Grading is often one of the most difficult tasks facing teachers, particularly new teachers. Grading is made even more challenging by the recent problem of grade inflation. Because high grades such as A, A-, or B+ represent the ideal of excellent, very good, or good performance, seeing higher grades gives the students the perception that they are doing well. If students are not, in fact, doing well, this can lead to the problem of grade inflation. Grade inflation can be implicit, explicit, or sometimes both. Explicit grade inflation refers to students of comparable performance receiving higher grades than their counterparts. Implicit grade inflation results from changes in faculty characteristics, institutional policies, and other factors (Hu, 2005, p. viii).

Further, grading is made complex through personal ethical orientation and expectations. Many people fail in making grading an objective practice, because it is not an objective practice. Grading is a mostly subjective task. Our perspectives, experiences, beliefs, and desires frequently influence our grading practices. Oftentimes, we try to negotiate the field of objectivity by assigning numbers and using scales; however, we cannot quantify the qualitative nature of grading. And, as we explain later, we should not deny the emotional component of grading, which is useful for inspiring a good work ethic in students and encouraging their academic development and success.

In summary, grading is a difficult practice. Moreover, grading is a considerably subjective practice. In light of these two premises of grading, the question becomes: How can teachers grade fairly, reliably, and objectively? Once it is recognized and accepted that grading is subjective and not necessarily a quantitative or positivist practice, a plethora of methods of grading become available.

GRADING GUIDELINES

Grading is a social, subjective, and learning-oriented practice; consequently, there are a few guidelines that we have gleaned from different instructors and personal experiences, which provide a solid foundation for grading student performance:

Be friendly. Avoid creating an adversarial or dictatorial relationship.

Be firm. Stand your ground when you make a decision about a grade. Students often sense a lenient teacher.

Be fair. If you have made a mistake, admit it and make the appropriate adjustment. Also, be sure that you hold all students to the same standard and treat them equally.

Clearly explain your expectations. Do this before allowing students to work on any assignment.

Be sure your expectations are appropriate to the student’s level of ability.

Expect all students to work within the appropriate level of fluency. In other words, expect your students to work toward native-like fluency.

TYPES OF GRADING

Once you have considered the preceding guidelines and faced the impending realities of how your grades will affect classroom behavior and student performance, then you should decide which type or method of grading you will use. Currently, there are a limited number of methods of grading. We have listed those most appropriate to the language arts here.

Holistic Grading. By using your lived experiences as a teacher and your familiarity with the level of work completed at the grade level you teach, provide the student with a grade and a short justification of why this grade seems appropriate to the work. You may consider papers from other classes you have seen or even consider papers from within the class. One scholar suggests that “At its core, it assumes that writing is best judged as a whole rather than as a series of discrete skills” (White, 1999, pp. 51-52).

Competitive Grading. This works by comparing all of the work within a class. You evaluate the assignments and rate them from best to worst. You then award higher grades to the best work and lower grades to the worst work. You may put positive or rewarding comments on the best work (e.g., “no changes needed,” “excellent paper”) and you should put specific comments on the remaining papers be they very good, good, satisfactory, poor, or unacceptable, providing a justification as to why the paper is not as good in comparison to the work of the best students. Because students often work competitively, such a method may be useful.

Rubric Grading. You may grade the papers by creating a rubric (a framework that associates grades with specific criteria). Rubrics come in all shapes and sizes. Some rubrics are very detailed and some are not. Rubrics generally have a list of positive or negative attributes of writings. You may have points that you circle based on how well the student performs according to the number of positive or negative attributes you find. One thing to consider is that you can prioritize important characteristics on the rubric; that is, you can put things of higher importance first on your rubric, and you can even assign a higher point value to these items (Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008, p. 128).

Direct Grading (Negative). This method involves making a list of common errors that you find in student work. Using this list, assign a point value to the error. When a student makes the same error many times, you simply deduct that point value and let the student know what the error is. In a sense, you look for patterns of consistent errors.

Direct Grading (Positive). This method involves making a list of good traits in writing that you find in student assignments. Using this list, assign a point value to each trait. When a student uses a good trait, award a point (or keep points). Do not assign a point if the trait is not present. Then, add up the total points.

Peer Response Grading. This method involves anonymously soliciting students’ perspectives on the grade the assignment deserves. Students may work in small groups or large groups or as a whole class to determine the grade for an assignment. Remove the name of the student from the assignment. Assign a number to the paper. Allow the students to read a copy and justify the grade that they would assign to the paper. This method solicits the judgment of peers who completed the same assignment and uses this judgment as a catalyst for the student to want to improve, because the paper is displayed publicly.

Model-Based Grading. This method involves providing models to students of ideal assignments. In essence, you should collect “A” assignments, “B” assignments, and “C” assignments from previous semesters. Using your perspective, you should try to grade your students’ assignments by how well they resemble the traits and appearance of the model assignments. Make sure to provide the students with the models before the assignment is given, and discuss them in class.

Standards-Based Grading (Letter). This method involves having a list of criteria that equal an “A” assignment. For example, if the assignment is a paper, an “A” paper might be completely free of run-on sentences, free of spelling errors, and so on. On the basis of your findings and comparison with the criteria, you assign a grade.

Standards-Based Grading (Numeric). Similar to Standards-Based Grading (Letter), this method involves having a list of criteria that equal a paper or an assignment earning full numeric credit (100%). For example, if the assignment is a paper worth 100 points, the assignment should generally be free of run-on sentences, free of spelling errors, and so on. The grade that is assigned should be based on instructor findings and comparison with the assignment criteria.

WORKLOAD CONSIDERATIONS

Another consideration in grading is the problem of workload. Having hundreds of papers or assignments to grade after the due date of a single assignment is a common tale of woe told by many teachers. In determining how you grade with reference to the number of papers or assignments per due date, several approaches are worth consideration:

Individual Assignment Grading. Simply grade the assignments as they are submitted (i.e., one paper at a time).

Unit/Unit Portfolio Grading. Simply grade a small group or small number of assignments based on a particular chapter or unit. For example, if you are studying narratives or story writing, then you might have students write two or three stories/narratives. Instead of grading each narrative one at a time, you simply grade them all together. The advantage is that you do not use an excessive amount of time grading all the individual papers throughout the term.

Whole-Course Portfolio Grading (similar to Unit/Unit Portfolio Grading). Simply grade all of the assignments for the term at the end of the term. Now, an ethical instructor will oftentimes read drafts of the papers, providing feedback. However, the grade is not assigned until all of the papers are completed and turned in together. This method is picking up popularity, as evidenced by the number of books that are currently written about portfolio grading. This method breaks the workload into a single task. The best thing about portfolios is that they provide a physical record of where students begin, how they progress during the term, and where their writing abilities seem to be heading as the course ends. Rather than showing a series of letter-grade snapshots, a portfolio demonstrates the kind of progress a student has made, the ways in which the student used successive drafts to work through the writing process, the student’s strengths and weakness in choosing topics and working on different types of assignments, and the themes in the student’s work (Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008, p. 135).

Portfolios are indispensible for teaching both product and process, and they help not only to record information but also to depict to administrators and peers, as well as the student, where the grade is when compared with other students in the same class or in the same school. Portfolios, when kept over time, provide a valuable resource and should be strongly considered for use in the writing class.

Contract Grading. You engage the students directly in the process of deciding what grade they want to work toward. Simply create a specific "contract" that outlines the things that students will do for an “A” grade, “B” grade, or “C” grade. The students agree to complete the required tasks, and the instructor bases the grade on task completion at appropriate levels of quality as defined in the contract.

METHODS OF RESPONDING (FEEDBACK)

The next important consideration in grading is how you choose to respond to a student’s work. There are several types of feedback or response methods. All of these methods have advantages and disadvantages. But, the most important point is that you provide the student with feedback after he or she has completed an assignment. When providing feedback to a student it is important to consider the placement of the feedback. Types of feedback include the following:

Marginal Comments. Comments are written only in the margins (with some arrows pointing to concerns). Marginal comments allow you to “be specific in your praise or questioning – you can call attention to strengths or weakness where they occur. . . . [Most] are nearly always short ― single sentences or phrases” (Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008, pp. 121-122).

Terminal Comments. Comments are written only at the end of the paper. In a sense, terminal comments help to convey “the most important message you give students about their [work]”; furthermore, good terminal comments should “focus on general qualities, presenting the teacher’s impression of the essay as a whole. . . . [Next], a good terminal comment devotes a large part of its content to an evaluation of the essay. . . . The evaluation must take in content, organization, and style, concentrating all of this information in a short space” (Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008, pp. 121-122).

External Comments/Summary. Comments are put into summary form on a separate sheet of paper (often attached to the student’s paper). These may be typed for ease of reading and may be used as a record for reference, because oftentimes teachers don’t make notes about the types of errors a student has.

Proofreading Marks/Blood Stains. This method involves the “classic” red pen marks. The instructors marks as all the errors he or she finds. One drawback of this method is the modern theory of grammar instruction that states very clearly that “there is little reason to believe that the ability to write grammatical―and even prescriptively correct―sentences will ensure good writing. Written discourse may consist of sequences of sentences, but it also encompasses much more . . . appropriate form . . . appropriate content. . . . Good writing requires a host of integrated skills in three major areas of content, organization, and style” (Noguchi, 1991, pp. 117-118). The other drawback is that students’ learning is limited to correcting errors that the instructor has already found. Such a practice has limited value in student learning.

Conferencing. The teacher meets one-on-one with the student to discuss an assignment and attendant concerns. Such meetings should be private and confined to 5 to 10 minutes, in which the instructor points out strengths and weakness of the assignment. Such a social connection to the instructor probably helps the student to know his or her strengths and to strive for better work.

Peer Response Groups. The student receives feedback from peers. Usually, peer response is solicited before a grade is administered. The instructor may choose to supplement the peer’s comments if needed.

METHODS OF REINFORCEMENT

One final consideration is what types of grading “reinforcement” are most helpful to the student. Essentially, there are five types of responses with respect to grading and evaluating student work: positive, negative, balanced, punishment, and torture.

Positive Reinforcement. Mostly positive commentary is provided. Such commentary often functions as a fundamental reward for the student’s good work.

Negative Reinforcement. Critical commentary is provided to make the student aware of problems in his or her writing.

Balanced Reinforcement. The student is provided with a careful mix of positive and negative reinforcement; that is, an instructor provides positive feedback for positive aspects of the writing, and then the instructor provides negative feedback for negative aspects of the writing.

Punishment. The focus is almost entirely on the high probability of failing the assignment as a result of the errors present in the student’s work, lack of effort in completing the assignment, or failure to work up to one’s potential. Some instructors refer to this method as the “put on the pressure” approach. In using this method, you may consider refusing to pass the assignment initially, but you can use revision of the assignment as an incentive to improve the quality of work. Sometimes, students need to see the possibility of failure as a means for correcting negative behaviors such as blatant laziness or the lack of a collegiate work ethic.

Torture. The student does the assignment again and again and again in an effort to make the student aware of the importance of different errors or issues with the assignment. Although such a practice may be time-consuming for a teacher, such instruction is not out of the realm of possibilities. It is helpful to remember the oft-quoted maxim “Practice makes perfect.”

GRADING PERSPECTIVE

The late, great author and scholar Donald Murray once wrote “In writing, failure is normal” (2004, p. 138). We spend countless hours as academics trying to qualify what is good work. It is paramount that you consider the “how’s and why’s” of your grading practices. Find a type of grading that suits you; choose the appropriate workload; and choose an appropriate method of providing feedback or responding to student work. Consider your perspective in your commentary. Ask yourself: Are you going to lean towards positive or negative commentary with a particular student? And, finally, keep learning from your students. Oftentimes, teachers move too quickly to judge a student and pigeon-hole their work into one grade level for an entire semester. Be aware, and let a student's progress over time help to guide you in determining his or her grades. In doing so, you will not only improve your credibility with students, but you will improve your abilities as a teacher overall.

REFERENCES

Glenn, C., & Goldthwaite, M. (2008). The St. Martin’s guide to teaching writing (6^thed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Hu, S. (2005). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, D. (2004). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.). Thomson/Heinle: Boston.

Noguchi, R. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Press.

White, E. (1999). Assignment, responding, evaluating: A writing teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

James T. Pettersson, PhD, petterji@uvu.edu, is a professor of English as a second language and the IEP program director at Utah Valley University.

Thomas Henry, PhD, thomas.henry@uvu.edu, is an assistant professor of basic composition/ESL at Utah Valley University and is also the advisory board director of BasicComposition.com.