Panel Grading

	Ways We Teach Collaboratively From the University of Central Arkansas Department of Writing

Our Collaborations Panel Grading Peer Review Letter Exchange Contact Us Sophie Bradford sophieb@uca.edu Jennifer Deering jdeering@uca.edu Lisa Mongno lmongno@uca.edu Resources Due Dates Fall '07 Due Dates Spring '08	Panel Grading Teaching can be lonely and isolating. In fact, perhaps because of this isolation, teaching can occasionally degenerate into an Us-versus-Them conflict, with Us bunkering down behind lecterns and teachers’ desks and Them forming an outstretched army of unresponsive bodies. Faculty, then, may well say to themselves, “It’d be so nice to have someone to talk with about teaching.” And while our faculty do chat in corridors about a particular class experience, these chats are often exactly that: short, occasionally harried, conversations. However, with its “collaborative community” goal and the Assessment Committee mentorship program recommendation, our department is working toward combating the isolated Us. To support this march toward collaboration, the Panel Graders formed in fall 2003, bringing a small group of faculty together for productive discussions of teaching and grading. Initially, our small group (one tenured and two non-tenured writing faculty) wanted a way in which we could work in partnership. We agreed to focus our attention on four areas: outside grading, coaching/mentoring of students, grading standards, and teaching perspectives. The Panel Grader have evolved. We are now two panels, consisting of a mix of tenured, tenure/track and non-tenure/track faculty. We talk and “mentor” each other, both in face-to-face meetings and via a listserv, about teaching and theories of writing and communication. Since fall 2003, we have learned much—our group grading does not always proceed smoothly, but involves twists and turns, advances and retreats, as we figure out how better to do it. As we develop, our theories about our purpose are far more likely to be a start-and-stop process replete with occasional regression and failure as well as success. Grading Panel Foci Outside grading. We began this practice in the belief that outside graders might more clearly position for students the notion that certain elements of effective communication are universal—we want, in short, to work against "changing what the teacher wants.” We believe that there are identifiable elements that exist in all good writing. We wanted students, then, to see that they could learn some fundamentals, and that these fundamentals could be applied to any text for any class. Further, we feel that it is not a panel’s goal to address how well the writing satisfies teacher-specific instructions, nor how much a student might have improved, nor whether a student has attended class everyday, nor the degree to which a student has participated in class discussions—a student’s work must stand alone. Moreover, we found that outside grading helps address two troublesome issues for us as instructors: a) Audience. As our group evolved, we stumbled over audience. Who were we as readers? Although we never came to a solid conclusion about an audience for students, we were, at the very least, able to “coach” students away from writing for the teacher or to a “non-specific” audience. b) Personal bias. Simply because we’re human, we bring our own box of colors to our reading whether we’re reading an academic journal or a student paper. Therefore, each piece is read and graded by two instructors from the group rather than the student’s own instructor, which ensures that a student’s writing does indeed stand alone. Coaches/Mentors. Shared descriptions of our individual metaphors for teaching reminded us that students might benefit more from our being writing coaches or mentors than from our being graders. We use the term “coach” based in part on an article by J.M.L. Glenn. First published in Business Education Forum and quoted in The Teaching Professor, Glenn’s “Stepping Out of the Spotlight: What Teachers Can Learn from Coaches” proposes that the coach’s role is to “move people from where they are to where they want to be.” Furthermore, Glenn says, “If the coach always has the answer and comes to be seen as the one who supplies the answer, then the players learn to wait for the answer rather than figuring it out themselves.” Collective Grading Standard. From the beginning we believed that developing a collective standard for assigning grades creates continuity among individual pedagogies while still valuing the individual ways we teach. We wanted to arrive at a "community" grade rather than a grade based solely on an instructor's preferences. One of our first tasks was to attempt to set a fair and accurate grading standard—a rubric we felt students would understand and identify with. We developed criteria for the five basic letter grades to create grading unity within our group. Teaching Perspectives. We wanted to ensure a connection between teaching theories and individual ways we teach writing and communication. Therefore, the panel members design their own assignments, including in-class assignments and exercises. The result has allowed us exposure to a variety of perspectives in both Writing 1310: Introduction to College Writing and Writing 1320: Academic Writing and Research. Method We determine the number of papers we will assign for the semester and establish collective due dates. We staple or ask students to staple two slips to the backs of their papers. We calculate the number of papers we must each grade, and we either meet to swap or we place the correct number of papers in each other’s mail boxes. We grade a paper by assigning a letter grade and placing it on one of the slips stapled to the back of the paper. The first grader should write the grade on the front of the slip stapled immediately behind the paper so that the second grader cannot see it, at least until he/she has also read and decided on a grade for the paper. We meet within a designated time or use mail boxes to swap papers for a second round of grading. We each grade two sets of papers, and once each paper has two sets of grades, we meet to discuss assignments, student writing, teaching, and grading. We use copies of student work as anchors for discussion. If, after reviewing a student’s paper, an instructor disagrees with the grade or if the grades are widely divergent, he/she may ask for what would then become a third reading from within the group. We are only concerned with grading. The individual instructor can provide feedback to students prior to and after group grading. In fact, it is the individual instructor's role to act as coach and provide feedback and help with a student’s writing We return students’ papers and/or grades. Some of us choose to keep the students' papers for future reference and report the grade on a separate form. At the end of a semester, instructors can adjust grades based on student participation, additional assignments, portfolio or other factors they have outlined in their syllabi.
All images and text copyright © Sophie Bradford and Jennifer Deering. All rights reserved.

Ways We Teach Collaboratively

From the University of Central Arkansas
Department of Writing

Our Collaborations

Panel Grading

Peer Review Letter Exchange

Sophie Bradford
sophieb@uca.edu

Jennifer Deering
jdeering@uca.edu

Lisa Mongno
lmongno@uca.edu

Resources

Due Dates Fall '07

Due Dates Spring '08

Panel Grading

Teaching can be lonely and isolating. In fact, perhaps because of this isolation, teaching can occasionally degenerate into an Us-versus-Them conflict, with Us bunkering down behind lecterns and teachers’ desks and Them forming an outstretched army of unresponsive bodies. Faculty, then, may well say to themselves, “It’d be so nice to have someone to talk with about teaching.” And while our faculty do chat in corridors about a particular class experience, these chats are often exactly that: short, occasionally harried, conversations. However, with its “collaborative community” goal and the Assessment Committee mentorship program recommendation, our department is working toward combating the isolated Us. To support this march toward collaboration, the Panel Graders formed in fall 2003, bringing a small group of faculty together for productive discussions of teaching and grading.

Initially, our small group (one tenured and two non-tenured writing faculty) wanted a way in which we could work in partnership. We agreed to focus our attention on four areas: outside grading, coaching/mentoring of students, grading standards, and teaching perspectives. The Panel Grader have evolved. We are now two panels, consisting of a mix of tenured, tenure/track and non-tenure/track faculty. We talk and “mentor” each other, both in face-to-face meetings and via a listserv, about teaching and theories of writing and communication. Since fall 2003, we have learned much—our group grading does not always proceed smoothly, but involves twists and turns, advances and retreats, as we figure out how better to do it. As we develop, our theories about our purpose are far more likely to be a start-and-stop process replete with occasional regression and failure as well as success.

Grading Panel Foci

Outside grading. We began this practice in the belief that outside graders might more clearly position for students the notion that certain elements of effective communication are universal—we want, in short, to work against "changing what the teacher wants.” We believe that there are identifiable elements that exist in all good writing. We wanted students, then, to see that they could learn some fundamentals, and that these fundamentals could be applied to any text for any class. Further, we feel that it is not a panel’s goal to address how well the writing satisfies teacher-specific instructions, nor how much a student might have improved, nor whether a student has attended class everyday, nor the degree to which a student has participated in class discussions—a student’s work must stand alone. Moreover, we found that outside grading helps address two troublesome issues for us as instructors:

a) Audience. As our group evolved, we stumbled over audience. Who were we as readers? Although we never came to a solid conclusion about an audience for students, we were, at the very least, able to “coach” students away from writing for the teacher or to a “non-specific” audience.

b) Personal bias. Simply because we’re human, we bring our own box of colors to our reading whether we’re reading an academic journal or a student paper. Therefore, each piece is read and graded by two instructors from the group rather than the student’s own instructor, which ensures that a student’s writing does indeed stand alone.

Coaches/Mentors. Shared descriptions of our individual metaphors for teaching reminded us that students might benefit more from our being writing coaches or mentors than from our being graders. We use the term “coach” based in part on an article by J.M.L. Glenn. First published in Business Education Forum and quoted in The Teaching Professor, Glenn’s “Stepping Out of the Spotlight: What Teachers Can Learn from Coaches” proposes that the coach’s role is to “move people from where they are to where they want to be.” Furthermore, Glenn says, “If the coach always has the answer and comes to be seen as the one who supplies the answer, then the players learn to wait for the answer rather than figuring it out themselves.”

Collective Grading Standard. From the beginning we believed that developing a collective standard for assigning grades creates continuity among individual pedagogies while still valuing the individual ways we teach. We wanted to arrive at a "community" grade rather than a grade based solely on an instructor's preferences. One of our first tasks was to attempt to set a fair and accurate grading standard—a rubric we felt students would understand and identify with. We developed criteria for the five basic letter grades to create grading unity within our group.

Teaching Perspectives. We wanted to ensure a connection between teaching theories and individual ways we teach writing and communication. Therefore, the panel members design their own assignments, including in-class assignments and exercises. The result has allowed us exposure to a variety of perspectives in both Writing 1310: Introduction to College Writing and Writing 1320: Academic Writing and Research.

Method

We determine the number of papers we will assign for the semester and establish collective due dates.
We staple or ask students to staple two slips to the backs of their papers.
We calculate the number of papers we must each grade, and we either meet to swap or we place the correct number of papers in each other’s mail boxes.
We grade a paper by assigning a letter grade and placing it on one of the slips stapled to the back of the paper. The first grader should write the grade on the front of the slip stapled immediately behind the paper so that the second grader cannot see it, at least until he/she has also read and decided on a grade for the paper.
We meet within a designated time or use mail boxes to swap papers for a second round of grading.
We each grade two sets of papers, and once each paper has two sets of grades, we meet to discuss assignments, student writing, teaching, and grading. We use copies of student work as anchors for discussion. If, after reviewing a student’s paper, an instructor disagrees with the grade or if the grades are widely divergent, he/she may ask for what would then become a third reading from within the group.
We are only concerned with grading. The individual instructor can provide feedback to students prior to and after group grading. In fact, it is the individual instructor's role to act as coach and provide feedback and help with a student’s writing
We return students’ papers and/or grades. Some of us choose to keep the students' papers for future reference and report the grade on a separate form.
At the end of a semester, instructors can adjust grades based on student participation, additional assignments, portfolio or other factors they have outlined in their syllabi.