Assessment Philosophy
Assessing student writing is one of the greatest challenges of teaching writing. Some students work hard on a paper and expect the grade to reflect the number of hours they put into the assignment. Some other students are shocked when they find a passing grade on a paper they were sure they failed. The role of the instructor, then, becomes a delicate balance between encouraging students to push themselves harder, correcting incorrect practices or principles in writing, and rewarding students for making sound rhetorical decisions.
Each argument my students write prepares them for the next argument: while they learn the enthymeme, we have a shared audience so we can discuss the best ways to connect with that audience. The second argument partners students in the class with each other over a mutual disagreement. The third argument is a policy argument done in collaboration with a small group (three or four students per group). The final argument is a revision and expansion of one of these arguments. The feedback I give on the first argument moves students forward on their second argument by combining the rhetorical strategies they learn during the first argument as well as the stylistic and organizational principles they learn during the second argument unit. Feedback on the second argument reinforces those rhetorical and stylistic principles, but also moves toward a greater understanding of how to connect with an audience who can make policy decisions. The collaborative argument is turned in electronically, and students receive audio and video feedback through Jing. I include careful feedback in each argument, so students can refer to my notes to see suggestions for further development, reorganization, and audience connections. Because the final argument is the most heavily weighted assignment in my class, I am continuously looking for moments wherein students could revise and expand their existing arguments.
Grading papers is more than determining who followed the rubric or examples most carefully, and more about how students are able to connect with their intended audience, build arguments based on sound logic and reason, and communicate clearly and concisely. As I grade each paper, I imagine audience responses to claims and tone. I then communicate to the student how the intended audience may respond. The best student writing may not have perfect grammar or an expansive vocabulary; the best writing is appropriate for the intended audience and easily understood.
Each argument my students write prepares them for the next argument: while they learn the enthymeme, we have a shared audience so we can discuss the best ways to connect with that audience. The second argument partners students in the class with each other over a mutual disagreement. The third argument is a policy argument done in collaboration with a small group (three or four students per group). The final argument is a revision and expansion of one of these arguments. The feedback I give on the first argument moves students forward on their second argument by combining the rhetorical strategies they learn during the first argument as well as the stylistic and organizational principles they learn during the second argument unit. Feedback on the second argument reinforces those rhetorical and stylistic principles, but also moves toward a greater understanding of how to connect with an audience who can make policy decisions. The collaborative argument is turned in electronically, and students receive audio and video feedback through Jing. I include careful feedback in each argument, so students can refer to my notes to see suggestions for further development, reorganization, and audience connections. Because the final argument is the most heavily weighted assignment in my class, I am continuously looking for moments wherein students could revise and expand their existing arguments.
Grading papers is more than determining who followed the rubric or examples most carefully, and more about how students are able to connect with their intended audience, build arguments based on sound logic and reason, and communicate clearly and concisely. As I grade each paper, I imagine audience responses to claims and tone. I then communicate to the student how the intended audience may respond. The best student writing may not have perfect grammar or an expansive vocabulary; the best writing is appropriate for the intended audience and easily understood.