Item Details

Responding without Grading: One Teacher’s Experience

Issue: Vol 6 No. 2 (2014) Special Issue: Feedback in Writing

Journal: Writing & Pedagogy

Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics

DOI: 10.1558/wap.v6i2.365


Much of the research on teacher response to student writing has focused on how teachers can best help their students improve their writing and, concomitantly, on the reactions teachers’ responses evoke in their students. What is largely absent as an object of study in this research is the teacher’s experience of the responding process and the effects which alternative methods of response have on the teacher’s role in the classroom. This article describes my attempts as a writing teacher to separate grading student writing from responding to student writing. Based on my observations during a modest pilot study, I suggest that the act of grading lies at the heart of the negative reactions teachers have when they respond to student writing and that eliminating grading has positive effects on the teacher’s response process, on classroom instruction, and on how teachers conceptualize their classroom role.

Author: Sue Tedmon Rosenfeld

View Original Web Page

References :

Adkison, S., and Tchudi, S. (1997) Grading on merit and achievement: where quality meets quantity. In S. Tchudi (ed.) Alternatives to Grading Student Writing 192–204. Urbana, Illinois: National Council Teachers of English.
Armstrong, K. M. (2010) Fluency, accuracy, and complexity in graded and ungraded writing Foreign Language Annals 43: 690–702.
Ashwell, T. (2000) Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3): 227–257.
Bardine, B. A., Bardine, M. S. and Deegan, E. F. (2000) Beyond the red pen: Clarifying our role in the response process. English Journal 90: 94–101.
Beck, S. (2006) Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of English 40: 413–460.
Connors, R. and Lunsford, A. (1993) Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication 44: 200–223.
Danielewicz, J. and Elbow, P. (2009) A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication 61: 244–268.
Deci, E. L. Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999) A metaanalytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125: 627–668.
Del-Principe, A. (2010) Variations in assessment, variations in philosophy: unintended consequences of heterogeneous portfolios. Teaching English in the Two Year College 38: 6–21.
Elbow, P. (2006) Do we need a single standard of value for institutional assessment? An essay response to Asao Inoue’s “Community-based assessment pedagogy.” Assessing Writing 11: 81–99.
Ferris, D. (2007) Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 165–193.
Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 161–184.
Haswell, R. H. (1983) Minimal marking. College English 45: 600–604.
Helmbrecht, B. (2007) Giving grades, taking tolls: Assessing the impact of evaluation on developing writers. Teaching English in the Two Year College 34(3): 306–319.
Herberg, E. (2005) Can a metamorphosis be quantified: Reflecting on portfolio assessment. Composition Studies 33(2): 69–87.
Huot, B., O’Neill, P., and Moore, C. (2010) A usable past for writing assessment. College English 72(5): 495–517.
Kellogg, R, Whiteford, A., and Quinlan, T. (2010) Does automated feedback help students learn to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research 42: 173–196.
Kohn, A. (2006) The trouble with rubrics. English Journal 95: 12–15.
Lee, I. (2008a) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 69–85.
Lee, I. (2008b) Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 144-164.
Lee, M. (2009) Rhetorical roulette: does writing-faculty overload disable effective response to student writing? Teaching English in the Two Year College 37: 165–177.
Li, J. and Barnard, R. (2011) Academic tutors’ beliefs about and practices of giving feedback on students’ written assignments: a New Zealand case study. Assessing Writing 16: 137–148.
Mabry, L. (1999) Writing to the rubric: lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80: 673–679.
Murphy, S. (2000) A sociocultural perspective on teacher response: is there a student in the room? Assessing Writing 7: 79–90.
Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., and Kempler, T. (2000) “What’s everybody so excited about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. The Journal of Experimental Education 68: 217–236.
Prat-Sala, M. and Redford, P. (2010) The interplay between motivation, self efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 283–305.
Scott, T. (2008) “Happy to comply”: Writing assessment, fast-capitalism, and the cultural logic of control. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 30: 140–161.
Sonnenmoser, R. (2009) The gatekeeping impulse and Professor X: An exploration. Assessing Writing 14: 76–87.
Spence, L. K. (2010) Discerning writing assessment: Insights into an analytical rubric. Language Arts 87: 337–352.
Tannen, D. (1986) That’s Not What I Meant. London: Virago Press.
Treglia, M. O. (2009) Teacher-written commentary in college writing composition: How does it impact student revisions? Composition Studies 37: 67–86.
Truscott, J. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 255–272.
Truscott, J. and Hsu, A. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 292–305.
Wilson, M. (2010) Rethinking a writing teacher’s expertise: Following students under the kitchen table. English Journal 99: 50–56.