Suggestions for Responding to the Dilemma of Grading Students' Writing

Author(s): Rebecca S. Anderson and Bruce W. Speck

Source: The English Journal, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 21-27
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/820775
Accessed: 25-11-2017 03:30 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/820775?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The English Journal

This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Suggestions for Responding
to tie Dilemma of Grading
Students' Writing
Rebecca S. Anderson and Bruce W Speck

our weeks during the summer of about grades for Institute participants. Up to
1994, we were co-directors of the that point in the Institute, we had not as-
Memphis (Tennessee) Urban Writ- signed grades, providing oral and written
ing Institute (MUWI). The Institute feedback for each participant's work. We fo-
was comprised of 27 public school cused on giving positive feedback to each par-
teachers from the Memphis-Shelby ticipant to encourage participants as writers.
County schoolystem who were se- To get the flavor of the conflict, we quote
lected out of over 200 applicants. from the traveling journal, a method we
The Institute participants, a mixture used that allowed each participant the op-
of elementary, middle school, and portunity to write an account of a previous
high school teachers, had one to day's Institute. For instance, on Monday a
twenty years of teaching experience, with a participant read his or her account of the
median of six years experience. Participants previous Friday's Institute. Then the partici-
represented various disciplines, including pant handed the journal to another partici-
mathematics, social studies, and language pant who would prepare an account of
arts. Monday's class to be read on Tuesday Thus,
The authors
The purpose of the Institute was to help the journal traveled from participant to par-
provide
the participants: 1) learn how to use writingticipant until all the participants had the op- a
number
effectively in their classes; 2) prepare to con- portunity to write a journal entry Here's a of
duct a 50-minute workshop for other teach- recollection of the conflagration over approaches
grad- to
ers during the 1994-95 school year; 3)ing during the fourth week: grading.
outline a procedure for conducting research The discussion took a turn, and grades
in their classrooms; 4) improve their own were the issue. The battle was on. De-
writing. mands came from the field, but the

According to participants who com- generals held their ground. From the
corner, a good soldier held her flag
pleted an evaluation at the end of the Insti-
high for the letter A while another sol-
tute, the Institute was rigorous. Each day, dier blew the bugle for Lucy Calkins
Monday through Friday, the participants and the presiding generals. It was
met from nine to noon in a structured class- strange. I could hear chanting among
room environment and spent several hours the troops: traitor ... traitor. And then
another chant. I want a Grade. I want
the rest of the day to complete writing as- a Grade.
signments, prepare in-service presentations,
construct portfolios, and create two bound The military metaphor the journal
books of their writing. One participant writer used to describe the conflict between
noted on an evaluation of the Institute that the "generals" and the "troops" was appro-
"the time and effort were intense." priate. We, the "generals," thought that we
THE SITUATION had all the ingredients for a mutiny. And, for
us, one irony of the uprising was that teach-
During the fourth week of this Institute, a
ers were demanding grades.
furor erupted, centered on the dilemma of
We thought that teachers, in particular,
grading. During that last week, we presented
would be sensitive to the arbitrary nature of
a lesson on collaborative learning that in-
grades.
cluded information on how members of After all, we expect that in grading
a col-
their students, most teachers had come to
laborative group can assess each other. The
recognize that grades were at least tinged
lesson sparked a heated debate about grading
with subjective appraisals, if not imbued
in general, and that further ignited questions

EnglishJournal 21
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 with them. As Williams McColly said 25 (58%) said a grade would give them "a better
years ago, "There is a dramatic disagreement idea about how" to improve their workshop.
among the hundreds of thousands of English This response was particularly enigmatic for
teachers as to what good writing is and is not, us, as our assumption was that grades were
and also, many English teachers cannot be diagnostically useless.
objective in judging student writing or in re- The results to Question 3 were interest-
porting their judgments" (1970, 148). ing because in the face of all the feedback
Our experience during the Institute, participants received in preparing their in-
however, suggested that when put in the service workshop and the feedback they re-
place of students, teachers react very much ceived in assessing the presentation of those
the way students react about grades. Al- workshops, seven participants (29%) in-
though the teachers' reactions are not neces- sisted that all that feedback was inadequate
sarily surprising, given the fact that they were in helping them evaluate their workshops. In
actual students who would be evaluated in the first questionnaire, one participant, after
part by grades, what is surprising is the
asking for assessment at the end of a project,
tenacity with which the teachers expressed which we assume meant a grade, wrote, "I
just want it! Traditional way of thinking
their concern that grades were essential for
them to know where they stood in the class. about assessment needs to be satisfied."

Questionnaire
SA* A NA/D D SD

1. If I had received a grade on my workshop immediately 5 3 3 7 6

after I had conducted the workshop, I would have felt
better about my workshop than I did.

2. If I had received a grade on my workshop immediately 6 8 2 3 5

after the workshop, I would have had a better idea about
how I could improve my workshop.
3. The Institute teachers and my group's input before the 4 3 4 4 9
workshop, class response to my workshop, and the
Institute teachers and my group's feedback after the workshop
were inadequate in helping me to evaluate the success of my workshop.
*SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; NA/D=Neither Agree nor Disagree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree

What was even more surprising was that We were struck by some participants'
some participants took a positivist's positionpersistent notion that a grade makes a person
on grades. They said that grades did repre- feel better and helps a person improve future
sent an objective assessment of a student's performance. The enormous assumptions be-
writing. They further contended that teach- hind those two statements seem to lie undis-
ers endorse the meaning of a grade: an A turbed by any critical thinking about the
means excellent, B means good, and so grading of students' writing. This is not to say
forth. The positivist does not question this that any of the Institute participants were in-
seemingly self-evident truth because the de-sensitive to grading. Indeed, as Sarah Freed-
finitions of excellent and good are assumed,man (1979) remarks, "The good teacher does
not stated. The disquietude that arose be- not grade purely on the basis of whimsy or
cause of at least some participants' convic- idiosyncratic values" (161). And as one of the
tion that grades were necessary in helpingparticipants wrote in the traveling journal
them learn persisted until the end of the In- during the first week of the Institute:
stitute, as responses to questions on the first We must democratize evaluation. We
questionnaire administered at the end of the must invite students to participate in
Institute showed. the process of developing assessment
Curiously, eight participants (33%) said criteria. We must be willing-and
receiving a grade immediately after they had able-to "argue" with students, to
"reason" with them for the sake of
presented their workshop would have made
clarity and completeness of expres-
them feel better. Fourteen of the participants sion. When we care enough to con-

22 January 1997
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 front students if their writing is not on the content and creativity Before
clear or complete, we make it clear the Institute, I was confused as to how
that what they think and feel is impor- to assess writing. Now, I have incorpo-
tant. We owe our students room to rated portfolios to evaluate my stu-
grow, acceptance, unconditional ac- dents' writing. I have adapted several
ceptance. We also owe them places to rubrics to serve as guides.
go-direction, structure, standards,
When reviewing students' work,
consistency. We must enforce those
rewrites are suggested and not "old"
rules that facilitate understanding and
red marks given.
that expand their possibilities and
opportunities. When I evaluate writing, I use peer
editing much more extensively When
Nevertheless, it would seem that tradi- I finally get into the evaluation, I am
tional grading practices are deeply im- content oriented. More of the writing
printed on teachers' thinking, so even in the classroom across the subjects
comes from the students' ideas.
though teachers affirm the need for greater
freedom in evaluating student's writing, they We spent a very brief time in the Insti-
are still captives of grading practices that tute discussing grading; rather, time was pri-
work counter-intuitively in the writing- marily devoted to helping the participants
process classroom. This conflict between a practice the writing process. We believe that
felt need to find ways to use grading fairly by discussing the grading of writing, we are
and the positivist view of grading as objec- forced to determine what the goal of writing
tive is probably not all that uncommon. We is and how teachers can achieve that goal.
speculate that teachers may hold both views, When asked to answer the statement,
though the views tend to contradict each "Our discussions about grading have dra-
other. What can be done to help teachers re- matically changed the way I practice grad-
spond critically to the dilemma of grading? ing," nine participants answered either
RESPONSE #1: strongly agree or agree (56%), five neither One irony
DISCUSS THE GRADING DILEMMA agreed nor disagreed (31%), and two dis- was that
Discussing the grading dilemma agreed (13%). Discussing the grading
with teachers were
dilemma
colleagues can be a doorway for teachers to with colleagues can help change
classroom
demanding
give attention to their grading practices. For grading practices, or, at least,
beginInsti-
instance, about four months after the a critical analysis of their purpose and grades.
use in a to
tute, we sent a follow-up questionnaire classroom and in the teaching of
writing.
the participants. One of the questions was,
"As a result of the Institute, my assessment
RESPONSE #2:
practices have changed." Out of 14USErespon-
"GRADING" TECHNIQUES
THAT No.
dents, 12 answered Yes and 2 answered WILL HELP STUDENTS LEARN

Assessment is not the same as grading, but

Fortunately, when teachers of writing set
out toan-
some teachers' explanation of why they find grading techniques that support
the process
swered the question about assessment the approach, they will find a large
way they did can give us insight into and
the growing
in- body of literature. However, al-
terrelationship between changing assess-
though the term grading appears in the liter-
ment practices and using the writing ature and may suggest that there are answers
process
effectively: to the dilemma of how to assign grades
The use of revision practices with when teaching writing, it is, many times,
writing assignments has greatly misleading in that the teacher will not find
changed my assessment practices. I advice about the mechanics of how to deter-
feel that students, as well as myself, mine a grade for a student's written work.
assess assignments with a more dis-
Articles and books that purport to discuss
criminating eye.
the grading of student writing actually dis-
I am more likely to be totally open to cuss techniques the teacher can use to foster
the ideas and feelings of the students,
a process approach to writing without an-
rather than insist that they follow a
particular mold or format for writing. swering critical questions about how to se-
lect a grade for a student's writing. We have
I now look at the process of writing
and try to not focus so much on the
grouped some of those techniques under
grammar and spelling of the piece, but four headings: minimalist grading tech-

English Journal 23
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 niques, cassette grading, collaborative grad- Cassette grading relies upon the power
ing, and portfolio grading. of the human voice to attract and sustain stu-
dents' attention. And like minimalist grading,
Minimalist Grading
cassette grading "puts the burden of learning
Minimalist grading techniques consist of
on the student" (Rubens 1982, 42). Yet
codes (Borja and Spader 1985), checkmarks
Richard Yarbro and Betty Angevine (1982),
(Buchholz 1979; Ceccio 1976; Freeman and
in an empirical study comparing cassette
Hatch 1975; Throop and Jameson 1976), or
grading with traditional grading methods,
minimal marking (Haswell 1983). For in-
did not find that either method of grading
stance, Caryl P Freedman and Richard A.
Hatch use three marks to communicate with
made a difference in student performance,
even though students and teachers were en-
students. An exclamation point shows ap- thusiastic about teachers' use of cassettes to
proval of what a student writes, a question
provide feedback to students. Nevertheless,
mark points to a passage that is unclear, and
supporters of cassette grading claim that it is
a "No!" tells a student a problem should be
valuable. Phillip M. Rubens (1982), for in-
eliminated.
stance, says that cassette grading made him
Minimalist grading techniques have two
"a more judicious and thoughtful grader" so
virtues. One, the student is responsible for
that he gained "more respect for students'
revising his or her work. Advocates of mini-
abilities as well as problems" (43). Thomas
malist grading systems do not assign grades
David Clark (1981) says students respond fa-
to students' papers until the students have
vorably to cassette grading.
had a chance to respond to the minimalist
We suggest that cassette grading is valu-
markings. The second virtue is that minimal-
able in giving feedback to students so that
ist grading techniques save time in "grading."
they can revise their work. Thus, cassette
The teacher does not write comments; rather,
grading can support the process approach to
the teacher uses a simple code system to
writing by giving students direction in shap-
point students in a particular direction.
ing a piece of writing.
Minimalist grading techniques have met
with some criticism, however. For instance, Collaborative Grading
David L. Carson and John B. McTasney The third technique, collaborative grad-
(1973) note that the problem with a system ing, can be divided into two types. The first
of code markings is that the markings are type is in-class collaboration, which takes
meaningful to the person "who understands place among the participants in the class-
the complex jargon of syntax, but they room, the teacher and students, and in-
mean almost nothing to the neophyte who is cludes student self-grading (Bishop 1989),
unfamiliar with that code" (132). A simple group grading (Beard, Rymer, and Williams
checkmark points to an error, but "What 1989; Penrose 1978), contract grading
error?," a student may ask. Indeed, minimal- (Beale and King 1981; Dickey 1978; Dorazio
ist marking techniques may focus on certain 1984; Duke 1980; Proffitt 1977), peer grad-
types of errors, particularly surface errors, ing (Christenbury 1979; "Involving" 1989;
without paying adequate attention to more Pasternack 1981), or some combination of
complex problems of organization, diction, student and teacher grading (Barbour 1992;
and syntax. Bishop 1989; Penrose 1978). The second
type, external collaboration, is collaboration
Cassette Grading
with people external to the classroom. Exter-
The second technique, cassette grading, nal collaboration can be divided into two
offers the writing teacher an opportunity to
categories: 1) collaborators external to the
give extensive comments on students' writ-
classroom grade student papers (Burnette
ing (Carson and McTasney 1973; Klammer
1980; Camplese and Mayo 1982; Cazort
1973; Stratton 1975). Using a cassette
1982; Cooke, Cowling, Johnston, and
recorder, the teacher responds to students'
Manuel 1982; Grogan and Daiker 1989;
papers. The students then listen to those
Peek 1982; Raymond 1976; Sawyer 1975;
comments. As Enno Klammer (1973) notes,
Sawyer 1976; Tritt 1985) or 2) the classroom
"The instructor can say much more and say
teacher and an external evaluator grade stu-
it more clearly" (180) than he or she could
dent papers (Lotto and Smith 1979).
using hand-written comments on a paper.

24 January 1997
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Taken as a whole, the literature regard- Collaborative grading includes collaboration
ing collaborative grading is essentially about with other teachers. Thus, Linda Vavrus
training students to become peer reviewers (1990) notes, "Setting standards for evalua-
and switching the focus from the teacher as tion means consulting with other teachers in
judge to the teacher as mentor. your building or district to find out what
Consider, for instance, in-class collabo-
they consider high-level work" (53).
ration. The teacher who chooses to use in- Portfolio grading also places the burden
class collaboration can train students to of learning on the student. As Laura Brady
become peer critiquers by employing vari- and Chris Thaiss (1993) remark about the
use of portfolios, "Students have more au-
ous rubrics, such as checklists and questions
(Backscheider 1973; Ellman 1975; Mullins thority, as well as more responsibility, for
1987; Myers 1984; Nash 1981; Warren
judging when their work is ready for evalua-
1976). The purpose of those rubrics, as tion" (90). Thus, portfolios "become chroni-
Steven R. Pasternack (1981) notes, is to help
cles of the ways in which students document
students consider what constitutes good
their growth and take responsibility for ana-
writing. Another purpose is to give peers lyzing and improving their own writing"
(Bertisch 1993, 59). Kate Kiefer (1992) and
feedback so that they can revise their papers.
External collaboration is also valuable in Judith Remy Leder (1991) agree. While the
helping the teacher separate the roles of literature on portfolios may not help teach-
judge and mentor. When another teacher or ers know how to assign grades, it does help
an expert from a particular discipline grades teachers recognize the need "to cease finally
a teacher's students, the teacher can negoti- to conduct learning in the service of evalua-
ate the ethical problem of being both a men- tion and to commence instead to conduct
tor and a judge. The teacher can focus on his evaluation in the service of learning" (Lucas
Teachers need
or her role as the students' helper. 1992, 11). to scrutinize
RESPONSE #3:
the dilemma
Portfolio Grading
The fourth technique, portfolio grading,
ARRANGE FOR DIALOGUE of grading
has been borrowed from the discipline of art and become
We have outlined techniques teachers
where students select projects that represent can use to possibly alleviate the tension be-
proponents of
their best work and organize those projects tween grading and the process approach to
evaluation in
in a portfolio. Portfolios, however, can take teaching writing. Given our experience in
the Memphis Urban Writing Institute, the we
service of
various directions, so a student could pre-
pare a portfolio to demonstrate growth as a
learning.
believe that teachers need to scrutinize the

writer. According to Carolyn Wulfhorst dilemma of grading and become proponents

(1992), "The effective writing portfolio will
provide a vehicle for the instructor and the
learner to come together collaboratively to
discuss the material contained therein and to
reflect on the development and growth of
the writer's ability" (15). Thus, portfolio how, and whether our students are learning
grading is closely allied with collaborative
grading. In fact, collaborative grading is struction and in assessment-are helping
what Elizabeth Metzger and LizBeth Bryant
(1993) refer to when they say:
As we converse with students about the
portfolio, we are setting the criteria for
evaluations. As students note contexts
and decide on purpose, audience,
voice, arrangement, and order, they are
setting the standards by which we can
evaluate their ability to accomplish
these goals. We evaluate how well they
have developed their text to meet the
goals they set for themselves and the
essay. (286)
of conducting evaluation in the service of
learning. Sandra Murphy and Mary Ann
Smith's (1992) position is that "In the end,
what all of us want is more than simply a
score or a mark. We want to know what,
and in what ways our practices-both in in-
them to learn" (60). To find these answers as
well as to develop consensus, teachers must
work with other teachers, administrators,
parents, and students to solve the grading
dilemma. Teachers can begin to do this by
employing grading techniques that foster the
process approach to writing and by ques-
tioning the validity of grading.
The teacher can raise questions about
the tension between the teacher as a judge
and the teacher as a coach, pointing out the
ethical dilemma involved when the teacher
both instructs students and then evaluates

English Journal 25
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 the effectiveness of that instruction by grad-
ing students. Francis W Weeks (1978)
writes:
Those five letter grades A through E
are a set of symbols. Each has no in-
herent meaning nor any reality in it-
self. Meanings that are attached to
these symbols exist in the minds of the
faculty, the students, and all those who
use them for various purposes.
It should not be surprising, therefore,
that a B in a course should have differ-
ent meanings for the instructor, for the
student, for the graduate school ad-
missions officer, and for the company
recruiter. (164)
Open and frank dialogue among all the
stakeholders, including parents and stu-
dents, will help to focus the purpose of
grades, and, more importantly, contribute to
the development of more meaningful and in-
structional ways of communicating progress
Beale, Walter H. and Don W King. 1981. "A
Grading Contract That Works." Exercise Ex-
change 26.1: 17-20.
Beard, John D., Jone Rymer, and David L.
Williams. 1989. "An Assessment System for
Collaborative Writing Groups: Theory and
Empirical Evaluation." Journal of Business
and Technical Communication 3: 29-51.
Bertisch, Carole Ackerson. 1993. "The Portfolio
as an Assessment Tool." Process and Portfo-
lios in Writing Instruction. Kent Gill, ed. Ur-
bana, IL: NCTE. 54-59.
Bishop, Wendy 1989. "Revising the Technical
Writing Class: Peer Critiques, Self-Evalua-
tion, and Portfolio Grading." The Technical
Writing Teacher 16.1: 13-25.
Borja, Francisco and Peter H. Spader. 1985.
"AWK: Codes in Grading Essays: Making
Essays More 'Objective.' " College Teaching
33.3: 113-16.
Brady, Laura and Christopher Thaiss. 1993
"What Student Portfolios Are Teaching Us."
Process and Portfolios in Writing Instruction.
Kent Gill, ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993.
81-91.

and needs for improvement. Buchholz, William J. 1979. "Behavioral Evalua-

tion: The Checkmark Grading System." Col-
CONCLUSION lege Composition and Communication 30:
302-05.
One of the purposes of the Memphis
Burnette, Paul E. 1980. "Staff Grading as an Al-
Urban Writing Institute was to help teachers
ternative to Schizophrenia in Composition
be agents for change in their schools.Class."
We EnglishJournal 69.8: 32-36.
have shown that at least some of the partici-
Camplese, Donald A. and Joseph A. Mayo.
pants in the Institute did change their 1982.
grad-"How to Improve the Quality of Stu-
ing practices because of the Institute.dent
We Writing: The Colleague Swap." Teach-
ing of Psychology 9.2: 122-23.
believe that the changes they made, given
Carson, David L. and John B. McTasney. 1973.
their comments on the questionnaires,
"Grading Technical Reports with the Cas-
helped them become better teachers and
sette Tape Recorder: The Results of a Test
helped their students use writing in ways that
Program at the United States Air Force
promote intellectual growth. We hope that
Academy." Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication 3.2: 131-44.
teachers will consider the grading dilemma
Cazort, Douglas. 1982. "Advice from a Recent
and become agents for change, agents who
Has-Been to a TA Starting Cold." Freshman
face the necessity of grading and find creative
English News 10.3: 1-4.
ways to meet the challenge of promoting
Ceccio, Joseph E 1976. "Checkmark Grading
growth in the face of grading requirements.
and the Quarter System." The ABCA Bulletin
39.3: 7-9.
Note
Christenbury, Leila. 1979. "Three Techniques of
The authors wish to thank International Student Evaluation." How to Handle the
Paper, the Southern Regional Education Board, Paper Load. Gene Stanford, ed. Urbana, IL:
the Administration of the Memphis City NCTE. 113-18.
Schools, and The University of Memphis for Clark, Thomas David. 1981. "Cassette Tapes: An
supporting the 1994 Memphis Urban Institute. Answer to the Grading Dilemma." The
ABCA Bulletin 44.2: 40-41.
Works Cited
Cooke, John, Michael Cowling, Brian Johnston,
Backscheider, Paula. 1973. "Turn on the Power:
and Jo Manuel. 1982. "An Evaluation of
Marking and Grading in Remedial Compo- 'Other Teacher Grading' at Playford High
sition." Illinois English Bulletin 61.2: 13-20.
School." English in Australia 59: 60-69.
Barbour, Dennis H. 1992. "The Best of Both
Dickey, Jean. 1978. "A Contract Plan for Teach-
Worlds: Instructor/Group Evaluation of ing Business Communications." The Teach-
Business Writing Assignments." Journal of
ing of Business Communication. George H.
Business and Technical Communication 6.4:
Douglas, ed. Champaign, IL: American Busi-
480-87.
ness Communication Association. 89-92.

26 January 1997
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Dorazio, Patricia A. 1984. "Teaching Composi- Pasternack, Steven R. 1981. "Properly Moti-
tion: A Way to Improve It." Community Col- vated, Students Become Good Peer
lege Review 12.2: 29-31. Graders." Journalism Educator 36.3: 17-18.
Duke, Charles B. 1980. "An Approach to Revi- Peek, George S. 1982. "Grading by Jury: Accu-
sion and Evaluation of Student Writing." rate and Consistent." Improving College and
Washington, DC: Paper presented at the University Teaching 30.2: 75-79.
Annual Meeting of the Conference on Col- Penrose, John. 1978. "Students Grading Stu-
lege Composition and Communication. dents-Worth Considering." The Teaching of
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Business Communication. George H. Dou-
ED 188 167). glas, ed. Champaign, IL: American Business
Ellman, Neil. 1975. "Peer Evaluation and Peer Communication Association. 167-69.
Grading." EnglishJournal 64: 79-80. Proffitt, Edward. 1977. "Grading and Student
Freedman, Sarah Warshauer. 1979. "Why Do Choice." Freshman English News 6.2: 1-2.
Teachers Give the Grades They Do?" College Raymond, James C. 1976. "Cross-Grading: An
Composition and Communication 30: 161-64 Experiment in Evaluating Compositions."
Freeman, Caryl P and Richard A. Hatch. 1975. College Composition and Communication 27:
"A Behavioral Grading System That Works." 52-55.
The ABCA Bulletin 38.2: 1-9. Rubens, Philip M. 1982. "Oral Grading Tech-
Grogan, Nedra and Donald A. Daiker. 1989. niques: An Interactive System for the Tech-
"Team-Grading in College Composition." nical Writing Classroom." The Technical
WPA: Writing Program Administration 13.1-2: Writing Teacher 10.1: 41-44.
25-33. Sawyer, Thomas M. 1975. "Accountability: Or
Haswell, Richard H. 1983. "Minimal Marking." Let Others Grade Your Students." College
College English 45: 600-04. Composition and Communication 26: 335-40.
"Involving Students in Evaluation." 1989. Eng- . 1976. "External Examiners: Separating
lishJournal 78.7 (Nov.): 75-77. Teaching from Grading." Engineering Educa-
Kiefer, Kate. 1992. "Real Evaluation: Portfolios astion 66.4: 344-46.
an Effective Alternative to Standardized Test-
Stratton, Charles R. 1975. "The Electric Report
ing." English Leadership Quarterly 14.1-4: Card: A Follow-up on Cassette Grading."
2-4. Journal of Technical Writing and Commu-
Klammer, Enno. 1973. "Cassettes in the Class- nication 5.1: 17-22.
room." College English 35: 179-80, 189. Throop, David P and Daphne A. Jameson. 1976.
Leder, Judith Remy. 1991. "An Echo of Genesis: "Behavioral Grading: An Approach Worth
An Assessment of the Business-Writing Trying." The ABCA Bulletin 39.3: 3-5.
Portfolio." Portfolios: Process and Product. PatTritt, Michael. 1983. "Exchange Grading with a
Belanoff and Marcia Dickson, eds. Ports- Workshop Approach to the Teaching of
mouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 123-36. Writing." English Quarterly 16.1: 16-19.
Lotto, Edward and Bruce Smith. 1979. "MakingVavrus, Linda. 1990. "Put Portfolios to the Test."
Grading Work." College English 41: 423-31. Instructor: 48-53.
Lucas, Catharine. 1992. "Introduction: WritingWarren, Thomas L. 1976. "Objective Grading
Portfolios-Changes and Challenges." Port- Standards in Technical Writing." The Techni-
folios in the Writing Classroom: An Introduc- cal Writing Teacher 4.1: 29-31.
tion. Kathleen Blake Yancey, ed. Urbana, IL:Weeks, Francis W 1978. "The Meaning of
NCTE, 1992. 1-11. Grades." The Teaching of Business Communi-
McColly, William. 1970. "What Does Educa- cation. George H. Douglas, ed. Champaign,
tional Research Say about the Judging of IL: American Business Communication As-
Writing Ability?" The Journal of Educational sociation, 1978.. 163-66.
Research 64.4: 148-56. Wulfhorst, Carolyn. 1992. "Portfolio Assess-
Metzger, Elizabeth and LizBeth Bryant. 1993. ment as an Evaluation Tool." Ohio Associa-
"Portfolio Assessment: Pedagogy, Power, tion of Two-Year Colleges 18.1: 14-16.
and the Student." Teaching English in the Yarbro, Richard and Betty Angevine. 1982. "A
Two-Year College 20: 279-87. Comparison of Traditional and Cassette
Mullins, Carolyn J. 1987. "Grading Comments Tape English Composition Grading Meth-
on Technical Writing Assignments." The ods." Research in the Teaching of English 16.4:
Technical Writing Teacher 14.2: 178-85. 394-96.
Murphy, Sandra and Mary Ann Smith. 1992.
Rebecca S. Anderson (Anderson.Becky@coe.memst.edu)
"Looking into portfolios. Portfolios in the and Bruce W Speck (SpeckBW@msuvxl.Memphis.edu)
Writing Classroom: An Introduction. Kathleen are co-directors of The Memphis Urban Writing Insti-
Blake Yancey, ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1992. tute. Anderson is an Assistant Professor of Instruction
49-60.
and Curriculum Leadership at The University of Mem-
Nash, Charles C. 1981. "The Cottey Grade and
phis where she teaches literacy education courses.
Comment Sheet." Teaching English in the
Speck teaches in the professional writing program at
Two-Year College 7.2: 113-18. The University of Memphis and is coordinator of the
writing-across-the-curriculum program.

English Journal 27
This content downloaded from 138.237.48.235 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:30:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms