Grade Report (from Winter, 2009) and Revised Guidelines (for Fall, 2009) – Feedback Invited

Dear Colleagues,

I want to thank everyone for their Winter term efforts to grade ENG 1010 and ENG 1020 students using the grading guidelines on the New Common Syllabus.

For ENG 1010, the New Common Syllabus suggested grading guidelines followed the historical pattern shown in Table One:  approximately 2/3 (65%) S grades and 1/3 (35%) U grades or withdrawals.   In Fall, 2008, the grade distributions for ENG 1010 exceeded those guidelines somewhat:  71% S and 29% U or withdrawals.  In Winter, 2009, however, ENG 1010 grades were significantly lower:  54% S and 46% U or withdrawals.  Higher grades in Fall and lower grades in Winter may appropriately reflect the folk wisdom in the Department that Fall 1010 classes are stronger and Winter 1010 classes are often weaker because there are a number of badly underprepared students repeating ENG 1010.  If we look at the 2008-09 academic year as a whole, we see that we are in line with the grading guidelines for ENG 1010:  65% S and 35% U or withdrawals.  So that’s great – it looks like everyone is making a careful judgment as to whether each ENG 1010 student meets the learning objectives of the course and passes into ENG 1020.

Table One – ENG 1010

                                *U, I, Y, W, X              *U, I, WP, WN, WF

For ENG 1020, the New Common Syllabus suggested two sets of grading guidelines: a historical pattern for passing vs. non-passing grades (now a graduation and prerequisite requirement):  approximately 3/4 (73%) passing grades (A, B, C+/C) and 1/4 (27%) non-passing grades (C-, D, F, and withdrawals).  As shown in Table Two, the pass rate was higher in the Fall than the Winter, again following departmental folk wisdom that 1020 classes are stronger in the Fall term (this may be due to the placement system being enforced as well) and weaker in the Winter term because many students come from ENG 1010.  If we look at the 2008-09 academic year as a whole, we see that we are in line with the grading guidelines for ENG 1020:  74% passing and 25% non-passing.  So that’s great, too – it looks like everyone is making a careful judgment as to whether each ENG 1020 student meets the learning objectives of the course and passes onto Intermediate Composition (ENG 3010, Lit&Writing classes, ENG 3050).

Table Two – ENG 1020 Passing/Non-Passing

                        *C-, D, E, I, Y, W, X       *C-, D, F, I, WP, WN, WF

As we discussed at the January Grading Workshop and as I wrote in a series of grading emails, however, in ENG 1020, the historical pattern indicates significant grade inflation:  as shown in Table Three, historically 47% of students received As, and another 39% received Bs, adding up to 86% of students receiving an A or B in ENG 1020; this pattern was similar in Fall, 2008.  As I noted in emails, however, that grading distribution is statistically and intuitively too high. 

  As shown in Table Three, we made some progress in Winter, 2009:  the percentage of A grades went down to 39%, the percentage of B grades remained constant at 40%, and the percentage of C grades went up to 21%.  This grade distribution remains too high, though, as 79% of students still receive an A or B in ENG 1020.

Table Three – ENG 1020 Passing Grade Distribution

We will take up the distinctions between A, B, and C papers again at the Fall Orientation (Tuesday, August 25) and the Winter Grading Workshop (Monday, January 11, 2010), but here I want to propose some slightly revised New Common Syllabus 1020 grading guidelines in a revised format:

·         A                                             up to 20%                            up to 5 students in a class of 24

·         B                                             up to 30%                            up to 7 students in a class of 24

·         C+/C                                      up to 30%                            up to 7 students in a class of 24

·         C-/Other*                           approx. 25%                       approximately  6 students in a class of 24

(*includes withdrawals)

These guidelines aim at no more than a 50% distribution of As and Bs in a standard class, which seems intuitively, if not statistically, reasonable.

In discussions about grading with instructors, several issues have emerged:

·         One is the situation of an exceptional class – either a class with a large number of excellent students (e.g., an Honors section), or a class with a large number of poor or mediocre students (e.g., a Winter 1020 section with many repeaters).  The guidelines above are for a “regular” class, which should be the majority of sections taught each term.  Exceptional classes happen occasionally, and grades should reflect this situation.  The key here is to consider your grading history:  if you are routinely assigning As and Bs above the guidelines (e.g., 10 or more As, or a combination of over 50% As and Bs), then you may be grading too high.

·         Another issue is the difficulty of assignments:  if assignments are too easy, especially at the beginning of the term, you may find yourself giving too many As and Bs that have a cumulative effect of an inflated final grade.  ENG 1020 assignments, especially research-based analysis and argument assignments, should be challenging enough to elicit both average and above average/excellent papers.  To see some challenging assignments for ENG 1020, follow the link on the WSU Composition Faculty Handbook wiki to the GTA 1020 Model Syllabus (http://www.wsucompositionfacultyhandbook.pbwiki.com); click on Syllabus, and look for Project Descriptions for Projects One to Five.   When grading, use a rubric to help you make consistent distinctions between A, B, and C papers.  An ENG 1020 rubric is included in the ENG 1020 New Common Syllabus; follow the links under the 2008 and 2009 Grading Workshop materials for rubrics and sample graded papers.

·         A third issue is the practice of revision in composition courses.  Revision is key to the writing process, and many instructors rightly offer generous revision policies.  My caution here is that a revision policy not allow students to receive final grades that are inflated by too much guided rewriting; in other words, a C student (who will be a C writing student in other courses in the university) should not receive a B, nor a B student an A.  There are a number of ways to guard against grade inflation via revision:   limit the number of times a student can revise for an improved grade; not allow revision for some assignments, including assignments at the end of the term; average the grades of the original paper and the revision.  Another way is to build revision into the assignment process, rather than allowing rewrites just to improve grades at the end (there is some research (Beach and Friedrich) indicating that commentary on final papers is less effective than we would hope it is).  I have a new slogan concerning revision --  “Comment on the draft, grade the final”:   if students submit a complete draft, even a peer-reviewed draft, for commentary (graded or ungraded) from you, then they can hand in a revised final paper that you can simply read and assign a letter grade without commentary.  In this sequence, your time and effort on commentary become the responsibility of the student in revising the paper for the assignment grade as a whole.

I will take these revised guidelines to the Composition Committee for review this summer, so I would welcome feedback in person or by email (ellen.barton@wayne.edu).

Best wishes for an enjoyable summer.