Exploring a Conversation About Writing

The Teachers’ Lounge - Script

I was walking leisurely through the halls of my high school, delivering a note to the office when I
heard some murmurs that sparked my curiosity. The noise came from a room marked with bold
letters “THE TEACHERS’ LOUNGE,” and the door was cracked open at a thirty-degree angle.
Intrigued by the possible drama and gossip that could be spilled, I lingered by the door to listen.
To my disappointment, the teachers were discussing writing, and how it can be accurately
graded. Surprise. Surprise. Teachers talking about grading - how exciting. Despite my interest
dropping exponentially, I was not in a rush to get back to class so I listened in on the
conversation. There was a group of six teachers all discussing the issues with grading writing,
and offered some solutions to combat unfairness and subjectivity.

How can writing be accurately graded?

As a student, grades are so powerful. Not only do they affect the next phase of your life,
whether that be the following course, school, or job, but can take a toll mentally. The pressure
that is put on grades has grown immensely over the years; grades now equate to your
intelligence and worth. There is a need for good grades, with frustration and disappointment
when the expectation is not met. In the field of writing, grading accurately can be tricky; there is
no right or wrong. If I get an answer wrong in math class, I can easily identify my mistake; I
forgot to divide by 2 at the end. In writing, however, it is ultimately my teacher’s opinion on how
good my work was. So, the question for debate is...how can writing be accurately graded? Is
there a universal equation for how to credit a student’s work?

On the question of how writing can be accurately graded, Ms. Furnish, Mr. Meyeres, and Mr.
Dethier all acknowledge and agree that the current approach is flawed. They understand that
there is a mutual understanding amongst all teachers on how the subjectivity of grading can be
challenging, and it is a multi-layered issue with no single solution.

Ms. Furnish: There has got to be a new way to grade these dang papers. I love reading my
students’ work, but when it comes down to it, there is no way to grade them accurately. It’s easy
to identify a good paper from a bad one, but I’m not sure how to express that to my students. I
want them to learn and grow, but it’s difficult finding a way to give concrete and helpful
feedback.
Mr. Meyeres: I agree with you. The traditional methods of grading writing are overwhelming and
dated. Teachers are used to just marking a letter on the top, but it is important for our students
to understand why they receive the grades they do.

Mr. Dethier: I feel the same way. The subjectivity of the manner makes it nearly impossible for
creating one solution. We all teach differently and our students are forced to adapt to our
preferences. I have one student who was taught to just place quotes willy nilly, but I prefer them
to be integrated into the sentences. It’s not his fault that he was taught one way, but now he has
to change to the way I teach. I think adapting to different teaching methods is fine, but their
grades suffer until they learn the teacher’s preferences. It must be challenging and confusing for
these students to understand the grades they’re receiving, especially when they’re doing what
they’ve been taught.

As a student, the subjectivity of grading writing has always confused and frustrated me. I never
understood why my writing received the grade since the explanation was never clear. One time I
had a teacher write “Needed more umph.” How is one supposed to add “umph”? I understand
that writing as a whole is subjective, and teachers have preferences. I think what frustrates me
is the lack of feedback and explanation for the grades received. I think it is important to provide
thorough and concrete feedback to allow students to understand the mistakes or identify where
the paper was lacking.

While the topic of grading writing began to circulate around the room, Ms. Rollins became
intrigued. Being an odd woman out as a chemistry teacher, she tends to deal more with
chemicals and less with grading sentences. Nonetheless, she understands the need for more
writing skills to be implemented in STEM classes. She explains this in her research paper,
“When Rubrics Need Revision: A Collaboration Between STEM Faculty and the Writing Center.”

Ms. Rollins: Sorry to interrupt. I know all you writing teachers probably don’t think I can relate to
these issues, but my science students are struggling with their free response questions and I
can’t even figure out how to properly grade them. They don’t answer the question I’m asking,
and just go around it. I actually recently did a study on how writing skills are needed in STEM
subject areas, and how writing quality should be added to rubrics. I empathize with you all, and
if you have any suggestions on how to help my students improve their writing or how I can
grade their papers better, I’m all ears!

Overhearing Ms. Rollins' comment about writing within STEM fields, I felt a personal connection.
As an aspiring engineer, I thought I was free of writing for the rest of my life. To my surprise,
writing will always be a relevant and needed skill in any field. I understand the importance of
writing and its need to be exercised and used in any subject.
Although Ms. Rollins made a good point, Ms. Furnish has been eagerly waiting to respond
earlier. As someone who pushes for providing positive rather than negative feedback on
students’ work, she needed her colleagues to understand the power they have as teachers and
the lifelong effect on their students.

Ms. Furnish has noticed the negative connotation teachers have about grading writing. In her
journal, “Loving Grading Writing,” she pushes the need for changing the mindset from grading
as a burden to appreciating individuality and being optimistic.

Ms. Furnish: I know Ms. Rollins, we are all in the same boat. I alsoI know that grading hundreds
of papers can be exhausting, but it is important for us, as teachers, to stay optimistic and
appreciate the effort our students put into their work. I think students deserve concrete feedback
when justifying their grades, but we should try to also point out what they did that was great,
rather than only pick apart their errors. Don’t ya think?

Mr. Haswell has a more stern opinion on the subject of grading as a whole. In his review,
“Grades, Time, and the Curse of the Course,” he discusses how schooling is not to learn, but to
receive credit.

Mr. Haswell: Yeah, I agree with you. But at this point, the whole system is corrupt. High school
and beyond is just a business. Courses equal time, which equals credit. The best deal is when
students find credit for less time. This is an entrepreneurial experience. What’s the point?
Students don’t want to learn, they want the credit. I understand the push towards a more
positive outlook on grading, but with learning not even being a priority for these students, it’s
difficult to want to implement change.

Mr. Wood overhears the conversation while browsing the fridge for snacks. He turns around and
suggests a new grading method he read about and reviewed called “Labor-Based Grading
Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Classroom.” He shares the ideas from this text
with the group.

Mr. Wood: Well, if I may interject, I just read and reviewed this promising new method of grading
in a writing class that emphasizes the problem you, Mr. Haswell, brought up. It’s where the
students choose the grade they want to receive, and attempt to demonstrate it throughout the
course. In doing so, it pushes them to show improvement rather than chase a grade solely for
credit.
Mr. Dethier is a little more of a traditionalist. He acknowledges the flaws with grading writing, but
does not agree with changing the subjectivity. He goes more into depth about this idea in his
scholarly writing, “In Defense of Subjective Grading.”

Mr. Dethier: I understand that there are problems with grading. Teachers want to be more
concrete and positive with their feedback and want their students to want to learn and grow and
not focus on the grades and credits. However, let’s not stray from the purpose of our roles as
teachers. We are here to teach. We are here to grade. We are here to point out and correct their
mistakes. We are not here to make students feel better in fear it will upset their feelings. If they
do poorly, we are allowed to tell them what they did wrong. We also can’t force them to want to
learn, that’s not our job. Our job is to make the students who want to improve, improve.

As the conversation got more passionate and tense, I realized that grading writing is more
layered and complex. Every teacher has their own outlook and goals, which may not be shared
by all. I think it is important to justify and give students meaningful feedback, but the subjectivity
of grading will stay forever. Writing is not math, there is not one solution. This newfound
realization loosened my grudge I used to hold against writing. I used to be frustrated and upset
when teachers’ opinions varied, but now I understand that this is normal and justified.

Although Mr. Dethier ended the conversation on a bolder note, Mr. Meyeres felt the need to
suggest another new approach to grading. Even though Mr. Dethier does not favor change, Mr.
Meyeres thought the other teachers might appreciate the idea.

Mr. Meyeres favors innovation and change. He has developed a new approach that he explains
in his article, “A Teaching Tip.”

Mr. Meyeres: Mr. Dethier, I agree with your point, but do not think it is solely our students’ job to
want to learn. Not everyone loves school, and it is our job to get them excited and push them to
enjoy learning. I actually have an idea for you folks, or at least those interested. It’s called
primary-trait scoring. In this new method I designed, each individual assignment is based on
one expectation or skill. If a student shows mastery and clear understanding in this one skill,
then they receive a good grade. This method creates clear expectations and allows for more
focused feedback and also -

Bell Rings
Although Mr. Meyeres was cut short, all the teachers understood the rush to get to their
classrooms. Like a choreographed routine, everyone in the teachers’ lounge got up, packed
their items, and headed off to class.

Even though the conversation ended abruptly, it concluded on a positive note and felt complete.
From what I overheard, there is a universal agreement that the topic of grading writing is layered
and complex. The subjectivity will always be there, due to the nature of writing, but that does not
inhibit students’ growth or progress as writers. Despite the subjectivity, the ability for writing to
be graded accurately is achievable; teachers need to justify their scores with concrete and
meaningful feedback.

I left my spot next to the door with a newfound respect for grading writing. Before, I used to
despise the subjectivity, but now I understand its inevitability. So the question of how writing can
be accurately graded is left ambiguous, as there is no one answer or solution. Instead, it is
important to appreciate and learn from each teacher, despite the variation in their approaches or
preferences.
 Works Cited

Dethier, Brock. (1983). In defense of subjective grading. North Carolina English Teacher
40.4, 3-6.

Furnish, Shearle. (1955). Loving grading writing. CLA Journal 38, 490-504.

Haswell, Richard H. (1999). Grades, time, and the curse of course [essay review].
College Composition and Communication 51.2, 284-295.

Meyeres, G. Douglas. (1989). A teaching tip: Grading writing assignments using

primary-trait scoring. Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for Technical
Communication 36.1, 78-79.

Rollins, Anna; Kristen Leillvis. (2018). When rubrics need revision: A collaboration
between STEM faculty and the writing center. Composition Forum 40.

Wood, Shane A. (2020). Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion
in the Writing Classroom [book review]. Journal of Writing Assessment 13.1.