MEMORANDUM

TO:                  ENG 1010 and 1020 Instructors (and other interested parties)

FROM:            Ellen Barton, Director of Composition

RE.:                 Follow-up to Grading Workshop

DATE:            January 17, 2008

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for participating in the Grading Workshop, sum up some of the discussion, and ask for feedback.

Placement and Prerequisites

To repeat the good news from the email  – the (GEOC) General Education Oversight Committee has accepted our proposal that students must fulfill the Basic Composition requirement (ENG 1020, ENG 1050) with a passing grade of C- or better before moving on to Intermediate Composition.  In combination with the placement system for ENG 1010 and 1020 being pilot-tested this Spring/Summer, we’re making good progress on our placement/prerequisite system.

The GEOC recommendation still has to be reviewed and approved by the Academic Senate, and many technical details for both systems will need to be worked out with the Registrar, so I expect the process will take at least a year.

To repeat the reminders from the email – neither the placement system nor the General Education prerequisite system is officially in place.  I’ll let everyone know when the systems are officially and technologically in effect.

To connect this news to our discussions in the Grading Workshop, this means that the holistic distinction between passing and not passing ENG 1010 (S vs. U) and ENG 1020 (A-C vs. D/F) will have both informal and formal validity as we go on.

ENG 1010

Our 1010 discussion centered on the holistic issues of an S grade for the course as indicating that the student’s writing that is “on target” for 1020 versus a U grade as indicating that the student’s writing is not on target for 1020 to the point that the student needs to repeat the 1010 course. 

Despite the difficulty of evaluating papers out of context (“S-“ and “S with comments” were favorite grades), our analytic discussion of considerations for grading papers as S/U identified the following points:

• following/not following the assignment
• incorporating ideas from readings into writing, going beyond a superficial level of summary or paraphrase and using basic conventions for citation and documentation
• demonstrating critical thinking and reasoning, again going beyond a superficial analysis or interpretation
• developing a clear focus and structure in a paper, including a specific thesis/purpose and adequate development with examples and evidence
• working toward adequate control of mechanics and style, including spelling, grammar, punctuation, and tone

Request for 1010 Feedback

With respect to ENG 1010 I would like to solicit your feedback on the revised learning objectives that were circulated in the Workshop (a copy is attached to the email).  Do you believe that these objectives cover the material that a student needs to master in order to be “on target” for ENG 1020?  Are there other objectives we should include?  Are there objectives that we should remove from ENG 1010?  Do you think these learning objectives would help in establishing and maintaining consistency in 1010 grading across multiple sections and different instructors?  Why or why not?  Please email any comments to me, and I will forward them to the Composition Committee as we work on the New Common Syllabus for ENG 1010.

ENG 1020

Although we discussed papers early in the assignment cycle for ENG 1020, our discussion briefly considered the holistic issues of passing or repeating ENG 1020, which is the distinction that we will move toward with the new GEOC prerequisites (which, again, are *not* in effect yet!). 

Both our holistic and analytic discussions, however, revealed some consensus and some variation in grading in 1020:  we achieved consensus easily on some papers as examples of papers in the A range, B range, C range, etc., but we also exhibited wide variation on other papers, with grades sometimes ranging from B to D.  This might be a good topic for a future workshop.

Our analytic discussion of considerations for grading papers w/ A, B, C, D, and F grades identified the following points:

• following or not following the assignment remains important in 1020, now in more challenging assignments, such as developing a rhetorical analysis or a source-based argument
• incorporating ideas from reading into writing also remains important in 1020, now with use of multiple sources containing multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives
• developing arguments in different genres and forms is crucial in 1020, including a specific/strong thesis and appropriate structure and organization
• supporting a sustained argument in 1020 requires well-developed critical thinking, going beyond a superficial or repetitive analysis using simple cultural commonplaces
• citing and documenting sources appropriately is expected in ENG 1020
• appropriate grammar, mechanics, and style are expected in ENG 1020

We briefly discussed the issues of “grading by revision” in ENG 1020, noting that an unlimited revision option in the course can sometimes result in a misleading grade.

Request for 1020 Feedback

With respect to ENG 1020, I would like to solicit your feedback on the proposed grading rubric for papers in the different grade ranges (a copy is attached to the email).  Do you believe that the rubric criteria are accurate and adequate descriptions of ENG 1020 paper grades?  Are there other criteria we should include?  Are there criteria we should remove?  Do you think this grading rubric would help in establishing and maintaining consistency in 1020 grading across multiple sections and different instructors?  Why or why not?  Please email any comments to me, and I will forward them to the Composition Committee as we work on the New Common Syllabus for ENG 1020.

Suggestions for Future Workshops

Finally, I would like to solicit your feedback on future workshops.  Should there be a second workshop on grading in 1020, perhaps in a different format, such as independent grading followed by a discussion of variation?  Should there be a workshop on assignments, perhaps on using structured assignments with related structured grading?  What other topics and formats for workshops should be considered?  Which days and times are most convenient for people – before terms, 1^st day of terms, different points during terms?  Again, please email any comments to me, and I will forward them to the Composition Committee.

The Composition Committee plans to have a brown bag lunch later in the term to discuss final grades for ENG 1020, with instructors bringing in examples of papers that are difficult to grade.  I’ll let you know the date and time soon.

Thank you again for your participation, and thank you in advance for your feedback.