Beyond the Single Classroom: A Model for Program-Wide Alternative Grading
This week we feature another guest post, this time from Robert Mundy and Alysa Robin Hantgan, both in the Department of English, Writing, and Cultural Studies at Pace University. Robert is Chair of the department. His teaching and research focus on writing studies, writing program administration, and men’s studies. Alysa is a lecturer in that department. Her teaching and research interests encompass affordable learning, pedagogical innovation, labor, and rhetorics of motherhood.
Core writing on our campus consists of three courses: two first-year writing and writing in the disciplines. Each academic year, on average, the Pace University, Pleasantville campus writing program runs 100 classes for 1,500 students. Approximately 90% of writing sections are taught by contingent faculty. Over the past eight years, we have set out as a program to challenge this prevailing structure, where contingent faculty are limited to a one-dimensional existence: show up, teach, and move on. In short time, we have built a collaborative culture shaped by the CCCC Statement on Working Conditions for Non-Tenure Track Writing that finds its strength in “equitable working conditions for all faculty,” “shared governance,” and compensation for any labor beyond that of teaching.
Contingent faculty have played a significant role in shaping our core writing program, notably through participation in the development of our shared curriculum. A review of faculty grading practices, however, indicated that they were inconsistent and outdated. Research is clear regarding the problems associated with traditional grading, how it devalues learning, is inequitable, and de-emphasizes process-oriented work, such as writing. Faculty were largely unfamiliar with alternative grading methods that focus attention away from summative assessment toward ongoing formative assessment, a shift that centers student learning rather than evaluating achievement.
This lack of awareness was not the result of instructors looking to maintain the status quo. Rather, without the time and pay for professional development, many leaned toward Current-Traditional assessment that emphasizes grammatical correctness and obsesses over errors that result in a focus on deficit rather than growth. As we considered department-wide assessment possibilities, Asao Inoue’s CCCC address about labor-based grading contracts (LBG) served as an inflection point in the field of writing studies, moving toward anti-racist assessment that grades based on process-oriented student labor rather than quality associated with a single standard.
Inoue’s resources eventually served as the impetus for our program-wide initiative to create a language about and practice of assessment that instructors could adopt and students could easily understand. While prior research and templates provided the rationale and tools for individual practitioners, our needs extended beyond the single classroom. To meet these goals and maintain our commitment to shared curricular decisions, faculty across teaching lines embraced a co-operative inquiry process that emphasized a cyclical and collaborative method with phases of action and reflection. This post describes the alternative assessment model we developed and implemented to scale program-wide. Scaling required us to consider the needs and constraints of our program. It was implemented to address scoring disparities between faculty, adjust faculty time/labor spent from grading to process-oriented feedback, and foster intrinsic motivation and student self-efficacy to emphasize learning and writing self-awareness.
Faculty Labor
Given the programmatic reliance on contingent faculty, our approach to scaling required that we first address issues of instructional labor. Instructor experience and input set the parameters of what could be asked of them and our students. We needed to be reasonable with respect to what students can produce and what faculty can actually assess. In our courses that include generative work, drafts, conferences, and workshops, we recognized how labor for faculty can become overwhelming. LBG helps reduce time spent grading: Assessment is simplified. Clear expectations reduce time faculty explain what needs to be accomplished and how they determine grades. Complex rubrics are replaced by a focus on student effort, process, and progress. Faculty prioritize stages of writing and discrete components of that process instead of providing a summative evaluation of quality.
At the same time, we know that LBG is not a magic elixir, an easy fix to complex circumstances. Our “Equitable Labor Statement for Faculty” indicates this: though beneficial, it does not resolve the inequities of higher education for faculty, particularly its contingent members. The statement serves “as an essential companion to our LBG [policies]...make[ing] [faculty] labor expectations explicit and bounded [by] normalizing invisible labor as work that deserves material reward.” Compensating faculty for their labor beyond the classroom was an essential component of building and growing a scaled model. Providing training and professional development opportunities are necessary for faculty buy-in, adaption, and implementation, all essential for scalability.
Engaging Students
Instead of writing a single contract that included a preamble followed by an action statement, like existing contracts, we elected to disaggregate the two. Our “Introduction to Writing Community Letter” replaced the contract by inviting students/classes into a dialogue, not a negotiation. We chose a letter format because it is more personal and inviting; it offers a concrete starting point into conversations about students’ prior experiences and present expectations about writing and learning. Rather than contractual language, the letter foregrounds an emphasis on teaching and learning in the context of the program-wide culture. It allows us a space and opportunity to explain the issues associated with traditional grading and present our case for labor-based assessment. We explain LBG benefits–less pressure to be perfect, writing for yourself, and freedom to take risks (Gardner), and address how new criteria may cause some degree of initial frustration and anxiety. With the work of Inman and Powell and Kryger and Zimmerman in mind, we included a section about the possible apprehension and unease students might face since formal grades often signify scholastic success and an academic sense of worth. Putting forth a single message allows all of our classes to effectively operate as one community.
In previous letter iterations, we attempted to include student input at the beginning of the course but learned that they were not prepared to engage. Students early in their academic careers lacked a critical understanding of classroom power dynamics, their learning, and language to effectively self and collectively advocate for change. We risked getting mired in premature conversations rather than creating a sense of unity. Before students can comment, they have to experience. A rush to student revision could also prove detrimental to faculty who work from a disadvantage, having to continually prove their acumen and worth. Intersect that experience with any one or number of marginal identity markers and a scenario is created in which students may mistake collaborative efforts by the instructor as a lack of ability, potentially affirming existing bias. In our program, students reflect on their labor/grading experience and how their understanding of assessment has evolved (or has not). Courses culminate with a reflective assessment in which students address benefits, drawbacks, and possible areas for change that are coded, reviewed, and implemented in our updated document.
Tracking Labor, Accounting for Time
As with our introductory document, a negotiated set of grading expectations and regulations was not appropriate for scaling. Writing for 100+ classes and 30+ instructors, our language and terms would have to reflect programmatic expectations. Reviewing existing models for possible adoption, we grew concerned with a tiered grading system that defaults to “B” and requires students to meet “elevated standards” (Danielwicz and Elbow), complete additional writing (Inoue1), or accomplish more of “everything” outlined in the contract (Consillo & Kennedy). Notions of “quality” disrupt scale because they reserve the highest scores for “good” writers, no longer engaged students, and rely on individual judgments we have sought to avoid. Additional writing requires students to complete unscheduled labor that favors those who work quicker or have disposable time. “Doing more” in general is nearly impossible to quantify and values specific bodies, minds, and dispositions. In all cases, faculty labor is increased: fretting over a complex rubric, providing direction and individual feedback for a variety of projects, and/or evaluating what constitutes increased effort. Above all, existing contracts either only indicate a variety of labor and forgo explaining their connection to time or include time as part of a complex grading matrix that complicates students' awareness of class standing. To make time and labor visible, we generated a labor tracker that assigned time to each task and drafted language for each assignment that explained where time and labor may be best spent.
We divided the semester into five units and assigned each unit a number of hours according to in-class and out-of-class assignments. Our group turned to the Carnegie Unit credit system and estimated the time value for different types of labor in consultation with faculty and Wake Forest University’s Workload Estimator 2.0. In consideration of diverse learners, we reduced the total number of projects, a luxury afforded us by the three-course writing sequence, and added 25% to the estimated time required to write each assignment according to the Estimator. At the end of each unit, students accumulate hours of labor based on their ability to meet deadlines and put forth good faith effort for assigned tasks. Faculty provides formative assessment throughout the process, guiding students to meet task expectations. Final grades are determined by the percentage of hours completed in the class over each unit of study. An “A” is available to everyone should they choose to complete the labor outlined in the tracker, regardless of standardized notions of quality.
Hours do not signify success or failure in our model; rather, they represent labor–the estimated maximum amount of time students may need to complete an assigned task. This provides a clear and tangible measure of student labor that determines course grades. Whereas we could not control state and institutional credit hours, we could determine the pace of our units and overall classes. In experiencing and noting all facets of writing that take place without fingers on the keyboard, students can begin to generate an individual writing process that takes place within time. Honoring labor by making time visible, we argue, reflects a commitment to process pedagogy. Avoiding time does students a disservice by hiding labor and presenting process as something rudimentary: brainstorm, draft, revise, submit. Without delving into philosophy, we will say this: agency results from awareness and authentic use of time comes from an ability to recognize how to best manipulate it according to individual needs.
Focusing on Progress
Students will improve with effort, which is reflected in labor hours; however, how they have improved and where they still need to improve exists outside of the grade. With time and labor accounted for, students could prioritize individual growth related to course objectives and outcomes. To scale, we needed a theme, a place to begin that would anchor our writing arc in each unit, which includes assignments that progress from understanding the genre and generative work to writing and revising three drafts. We landed on this: developing a language of writing that moves from ambiguity to specificity. The scaffolded assignments serve as ongoing conversations, providing consistent milestone markers during drafting for self-reflection and consistent feedback.
We designed and implemented single-point rubrics to serve as our linguistic locus focused on unit objectives. Single-point rubrics include one column of assignment specifications rather than a numerical quality scale associated with traditional assessment. These rubrics provide a tangible tool and language for instructor-student conferences and peer workshops. With clear expectations for each draft and a way to prioritize revision, moving from genre-specific higher-order to lower-order concerns, single-point rubrics serve as the impetus for reflection that enables students to evaluate their progress and develop self-awareness (Fluckinger, 2010). By providing the single-point rubric and labor hours dedicated to drafting, feedback, and reflection, the internal process of learning is made visible, a cognitive model that can be carried forward across genres, disciplines, and fields.
Moving Forward
What we have learned is that our work is ongoing. Developing and implementing a program-wide alternative grading model is not for those who want to set it and forget it. Scaling is iterative; it requires time and attention, reflection, and action. With 6,000+ students and eight semesters behind us, evolution is part and parcel of a program-wide culture underscored by co-operative inquiry.
We encourage those interested in developing a scaled model to first consider the program's priorities and gauge faculty interest. Money is needed and hard to come by, so develop a budget that sustains long-term research, design, and implementation, and seek funding. Select a system of time to specify total hours of labor for each course and estimate time associated with the existing curriculum. Credit hours must align with hours of student labor. Scaling requires clear, uniform language that explains the alternative grading method and why it is being instituted. The majority of time is spent on the “how”— documents that support faculty implementation and provide students a framework and language to become active participants in their progress and growth. Ultimately, it is collective effort that shifts a culture and works towards a catalyst for change.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by guest authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of David Clark, Robert Talbert, or this publication.
Inoue's contract has since been updated to an A+. See link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMS27GFO_vYJAvvu3WYCqGLY4eEV9HO3eXU1KqfjJ6E/edit
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|