Sarah Mason, Sarah Oommen, Sarah Orosz

Dr. Lee Nickson-Massey

English 484

March 17, 2008

A Philosophy of Grading Writing: Evaluation and Ethics

At times a teacher may feel overwhelmed at the sight of numerous papers stacked on her desk. This situation occurs consistently in the education profession, as grading and evaluation are essential to understanding[I1]  student progress. There are numerous modes of evaluation that can be utilized by a teacher[I2] . The method in which an educator evaluates and grades writing is heavily influenced by her ethics—her values, beliefs, and biases—resulting in her philosophy of grading[I3] .

Evaluation

A myriad of options regarding evaluation are available to educators when grading writing. One of these types includes the rubric. A rubric is “a set of clear expectations or criteria used to help teachers and students focus on what is valued in a subject, topic, or activity. Scoring rubrics are brief written descriptions of different levels of pupil performance based on the performance criteria” (Airasian 166). Rubrics are helpful for offering students a sense of direction during the writing process, allowing them to understand what is expected of them and how they will be evaluated. A teacher might use a rubric when he wants to focus on a certain content standard, such as “Writing Applications,” and a specific benchmark, such as “Write a persuasive piece that states a clear position, includes relevant information and offers compelling evidence in the form of facts and details” (Ohio 47). He might include within his rubric the persuasiveness of the argument and the extent to which the evidence supports this argument, weighing these two elements more greatly than other parts of the paper, such as grammar and spelling. This gives his students a clear understanding that he expects there to be a clearly defined and persuasive position with details to support this perspective and that he will not be paying as much attention to more local issues. While rubrics can be wonderful tools for educators[I4] , possible disadvantages exist. For example, it may be difficult to determine just how much emphasis to place on certain attributes and how many points to give to these elements. Another disadvantage is that, if a student paper does not measure up to the guidelines written on the rubric, but is otherwise well written, it still receives a low grade, which can harm student self-esteem. Rubrics can be effective, but other methods exist[I5] .

Another type of evaluation[I6]  is peer evaluation. It allows for a more personal approach to evaluating student writing. It also may help students with their ability to write to a certain audience. For example, if the teacher instructs students to write such that anyone could pick up that piece of writing and be able to comprehend it, having a peer read and evaluate it may ensure that this criterion has been met. Peer evaluation may aid in meeting the benchmark for the “Writing Process Standard” that says, “Formulate writing ideas and identify a topic appropriate to the purpose and audience” (Ohio 41). The disadvantage to peer evaluation is that the peers may not be qualified to offer adequate feedback, or may be reticent to give feedback at all. In this latter case, a peer may give a vague response to a piece of writing. On the other hand, another peer may give appropriate, detailed feedback to a student. The student whose peer is more apt to give and experienced in giving feedback will receive a more constructive and reliable evaluation, while the student whose peer is hesitant or unable to give feedback may not receive an evaluation conducive to their success.

A third type of evaluation is self-evaluation. A teacher who wants to encourage students to write meaningfully and wants to involve students in the evaluation process would benefit from utilizing the self-evaluation method. A possible disadvantage of self-evaluation is that it may rely upon a student’s level self-esteem and may not rely on an objective evaluation of one’s own writing. Another possible disadvantage is that a student may not work as diligently on her writing; students often work harder when they know a second party will critique their writing. Therefore, perhaps this tool is more appropriately useful for prewriting.

Students may feel overwhelmed by focusing on one poor grade that not only is factored into her final grade but may also result in a negative attitude toward the class. Portfolio evaluation can be the solution to prevent such a situation. “A writing portfolio is a personal anthology of work chosen by the student” (Lane, 201[I7] ). The purpose of utilizing a portfolio is that it eliminates the notion of failure, stressing achievement and improvement in writing. A teacher can evaluate each paper and return them with suggestions for revision. The student can then revise and edit their papers, turning in the essays that they consider their best in a portfolio for a final grade. However, this may require a significant amount of extra time that may overwhelm both teacher and student[I8] .

Recently, due to technological advancements, a new and innovative method of evaluation has emerged.  Computer grading has replaced grading of written work by teachers in many of today’s classrooms. According to an article in Wired magazine entitled, “Computers Grade Students’ Writing,” one-half million students in grades K-12 use a specific computer-grading program called e-Rater. According to Educational Testing Service, each month 2,000 teachers begin using this tool. An advantage to using computer grading is that it can provide students with a speedy response to their writing. It also benefits teachers in that it may loosen time-constraints that can lead to stress. On the other hand, a downside to computer grading is the effect on students’ self-image. When they receive impersonal, robotic-sounding comments on their written work, they might feel short-changed, like the teacher does not value their ideas or effort. The comments provided may not be of a positive nature, for the computer is not be able to reason like a human being. This method does not take into account the effect on a student’s emotions. Whether or not to use computer grading is a controversial topic, definitely[I9]  making it an issue that is heavily influenced by an individual teacher’s ethics[I10] .

Ethics

            Biases and values affect the way teachers evaluate and grade. One bias in the classroom is known as “the halo effect.” This bias is a phenomenon “through which our evaluation of a paper is in part determined by our first impression of students or by our overall opinion of their intelligence” (Neman 521). Conscious or subconscious biases against or towards a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or even the quality of a student’s handwriting can influence one’s grading. Ways to eliminate or decrease the effects of this bias are to grade anonymously; become aware of one’s own biases and not allowing them to affect one’s grading; and exchanging papers with other teachers in order to ensure fairness. The halo effect refers to a bias toward or against an individual, but other biases exist that deal with groups of students[I11] .

            One group-related bias is cultural bias, or bias toward or against a certain culture. Again, a teacher may or may not know that she holds this bias, but it is important for her to be aware of it, and to decrease it as much as possible. Promoting cultural pluralism is one way to get rid of this bias. Cultural pluralism is a value that some educators may hold; it is “the process where two or more distinct cultural groups coexist separately without any requirement to assimilate” (Banks 74).

            Teachers may hold unknown biases for or against English Language Learners (ELLs), those who are in the process of learning English. A teacher may be stricter or more lenient on an ELL because of the teacher’s beliefs about ELLs in general. For example, a teacher may believe that all Ells are the same—they form one homogeneous group. This is not the case, however; Ells are a diverse group of students with a rich array of cultures and experiences that they bring with them into the classroom. Believing that ELLs are all the same might result in a teacher grading all ELLs in the same way, providing little to no individual attention. When this bias is overcome, a teacher can treat all ELLs individually, providing such personal attention in his evaluation.

            An educator’s values will always be present and impact the way she evaluates student writing. A teacher should make sure that her values serve to help students grow and learn in the educational setting. When a teacher values critical thinking, he might desire that his students do not simply agree with what they are given but question the processes that led a person to come to that conclusion. He shows the high emphasis he places on critical thinking through his evaluation techniques; he may weigh analysis more heavily than summary, and may place more emphasis on content than on mechanics. Another teacher may value writing as a process rather than writing for a grade. The value of writing as a process rather than reaching a destination may influence the teacher to give tentative grades with the hope that students will take advantage of additional time to make revisions and come to understand the process of writing. Still another teacher might value student cooperation. She might use peer evaluation, especially within groups to ensure individual accountability and the cohesive working together of a group as a unified entity.

A Philosophy of Grading

            A teacher’s ethics shine through in his methods of evaluating student writing, resulting in a philosophy of evaluation. No philosophy is wrong, and no two are alike. Utilizing craft-centered approach, affect-centered approach, and social constructivism as starting points is beneficial for educators to create their own unique philosophy of evaluating writing.

A craft-centered philosophy may be informed by valuing a student’s mastery of the traditional aspects of teaching writing, such as format and mechanics, and respect for authority, namely the teacher. In this philosophy, an educator may value the dichotomy of rightness v. wrongness. In regards to evaluating writing, a craft-centered philosophy would emphasize writing conventions, as an important aspect of writing.  An educator influenced by this approach would likely weigh grammar and spelling as crucial elements that writing must utilize properly.  An example of craft centered approach to philosophy is the rubric; the mechanics and the format will be weighted more heavily than the content or audience awareness.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, an affect-centered philosophy values the writer seeking self-discovery through finding her voice and expressing herself. Within an affect centered philosophy a teacher may evaluate a student more heavily upon his or her ability to produce highly creative, imaginative, or thought provoking writing. A teacher may also like to see a student “think outside the box” or write in a manner that is stepping outside of their comfort zones. These techniques are all important to growing and shaping oneself to become a multifaceted writer. For example, a teacher may encourage self-evaluation for the student to create intrinsic meaning in their writing.

A social constructivist philosophy is characterized by an emphasis on collaboration, group work, and discourse community. Socially bound, educators practicing this philosophy strive to communicate a message for reader comprehension.  This approach to writing employs the use of higher order concerns and lower order concerns.  Higher order concerns, or HOCs, strive to have writers improve on content through their message and their awareness of their audience.  Lower order concerns, or LOCs, are concerns that deal with format, such as grammar, spelling, and syntax.  As the name implies, higher order concerns are emphasized before lower order concerns.  In evaluating writing, an educator might create a rubric that weighs eighty percent on content, or higher order concerns, and twenty percent on format, mechanics, or lower order concerns.

            Teachers will find themselves anywhere on the spectrum: craft on the one side, affect of the other, or social located in the center. However, a teacher can and most likely will develop a philosophy that encompasses all three or a combination of these philosophies[I12] . Teachers should try to make a conscious effort to know their biases and values because these heavily influence who the teacher will be in the realm of the classroom[I13] .

 

Works Cited

 

Airasian, Peter. Assessment in the Classroom. Boston, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.,

2000.

Banks, Steven. Classroom Assessment Issues and Practices. Boston: Pearson Education

Inc., 2005.

“Computers Grade Students’ Writing.” Wired 08 May 2005. 17 Mar 2008

<http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/05/67458>.

Lane, Barry. After the End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision. Portsmouth,

Heinemann Educational Books Inc., 1993.

Neman, Beth. Teaching Students to Write. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Ohio. Ohio Department of Education. Academic Content Standards: K-12 English

Language Arts. 2004.