In these editorials, I try to look at both side of the issue, but when I read Paula Wasley’s article “A New Way to Grade: Students Grade Students” in The Chronicle of Higher, I have to admit that I did not see any positive aspects to the grading system described. In the controversial Texas Tech freshman composition grading system, students’ writing is not graded by their classroom instructor but by a “document instructor,” who never meets the students. The document instructor, actually a graduate-assistant will grade the paper sent to them by e-mail using a software program that finds errors. Once graded by one instructor, the paper will be sent through the grading program to another graduate student document instructor to be graded again. If the grades are more than eight points apart, the paper will be graded by a third grader. Also in this system, freshmen composition students spend less time in the classroom and more time writing.
Proponents for the computerized system say that it is good because it establishes set standards for “good” writing, makes grading impartial, and saves the university money while compiling invaluable statistical data about how freshmen composition students are progressing. Opponents of the grading system argue that teachers lose all of their power and influence over the class by not grading their papers and are upset that grades, even an 89.99 percent, cannot be rounded up to the next letter grade.
My first objection with this program is that because classroom instructors do not grade their students’ papers they lose a valuable medium to communicate with students. I understand a grade as a way for the instructor to communicate to the students whether or not they are meeting the course goals and if they understand the course material. If a teacher is not allowed to assess their own students’ papers, then how can they determine if the students are learning what they are teaching? The students should be upset that they are denied valuable instructor feedback. The document instructor does not know what the classroom instructor has told the students; therefore, their generalized comments left on the digital papers will be completely out of context in relation to the classroom instruction.
The next flaw that I see with this program is that it relies heavily on a computer system to assess “standardized” good writing. Texas Tech complained that there were many definitions of good writing in their composition program before using the computerized document instructor method; however, the logic that there is one single form of good writing is flawed because what counts as good writing depends completely on the context of the discourse community and the subject that the writer is discussion. Because the computer program only counts punctuation and form, it completely leaves out the content of the essays. It seems that the administration thinks the overworked graders will factor “content” into their assessment, but how can they if they do not know the context of the assignment that the teacher gave them. Even with a standard set of assignments, each teacher will deliver his or her expectations differently. In this system, writing is viewed like a math problem with an absolute right answer.
My final objection to this grading system is that it takes the power away from the classroom instructor, and students away from the classroom-with a reduced face-to-face time. For example, one composition classroom instructor, Lindsay Hutton said, “People think you're just there as this kind of middleman, which you are. Once I started to feel that way, it became difficult for me to really put much into it" (Wasley, n.p.).
How can a graduate-student grading hundreds of papers a week with a computer program really take the time to account for craft or style? I do not think they can. I see how this system saves Texas Tech money, but I believe that the students miss out on quality first year composition instruction.
Wasley, Paula. “A New Way to Grade: Students Grade Students.” The Chronicle of Higher
Education 52.27 (2006): n.p. Gale. Web. 4 March 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment