Responding to Student Writing

1. Articulate the range of possible qualities that might place a paper in a given range.
For instance, in a course where written argumentation is very important, a C paper might be technically perfect, but lacking a clear or persuasive argument. Alternatively, it might contain the seeds of compelling argument but with no support. Or it might have the beginnings of a decent argument in highly garbled and confusing prose. Rubrics are difficult to develop because they force us to specify the complex array of criteria that we normally process unconsciously when reading. But creating a clear rubric will remove much of the feeling that evaluating papers is an arbitrary or purely "subjective" exercise.

2. Respond and reward students according to your rubric.
If mechanical exactitude is required by the rhetorical situation (i.e. the students are writing a mock job search document), then reward those whose prose is technically flawless and punish those with unacceptable errors. If a complex argument is most important, change the reward structure accordingly, and so on.

3. Give students a mix of positive and negative feedback.
Students are used to hearing what they've done wrong. But just as often they are ignorant about what they've done well. Students benefit greatly from knowing that you recognize their successes; by giving them positive feedback (especially if they've tried something new and succeeded) you reinforce their best tendencies.

4. More is often less.
Circling every mechanical, rhetorical, and evidentiary error in a paper can be self-defeating. Students are often overwhelmed by such commentary and become so discouraged that they do not even read your comments -- this after you have invested considerable time in making them. Consider focusing on one or two major issues -- things that the student can reasonably expect to improve on a revision or on the next paper.