Trying to Make the Untangible, tangible, the Elbow Way

I felt that this week's readings offered some truly tangible advice--the kind that I can slap into my back pocket and keep--and pertaining to an extremely vague and confusing subject: grading writing. In his piece "Good Enough Evaluation: An Overall View of When and How Evaluation Make Sense", I appreciated that Elbow immediately admits that there is no perfect system for grading writing, that it is incredibly subjective from grader to grader, and therefore, we should be prepared to accept a "good enough" model. As long as we want to teach writing--and I think it needs to be taught now more than maybe ever before--then we need a way to quantify it into a grade to justify it as a teachable course. And perhaps too offering tangible grades are important to contemporary students who live in a results-driven world where the grade is all that matters and the the grade is all they look for. This is unfortunate as writing is the definition of process, as opposed to results, but when the object of learning to write is to the process of improvement, at least in my mind, then perhaps grades offer the right incentive and map for students to do so. Even then Elbow offers some solid suggestions for some "good enough" compromises in how to achieve this. In the past I've been a fan of giving and receiving those long-winded criticisms and suggestions on papers followed by the grade that it "feels like". which Elbow mentions; however, now I can see their failings now in terms of generating tangible grading. Using a ruberic as Elbow emphasizes offers a tangible way to offer a solid score while giving teachers and students a way to account for specific criteria in writing. Elbow encourages the use of as many different points of criteria on a ruberic as possible as well as multiples sources if possible. He includes an example of multiple instructors being brought in to view portfolios, even using one who has had no contact with the class in order to generate an "objective" point of view (14). Though there are still an infinite amount of cracks in this system of grading something subjective, as Elbow asserts, as long as hard numbers and letter grades are important, then we will need a system that works at least "good enough"

Contracts and Rubrics

I think the reification of process advocated by Danielewicz and Elbow seems to lead to an oversimplifed conception of assessment and grading.  In emphasizing the process of writing,  the authors apparently devalue the text as an object available to fair and appropriate evaluation.  Although they attest to positive results from their contract-based grading, I can’t imagine that, as a student, I would have responded positively to such a  practice. Much of their argument for contracts rests on the elimination – or at least decrease – of conflict and negative emotions.  However, the lack of guidelines for achieving grades above B seems likely to lead to negative emotions for those students who in the authors’ terms “simply ache for an A.”  I think that to denigrate students concerned about the grades rather than focused solely on the ‘process demonstrates a somewhat callous attitude of the instructors toward those students motivated by high grades.’  It’s easy for people whose futures no longer rely on a collection of letters, “a one-dimensional quantitative score” (or alternatively, “a one-dimensional form of evaluation”) to assert the intrinsic meaninglessness of grades and to insist that their students ought to feel the same. 

            I think the rubric method Elbow proposes in his other essay is much more fair and gives the student a more effective means of evaluating his or her own writing before turning it in. It allows the instructor to define and clarify his or her priorities in an essay and expectations of the student.  Furthermore, the easy and appealing graphic nature of the rubric is much easier to comprehend than the jumble of comments – usually unorganized and not easily identifiable by relative usefulness or importance – that usually comprise typical instructor feedback. Such a method seems like it would lead to better writing in the initial, revision and final stages.      

The Contract System and Widening Teacher-Student Discourse about Grades

I found Peter Elbow and Jane Danielewicz's "A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching" a refreshing piece to read as a student, a tutor, and a future teacher.  The style was clear, the concepts practical rather than theoretical (I love to listen to and be inspired by the theoretical, but it's so hard to figure out ways of putting it into practice), and the authors anticipated and addressed each of my qualms in a systematic, thorough way.

When I was an undergraduate in particular, I was obsessed by grades.  I was always trying to assess where I stood in each class.  For my more objective classes like calculus or biology, which had regular graded work and where my professor posted grades on blackboard, I never had to approach the professors outside of class to try to gauge how they felt about the effort I was giving in class.  In my literature and creative writing classes, however--classes far more important to me--the grades were fewer and farther between, and the teachers tended not to be very regular about updating blackboard.  Elbow and Denielewicz say that "[u]ncertainty about grades often leads to irrational or unproductive feelings in students like fear or failure, writer's block, or anxiety about how the teacher is applying hidden subjective grading standards" (255); as an undergrad, I lived in a constant state of anxiety exactly as the authors describe and, if the before-the-professor-comes-into-class conversation was to be believed, so did just about all of my fellow students.  We didn't go to see our professors during office hours to talk over our anxieties because we were afraid we would be pestering them, and that doing so could only negatively influence our subjective grades.

The contract system is a built-in way for students not only to know about where they should stand in a class, but also about how and when to approach their professors.  If, as a student, you're doing everything you can to earn your contract "B", and you're comfortable with a "B", there's no reason for the anxiety.  If you feel like you haven't lived up to your side of the contract, or if "B"-level work is troubling to you, the contract says that it's all right to approach your professor and ascertain on a more personal level what you're doing now and what you should be doing.  Overall, I think the contract system would encourage teacher-student discourse.

As a tutor, I often find these uncertain and anxious students coming in to the Writing Center, trying to ask me to tell them what's "wrong" with their papers (the "thoughtlessness" that Elbow and Danielewicz describe: "Just tell me what to do and I'll go along" (255).  If the student were to inform me that s/he was in a contract writing course, that would help me better ascertain the emphasis on writing technique and what level of effort the student might have to make in order truly to earn a higher grade than the guaranteed "B".

I'm not saying I'm a convert to the contract system.  I think it would be wise to seek out a thorough, well-written criticism of it, if one exists.  But, as a teacher-to-be who is already concerned with problems such as subjectivity, the contract system would be one way in which my students and I could have a closer, more constructive discourse on their effort and skills in my class.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Working in the writing center this semester the most consistent problem that I have witnessed is that students have no idea how to evaluate their own work. I have heard vent from most of you about some inconsiderate little twerp (my words) who came and asked to have his paper "checked." Of course this behavior hurts our feeling because we do not like being reduced to the human version of spell check, and, perhaps more importantly, we have been specifically instructed not to indulge these "people." However, from what I have observed I do not know if the direct approach (telling them that "editing is not really what we do here") has been all that helpful at redirecting tutoring sessions. Although I had also resolved to be tough with such succubi, I have tried instead to ignore (or at least suspect) any student's assessment of what they need to work on, and try to discern the writers strengths and weaknesses myself. When I fill out the paperwork at the end of the session, I almost always note that we talked about completely different things than what they came in asking help for, and most of these have been productive sessions.

In the OW, I find a much more insidious form of uncritical thinking than the merely narrow minded view of what it is we do as tutors. Here, students are prompted by the computer to assess their strengths and weaknesses. I am always surprised to find some very writerly concern filling up space in this hole on every ENG 1000 submission. Though I try not to be tooooooo presumptuous, I can almost instantly tell if they merely copied and pasted some tip that the GA tagged on to the prompt for this writing assignment. Reading the entry, I invariably find that whatever weakness they marked (unless it is grammatical, a.k.a. I didn't even proofread this) is the strongest part of their essay. I can't help but chuckle a little at the transformation of this fledgling teacher's carefully crafted course goal into meme, but that pleasure soon gives way to indignation. I would rather that box not be on there then have it filled with lazy plagiarisms. 



However, Inoue (and several others: Nathan, exploratory essays, Sartor Restarus) has got me thinking about engaging students in a dialogue about assessment. All of the above actors have taking steps to draw our attention to the stage that they walk upon. Assessment is as ubiquitous as the marriage plot (and every bit as bumfuddling).  From my experience, assessment is most important thing to future grad students and, even if they hate it and make jokes about letting gravity* pick the best papers, teachers still have to deal with institutional assessment metrics which what bell curves and not bright students. For, this reason alone I am skeptical of whether Elbow's grading contract would even fly in some universities, but I also thinks the problem lies more in misunderstanding expectations than anxiety about grades. Most of you have expressed some doubt as to the feasibility of Inoue methods, and it might be that the nature of the academy is that we just don't have to time to develop the skills it would take to introduce something as foreign as assessing one's own work, but I am tempt to call you guys a bunch of fraidy cats. For all of you who agree with Inoue or Elbow but really want your student to "RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITAH!" I would recommend that you get over that idea. I think that the only way that we are going to get student writing that is not going to bore us to tears is if we foster an environment of transparency and mutually acknowledged expectations. I like that Inoue student-generated rubric requires discussion, compromise, and revise. Elbow makes some good points about the hierarchical implications that are buried with consensus, but I agree with Inoue that one the most important parts of building the rubric is developing valid counterarguments before deciding on assessment model which students all help develop and understand on more than just the surface level.

Perhaps, this argument is a bit idiosyncratic to my experiences in the writing center, but I really want to help kids evaluate their own work. Inoue goes a step farther and shows us how we might show student why (theoretically and practically) we evaluate work and how we can be part of the discourse that sets the criteria for evaluating work.

*Maximize drag and not necessarily weight would be your best bet in any hypothetical lo-tech, stairway-powered, EZGrader-type situation.

Good Enough Evaluation > NCLB

I couldn’t help but scream when Peter Elbow mentioned No Child Left Behind. As someone coming from working at an elementary school, I can’t say how much NCLB has destroyed education. Through ridiculous testing and ludicrous standards (by 2014, the nation will have to have 100% proficiency in both math and reading, which will not happen) NCLB has undermined actual progress toward collapsing the achievement gap and has influenced a few districts to “cook” their scores. I’ve been wary of evaluations and assessments, but I think Elbow’s “Good Enough Evaluation” has quieted my fears.

Right out he refuses to call his evaluations objective, nor does he sink into a postmodern pit of despair. Instead of calling an evaluative practice fair, he suggests we can determine if it is “more fair [or] less fair.” Here he’s got my full attention, since this line of thinking means many practices will have to be tried in order to find a suitable solution: an evaluation of evaluations, if you will.

He lands on an answer: Rubrics. I love rubrics.* When a prof handed me back a paper with the score calculated so neatly for me, I knew what my strengths were and what weakness I had. It helped me address the many dimensions to the writing process and I was able to prepare for my next paper. Clearly defining the expectations for the class is so important and I think the rubric helps to do this. Students will understand what it is that I will be looking for on their papers. An added bonus will be collecting all the scored rubrics and see if a writer has continually had strengths/weaknesses in certain areas of writing that I will be able to address.

The contract seems like a great tool too. I won’t try that out for my first semester, but it is something I want to keep in my pocket. By engaging the students in a contract, the teacher makes it explicit what it is that s/he expects from the students. If approached democratically, the teacher can have the students amend or cut out things they don’t want in the contract. It also emphasizes writing as a process as opposed to a product.

Although I agree with the work that Inoue is doing, I just don’t know if it’s feasible to create a useful community-based assessment within the semester we will have with our freshmen. I do think an English 1000 teacher can implement some of his ideals and can implement some more community-based activities. By setting clear expectations and involving the students, I think we can have effective evaluative methods without creating a monster like NCLB.

*Although I did have the odd moment where I went in to see my TA about a paper he had graded of mine with a rubric. Through using the rubric, he gave my paper an A-, but he told me it should be an A paper. Apparently the rubric wouldn’t let him give me that score. So although I think they are handy, I still have some personal resentment.

Authority or Responsibility?

I have to agree with Melanie regarding the notions of authority in writing pedagogy. I have some reservations about what Inoue proposes and I'd like to just point out places where my own (still in progress) teaching philosophy converges and diverges with Inoue's programme.

Mostly, what I read in Inoue is the implementation of postmodern theory. This is something I encounter quite a bit and my classmates probably get, after my rantings in Intro to Grad Studies, that I have some reservations about these types of philosophies that, as Inoue says (and does), are "structured" into programme and praxis.

I'd like to just start, however, by saying what I do like is Inoue's insistence on what is really an "inter-subjective" and dialogical approach. I think that generating discussions is key. I like this idea in Inoue and the insistence on "reflection" is also important. What I really have problems with I will discuss below.

Firstly, Inoue uses the term "self-conscious" which to me is imprecise usage. I think if there is too much self-consciousness the writing is often "workshoppy" or pretentious. I suppose it depends on the type of writing, the genres, and this complicates it if it is expository or creative, not that it can't be both!

Secondly, I have learned to recognize the rhetoric behind the rhetoric. The problem with rhetoric, as Plato and his endless progeny have discussed, is that if there is no "criterion" (truth, foundationalism, etc.) than this actually just makes the rhetor another version of rhetoric, making no claim and deferring the responsibility of being an agent in a communicative space on to a "discourse," or in this case the students. And frankly, I think students like to have a teacher who takes responsibility and can provide them guidance. There is a difference between teaching self-reliance and throwing them in the water while they're still wet behind the ears.

When Inoue talks of "assessment isn't the word really just critical reading? The problem is that, like most postmodernists, their is a drive to disavow any standard criterion, blindly seeing it as "essentialist." Honestly, I'm not sure if there is ever a reference to what "essentialism" really means, historically, and the complexity of arguments about it; ut the term gets bashed about a lot with no really critical understanding of what existence and essence entail. You see the problem with this is how can we judge a person who claims there is no criterion for judgement? How do we judge that claim? In their terms we don't. So in the end it's trivial.

Now, like Inoue, I also see problems with quanititave grading, certainly. But I have also known people (one lad in particular) who went to a non-graded high school and he was given a rain-cloud or a sunshine instead of an A or a F. There are many ways of judging, but personally, the final criteria--and this is huge for me--shouldn't come from the students. The criteria must come from the trained professionals (i.e. instructor's like us who have read these very types of articles and discussed them with our professors of upper-level, graduate composition!).

For all the postmodern (I should say "pomo") notions of "subversion" and "institutional critique" there is a place in our society for authority and training. Otherwise we're just here to hang out and complain about the "reified discourses" we hang out and complain in. Students often need someone to take pedagogical responsibility... in my experience. I certainly do from time to time. It's part of the reason why I'm taking the courses and talking to advisors. I read books by experts who know the field, mindful of said expert's possible lack in mastery, but I'm also in a reader-writer contract with them where they must take responsibility for their claims and research. In a teacher-student contract a student should feel confident that a teacher can answer their questions (at lower-levels of course).

But there is a distinction where I agree whole-heartedly with Inoue's approach: the community-based approach helps them develop the ability to generate their own criteria. This is thinking critically. The problem I have is that there is an elevation of one community at the expense of another, more qualified community, namely the professors and instructors trained in rhetoric/comp. Also I do not want them to become dependent as writers on close-community involvement. There may be situations where they will have to become critical where they must take responsibility for their own writing practice.

Ultimately it is important to recognize rhetoric, especially in rhetorical "interventions" like Inoue's. When the terms "static, essential, evaluative, universal" are used negatively I immediately understand the overarching "discourse" that confronts me. And I do not think Inoue is able to stand outside the "class" and not accept pedagocial involvement in the situation, without coming across as a transcendent rather than immanent authority (an authority pretending they aren't an authority is worse: it's dishonest).

There is nothing wrong with being evaluative and relying on rubrics generated by professionals in the field. A panopticon, in reverse, is also a light-house. Writing is not a "set of conventions" (220), in all cases. Why is there always an "ivory tower" (cliche?) reference? (221). And is "opposition" always bad? Here is the pomo cant of "difference" but no knowledge or critical thinking comes from agreeing to disagree, no rhetoric without persuasion.

I think we need polemics, dialectical engagement, dialog, and conflict (not offensive obviously, but it keeps things from being fascist). Maybe I think this to my own unpopularity as an academic in the Humanities, but so be it. When I see everyone nodding like zombies in a classroom to what is said I see no learning happening. I see control and polite intimidation by the very folks who claim to deconstruct it.

note: I have no problem with deconstruction, in fact I like to think I practice it fairly ok. But the term gets thrown around, co-opted by practices anything but deconstructionist. Derrida, so far as I've read, has claimed not to be anti-Elightenment and denied being Post-Structural. Just to note... and Post-Structuralism, taken as "focusing on conflict and change" and outside of its overt agenda-pushing, I actually like and agree with whole-heartedly. I just don't want to be a priest of correctional politicking. It's not my job.

Panopticon as Metaphor (Foucault)

Difficulties of the Novice Professor

I must admit that I am wary of Inoue's approach to Freshman Writing using a community-based assessment.  While I believe that his method has been successful within the four walls of his classroom, I was worried throughout the article about authority.  I think that it is especially difficult for new teachers, who are often not very far from their students in age, to learn how to establish authority in the classroom.  It is one of the things I worry about extensively when I think of teaching next fall, and I think that placing assessment in the students' hands would only encourage them to undermine my authority.  Even though Inoue describes that this has not been an issue in his classroom, he is a seasoned veteran of teaching, while I have no experience whatsoever.  I think that it would be exceedingly difficult to place the burden of assessment on the students - I know that I will want to control as much of the classroom experience as possible next fall.  So, while I do not dismiss his approach, I want to seriously question how effective brand new teachers can be while using it.

On the other hand, I enjoyed Peter Elbow's writings ("A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching" and "Good Enough Evaluation") and felt that I could use his approaches to Freshman Writing in my classroom next year.  I have always questioned the usefulness of rubric-style grading on papers - when I received this kind of assessment, I hardly ever looked at the specifics of the rubric and instead looked immediately for the letter grade at the bottom of the page.  The "bottom line" has always been most important to me.  I realize after reading Elbow's articles, though, that is because I have felt comfortable writing for quite some time now - the rubric was already ingrained in my mind.  Both these articles and the sessions with Nathan and Max have helped me realize that many of my students will benefit from a rubric that they can use to guide their writing.  While I think that the "bottom line" grade will still be important to my students, as the letter grade tends to mean everything on college campuses, a better understanding of specifically why that student got a B or a C will certainly be helpful as well, especially for the student who feels uncomfortable with writing.

On the other hand, I must admit that I do not think I would ever use the "grading contract" in my classroom, though I was intrigued by the practice.  Grades can be incredibly arbitrary - what one teacher believes is an A paper another may say is merely a B+.  I am not sure, though, that I would be comfortable stating at the outset of my first class that this is exactly what you need to do to get a B.  Once again, I feel that this would undermine my authority in the classroom.  And, perhaps this is simply because teaching is such a new endeavor for me.  I think, though, that I am not even sure what work I consider to be worthy of a B, yet, and so I would not be able to tell my students exactly what would get them a B in my class.  Again, this is an obstacle, in my opinion, primarily for new teachers, and so implementing these things in a classroom probably would not be as difficult for experienced teachers.