Assessing Student Writing

Assessing Student Writing—Very Basic General Background

There is no one way to assess student writing, though there may, as a matter of fact, be two major schools of thought. Writing looks different in different disciplines—we are looking for somewhat different things in a paper on a Keats poem versus a report on lab findings in chemistry. But accounting for these differences, there are still a few basic things that most instructors would like to see. These include the quality of the ideas, support or development of the ideas, logical organization, clarity, and mechanical correctness.

One route to assessing these factors is to develop an analytic scale, giving points for the success of each element. This method allows the instructor to treat the elements separately, and weight them appropriately. The analytic scale can be given to the students along with the assignment, making it very clear at the outset what the instructor is looking for. The scale can be a very general one, or it can be tailored to the individual writing assignment, with points given for following quite exact expectations.

This is a sample of a piece of an analytic scale, where “Content” has been broken into three parts. 

Students and instructors alike probably appreciate this method, as it spells out what is being assessed.

On the other hand, instructors and students also amply appreciate that assessing writing calls for subjective judgment. The student fumes, “But I did discuss the textbook material, and I only got four points for it!” And the instructor sighs, as the discussion of the textbook material was very scanty, or incorrect, or not integrated into the paragraph in a way that made any sense, or had any number of flaws that made this student’s “Content” score not as good as another student who got the full 30 points. It can also be very difficult to sort out “Quality of Ideas” from “Mechanics” and “Organization.” In a good paper, everything flows together, and there are minimal errors. A poor paper may be incomprehensible because of faulty sentence structure as well as ideas that go nowhere, and the two failings seem inextricably intermeshed.

And so the other main current of writing assessment is to develop a so-called holistic scale. This grades the paper based on an overall judgment that does not attempt to parcel out points for different areas of competency.

Here is the “B Paper” portion of a holistic scale. For the complete scale, visit http://edgenet.edgewood.edu/lss/wc/holistic_scale.htm. 

"B Paper"
It is significantly more than competent. Besides being almost free of mechanical errors, the B paper delivers substantial information—that is, substantial in both quantity and interest-value. Its specific points are logically ordered, well developed, and unified around a clear organizing principle that is apparent early in the paper. The opening paragraph draws the reader in; the closing paragraph is both conclusive and thematically related to the opening. The transitions between paragraphs are for the most part smooth, the sentence structures pleasingly varied. The diction of the B paper is typically much more concise and precise than that found in the C paper. Occasionally, it even shows distinctiveness—i.e., finesse and memorability. On the whole then, a B paper makes the reading experience a pleasurable one, for it offers substantial information with few distractions.

The tone of the holistic scale is markedly different from the analytic scale. It is precise in what it is looking for, but it sees the student paper as an integrated whole from which one overall impression can be taken. Both the analytic and the holistic method will work. The outlook is very different, but both should lead to fair and consistent grading.

For more information:

The Writing Center at Colorado State University has an excellent discussion of writing assessment, with samples of grading sheets from various disciplines, plus advice on how to comment on student papers, using peer editing, and devising assignments. Go to http://writing.colostate.edu

I highly recommend Engaging Ideas, by John C. Bean (Wiley, 2001) as a clear and practical guide to dealing with student writing. It is full of samples of different types of writing assignments, grading, dealing with mechanical error, and getting through all that to promote critical thinking.

Have comments, suggestions, a sample of your own successful grading scale? Please contact me at:  awoodward@edgewood.edu.  

Writing Center Hours