Effective Grading & Rubrics Erin K. Johns Speese

Tips from Nicole Sieben “Relate and React to the Content/Ideas of the Piece” Respond only to the content/ideas Ask guiding questions Give explanations as to why a revision needs to occur Don’t offer much correction feedback or simply give grades

Tips from Nicole Sieben “Provide a Balance of Compliments and Critique” Suggested Positivity Ratio is 3:1 According to study, 3 positive comments counteract 1 harmful comment Helps student to grow as a writer

Tips from Nicole Sieben “Use Minimal Marginal Notes and Summative Endnotes” No more than 4 marginal notes on each page Give holistic comments at the end that address larger or consistent concerns Phrase end comments as letters to students to personalize

Tips from Nicole Sieben “Keep It Conversational and Ask Questions” Frame suggestions as questions, i.e., Have you thought about…? Try to keep tone conversational not confrontational This tone tends to carry over into one on one conferences

Notes from Nicole Sieben “Ask Students to Write Feedback Response Letters and Highlight Paper Revisions” Allows students to assess their own writing Asks students to think about what they can still improve in their writing Maintains conversational tone Helps students become more self-aware of their writing and revision process

Notes from Nicole Sieben “Use Emoticons (Speak Their Digital Language)” Use emoticons in places where students are attempting to illicit an emotional response Shows students you are engaged with their ideas

Notes from Peter Elbow “Use Minimal Grades on Low Stakes Writing” Use an easy grading schema for writing that is informal/low stakes Scale with three levels: Strong/Satisfactory/Weak Scale with two levels: Pass/Fail One level: Acceptable by just being turned in Zero scale: Not collected, meant for inquiry Avoid making comments on these assignments unless necessary

Notes from Peter Elbow “Giving Grades More Meaning” Using criteria but not grading each one Using a minimal grid for grading, i.e., Clarity: Strong, Satisfactory, etc. Makes it easier to see how the grade averages out

Notes from Nancy Sommers Watch for comments that shift the focus away from the student’s purpose in their writing to the teacher’s purpose Watch for contradictory feedback that might confuse students Teachers’ comments are often not text specific; Anchor your comment to the student’s text Take draft stages into consideration; What comments are appropriate for a first versus second versus final draft?

Designing an Effective Assignment Overview the focus of the assignment Articulate clearly the parameters of the assignment Make it clear what the goals of the assignment are Have learning objectives/takeaways for students Articulate the evaluation criteria for the assignment

Designing an Effective Rubric Decide if you want to implement a point scale or a multi-level scale (strong, satisfactory, weak) Make a list of clear criteria that you will evaluate in the paper Emphasize content criteria more so than grammar, sentence level concerns Option: Leave space for specific comments on criteria when needed

Holistic Comments Still include a holistic note discussing the overall feedback for the paper Keep substantive suggestions for improvement at 3-4 Keep a positivity ratio. Don’t just focus on the negative. Keep the tone conversational. Usually, a letter format works best. Don’t overwhelm your students with feedback for improvement. Use the rubric to your advantage, especially for lower level concerns like grammar. Check a box on the rubric and save the holistic comments for higher level concerns, like content, structure, argument development, etc.

Works Cited Elbow, Peter. “Grading Student Writing: Making It Simpler, Fairer, Clearer.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 69, 1997, pp. 127-140. Sieben, Nicole.  “Building Hopeful Secondary School Writers through Effective Feedback Strategies.” English Journal, vol. 106, no. 6, 2017: pp. 48-53. Sommers, Nancy.  “Responding to Student Writing.”  College Composition and Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, 1982, pp. 148-156.