic clearly fulfills the demands of the assignment. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Thesis The thesis is not only clear and easy to find, but provides an effective frame for the paper’s entire argument. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Organization The ordering of content and the paragraphing flow logically from the thesis. It would be easy for a reader to outline this paper. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Details and Evidence The paper employs an appropriate level of detail, evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support every point in the paper. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Source Mechanics The paper follows the conventions of the style guide (MLA, APA, CMS, or other) required for the assignment. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Style and Editing The paper serves the reader’s need for clear, concise, well- structured sentences. Moreover, the paper respects the reader’s need for correct grammar and punctuation. | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
TOTAL: _____ / 30
Example 2: Rubric with Descriptive Assessments Leading to Letter Grade
This approach allows you as the instructor to provide meaningful feedback efficiently. It is more impressionistic than numerical scoring, you can provide descriptors that provide a more granular five-point assessment (for instance, Excellent, Strong, OK, Weak, Failing).
| Purpose The essay has a clear direction and purpose; its topic clearly fulfills the demands of the assignment. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
| Thesis The thesis is not only clear and easy to find, but provides an effective frame for the paper’s entire argument. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
| Organization The ordering of content and the paragraphing flow logically from the thesis. It would be easy for a reader to outline this paper. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
| Details and Evidence The paper employs an appropriate level of detail, evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support every point in the paper. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
| Source Mechanics The paper follows the conventions of the style guide (MLA, APA, CMS, or other) required for the assignment. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
| Style and Editing The paper serves the reader’s need for clear, concise, well-structured sentences. Moreover, the paper respects the reader’s need for correct grammar and punctuation. | Excellent | Ok | Weak |
Grade:
(Not a sum of the marks above)
Example 3: Task-Specific Rubric with Numeric Assessment
This approach combines assignment information with a rubric whose descriptive features are grounded in specific tasks of the assignment. Note that the descriptors still use features of writing that align with the criteria and essential tasks involved with Core 110’s first learning outcome. A task-specific rubric can also be used with the formats shown in examples 1 and 2.
Writing Project 2: A Letter to Henry
The Situation: Henry David Thoreau’s Walden remains a classic of American literature, even if it may fail in achieving its goal. His purpose was to “wake his neighbors up,” and he devotes his first chapter to showing how “asleep” Americans are in their propensity for debt, for displays of material wealth, and their enslavement to their jobs. And yet, for all Thoreau’s insight into American life, it’s clear that very little, if anything, has changed. It may even be worse.
The Task: Write Thoreau a letter (around 1500 words) that updates him on the state of his neighbors’ descendants and addresses the following question. Did he really fail when he diagnosed the American way of life and tried to wake us up? And whether he failed or not, how effective were the rhetorical strategies he used to make his case?
It may seem odd to write to a dead white guy. But the great biologist E. O. Wilson begins his The Future of Life (2002) with a letter to Henry, updating him on the ecological conditions of Walden Pond and the world. He also assesses Thoreau’s ecological knowledge and vision. Along with Thoreau’s chapter “Economy,” we will read E. O. Wilson’s letter to Henry and use it as a model for our own attempts to engage readers and, perhaps, wake a few of them up.
The Rubric
- Does the writing have a purpose in line with the above assignment that asks for an assessment of Thoreau’s rhetorical achievement? (5 points)
- Is the letter governed by a thesis that provides a summary judgment of Thoreau’s argument and the good reasons that will support that judgment? (15 points)
- Is the letter organized into a unified whole, one that flows logically from the thesis? Do paragraphs have topic sentences and remain unified? Do transitions help readers flow from one point to the next? (10 points)
- Does the letter have full, clear, and convincing evidence for all its points? Are there citations from “Economy”? Is there analysis which connects the evidence to the thesis? (20 points)
- Even if letters usually don’t cite things in a scholarly fashion, does this one? And does it follow the guidelines of the MLA? (5 points)
- Does the paper serve readers through clear, concise, and well-structured sentences, and does it respect readers who deserve correct grammar and punctuation? (10 points)
3. Rubrics for Low-Stakes Writing Assignments
We suggest in the next module that low-stakes assignments help students create more thoughtful, well-developed, well-written responses to high-stakes assignments. These assignments—be they exercises, reflections, tentative thesis statements, model paragraphs— usually make up a portion of the final course grade (something like ten or fifteen percent).
It is not as critical to planning your grading of low-stakes assignments before planning the rest of your course, but it does help to have a firm idea of your approach to them. While low-stakes assignments are part of the “write-to-learn” mindset of modern writing instruction, experience shows that when students feel an assignment goes unread or merely “checked off for credit,” they tend to characterize it as busywork and give it cursory attention.
However, your time is limited, and you can kill yourself by evaluating every scrap of writing with the fierce attention you reserve for major assignments.
We advise, therefore, that you think ahead about how you will evaluate low-stakes efforts. An evaluation practice that helps students see that you are reading their work, thinking about their efforts, and giving them a word or two of encouragement is more likely to keep them engaged, though some will still consider low-stakes writing busy work to their dying day!
Here are a few ways to approach evaluations of low-stakes writing, with a few reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of each:
- Credit for Doing: This scheme awards credit for their effort regardless of quality, but it may be awarded based on behaviors (for example, 100-word minimum for credit; on time for credit, five complete sentences for credit). It is the easiest on your time, for you are only checking something off. However, students are not as likely to engage with writing that is evaluated in this way.
- Check, Check-minus, Check-plus: This system gives students some sense that the quality of their effort counted, and they might work for check-plusses as they might work for points. Checks are easy on you, although once you put a ranking down, you might have to resist the urge to explain it at length.
- Assessment Points: Like the “check” system, it gives students some motivation to engage, but quantifies it in ways that fit their general experience of education. It is a scheme that may also fit your experience of education, so you may experience even more pressure to explain why this is a two and not a three, a nine and not a ten.
As you decide what to do, consider including a standard but informal rubric that either accompanies each assignment or appears in the syllabus. Below you will find a system that a professor has included in the syllabus of a first-year writing courses:
Example 4: Rubric for Low-Stakes Writing Assignments (from a syllabus for a first-year writing course)
Exploratory Writings
Each writing project will have a series of exploratory writings that support the larger project. These will be things like responses to a specific reading, a practice paragraph, a paper proposal, a thesis statement, or edits on sentences that could be improved. It is difficult to predict how many of these writings will be assigned; it depends on how much time we have and on what I think will be most helpful.
When I collect these exploratory writings, I will give them a score from three to zero, and I may make a comment or two.
Three: The writing is on time* and presents a thoughtful, thorough, and even a creative response to the assignment.
Two: The writing is on time and done adequately. It takes the assignment seriously by thoroughly meeting its demands.
One: The writing is late and/or it doesn’t meet the demands of the assignment. It is neither thoughtful nor thorough, nor does it take the assignment seriously.
Zero: The assignment is not turned in. The final grade for exploratory writings is a percentage of the total points possible.
*Turning in work on time only applies to over-night writings. Many of these will be assigned and done in class.
A final piece of advice about responding to low-stakes writing: let the main thing be the main thing. If you are asking them to process a difficult reading, write a sentence at the end or in the margin that appreciates one thing they reflected on, or one question when they could have gone farther, but didn’t. Tell them not to worry about grammatical correctness or spelling or anything like that, and refrain from commenting on such matters. Show instead that you read their work and thought about it in the same spirit in which you assigned it.
Taking Action, 1
Create a general rubric that aligns with the learning outcomes of Core 110 and would help you evaluate the papers in your course effectively and comfortably. For example, some prefer the more analytical approach of awarding points for criteria (Example 1), others prefer a more holistic approach (Example 2). You might also prefer to articulate the criteria in your own words rather than those in the first outcome for Core 110.
Further Reading
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. (See chapter 14, “Using Rubrics and Apply Grading Criteria.”)
Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment. College English, 55, 187-206. https://www-proquest-com.carroll.idm.oclc.org/docview/236963271.
Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (2009). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.