Grading: Institutional Imperative / Instructional Impediment(?)
Prefatory Notes
With one set of essay grades under your belt and a new stack of papers to grade, now is a good time to put theory camps on hold and take a detour into response and grading (a.k.a. “feedback and assessment,” or “comments and evaluation,” or “heavy drinking and frustration”).
If we take the Faigley exit (on our detour route), things may look familiar. Faigley cites Catherine Belsey’s Critical Practice in discussion of two dominant metaphors for writing in the 19th and 20th centuries:
“…one the empiricist metaphor of language as the transparent window on reality, the other the express of this metaphor of language as the vehicle for projecting the thoughts and emotions of the individual. [Belsey] shows how these seemingly contradictory metaphors both assume that language originates within the minds of individuals. Belsey calls the merger of the two metaphors “expressive realism.” While different versions of expressive realism may privilege the individual psyche over perceived reality or vice versa, all versions share the assumptions that language exists outside of history and is innocent of politics.”
In an exploration of truth, value, purpose, and location of writing (and meaning) and recent/dominant thinking on how to evaluate it, Faigley shows assessment, ideology, and theory share porous (overlapping) borders. (Topically, I guess grading isn’t so much a detour from theory camps as it is an alternate route?)
This week, we’ll explore grading as a lens for ideological positioning and as a lived reality (and necessary evil? opportunity for instruction? institutional/personal capital?). We’ll discuss different types of feedback (facilitative, directive, evaluative); how students interpret our comments; how, when, and what to grade; and the usefulness (and frustrations) of rubrics. I’ll also share some of my own “shortcuts,” not via the road of excess (as Haswell), but via the road of experience. (more metaphors! driving metaphors!)
Required Readings
Questions to Consider
- What does this metaphor mean (unpack it)? Does it ring true for your experience in grading papers? What’s your metaphor for grading?
- On page 363, Bloom asks if grades should reflect factors external to the papers — factors such as students’ backgrounds and responsibilities outside the classroom, students’ adherence to due dates and formatting guidelines, etc. She says “as graders we can be fair, but as human beings, we can never be objective.” Assuming her statement — “as graders we can be fair” — is tongue-in-cheek (is it?), should we consider those external factors? What benefits might come from such consideration? What problems?
- On 363, Bloom states, “we say we’re only responding to the text, not to the character of the writer behind it, but our students know better” because they’ve known what it means to be labeled an A student, or a C student, etc. Bloom then goes on to share an anecdote about a student (Dewayne) taking umbrage at receiving a B on a paper written in honor of his dog. Character, labels, content — Bloom mashes these together (or uses them interchangeably? as parts of a whole?) under the heading of ‘labeling writers.’ But aren’t those things different? Meaningfully different? (To be clear, this passage didn’t sit well with me and I’m trying to figure out whether the dissonance is a failure in my understanding or in Bloom’s text.)