Grading

In thinking about holistic vs analytical grading, it seems to me that the smaller components might be relevant to think about, but that with writing, it is (I think) possible for a paper to be greater than the sum of its parts. Sometimes a paper that seems mildly disorganized and does not have a particularly clear thesis statement, but whose purpose is clear throughout, can be a pretty decent paper overall, etc.

In my undergraduate experience I only remember having a grading rubric handed to me once and, honestly, I didn't really know what to do with it. I certainly never said to myself, "gee, the rubric says to get an A I need a clear, well defined thesis and frankly this one is rather vague." If I could see that, it wouldn't be a problem! Rather, it is only in the last 2 years or so that I have been able to really assess my own work's strengths and weaknesses, so I don't necessarily think that I should expect my students to, either.

One thing that I think was suggested by one of the instructors Ken Bain interviewed in What the Best College Teachers Do is to spend a day very early on talking about assessment. This professor brought examples of A and B papers, etc to class and spent the entire class period discussing what constituted what grade and why. I think that I would like to adapt that somewhat, but I think that it would be highly relevant for students to be able to see what an A paper looks like before being expected to produce one.

I suppose the only problem with that is that when teaching for the first time, where do we get such papers? I guess we'll have to write them ourselves if we really want them, but gosh, I don't know if I can write an F paper!

--Bri