{"id":7571,"date":"2022-09-26T16:27:56","date_gmt":"2022-09-26T20:27:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/?page_id=7571"},"modified":"2022-09-26T16:30:53","modified_gmt":"2022-09-26T20:30:53","slug":"evaluating-student-writing","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/plan-for-grading\/evaluating-student-writing\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluating Student Writing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Evaluating student writing is not only a way to assess a student\u2019s knowledge and abilities but also a form of teaching. To repeat, responding to writing is teaching writing\u2013and it is a form of teaching that is not limited to writing teachers. Successful evaluation of student writing starts with the creation of course assignments<\/strong>, continues through discussing criteria and assessment methods with students<\/strong>, and ends with implementing strategies for clear and consistent feedback<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Start With Learning Objectives<\/h2>\n

Evaluation of student writing begins with assignment design. Assignments designed with clear learning objectives tied to course goals<\/a> increase students\u2019 ability to succeed and make instructors\u2019 work as evaluators easier. (If you need help formulating assignment objectives, utilize Bloom\u2019s taxonomy<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

In addition to defining learning objectives and criteria for evaluation, strong assignments make purpose and task clearer. See Transparency in Learning and Teaching Design (TILT)<\/a>\u00a0for more guidance in designing successful assignments.<\/p>\n

Develop an Effective Approach for Commenting<\/h2>\n

Effective comments should always include both positive feedback and constructive criticism. As Sommers (1982) asserts, \u201cAs writers we need and want thoughtful commentary to show us when we have communicated our ideas and when not, raising questions from a reader\u2019s point of view that may not have occurred to us as writers\u201d (p. 148). Student writers\u2019 needs are no different.<\/p>\n

Providing feedback on student writing can also help you assess their work by putting your own ideas into writing. For example, it could be helpful in your terminal (end of paper) or summative comments to articulate how the paper met or did not meet specific disciplinary conventions and\/or how various readers might interpret or value aspects of the paper.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s most essential is that comments be specific. Effective terminal comments often use the praise sandwich: leading with student strengths, moving on to weaknesses, and then ending on a final positive note. When providing specific feedback, identify the weakness or strengths you observe and also offer details for how to perform better.<\/p>\n

A Note on Grammar<\/h2>\n

When providing feedback regarding student writing, instructors might be tempted to focus solely on grammar and mechanics. Helping a student write clearly is useful, but feedback isn\u2019t useful when students don\u2019t believe they can improve to meet your expectations. For the most part, if a student\u2019s point is clear despite minor but visible errors, they have been effective in communicating a message. Focusing feedback on clarity of message can even help when grammatical errors do need to be addressed, as long as they are discussed through the lens of the reader not understanding the message.<\/p>\n

Moreover, outside of specific grammar courses, many instructors are moving away from editing student language because American English has many variations, Standard English being only one of many. Rules around grammar, usage, and mechanics are primarily learned implicitly, through immersion in language communities. Standard Academic English is a home language for many middle-class students whose parents attended college in the U.S. but a second language for many other students whose families, home, and work communities do not primarily use Standard Academic English. Asau Inoue (2019)<\/strong> argues that evaluating students against the metric of Standard Academic English asserts racially biased hierarchies. He writes: \u201cWe live in a racist society, one that recreates well-known, well-understood, racial hierarchies in populations based on things like judgements of student writing that use a local Standardized Edited American English (SEAE) with populations of people who do not use that discourse on a daily basis\u2013judging apples by the standards of oranges\u201d (p. 6). Young (2018)<\/strong> echoes this sentiment, arguing against cultural critic Stanley Fish\u2019s take that instructors should enforce one type of English to help students avoid prejudice (p. 110\u2013117). Much like novelist Amy Tan<\/strong> writes in \u201cMother Tongue\u201d of how the many \u201cenglishes\u201d she grew up with helped her become a better writer, Young (2018)<\/strong> argues for tolerance of \u201clinguistic and racial differences,\u201d and goes on to praise code-meshing in language which can more effectively get arguments across to audiences and also \u201chelp reduce prejudice\u201d (p. 110\u2013117).<\/p>\n

Methods for Assessing Writing<\/h2>\n

There are many methods for evaluating student writing and communicating that assessment to students. Some options include:<\/p>\n