Affiliate Programs
The Gateway Writing Project is an affiliate of the National Writing Project.
The Missouri Association of the Teachers of English
Using Grading to Enhance Learning
The Dohle-Ryan Method 1998-99
Evaluation is inevitable; therefore, the only real question is what sort of evaluation to have. We can decide best if we figure out what evaluation ought to do. Evaluation has two purposes. The first is to communicate an accurate estimate of the student's performance to the readers of the evaluation (i.e., to the student himself and to other readers such as colleges or employers). If readers of the evaluation get an inaccurate estimate, it has failed. The second function of evaluation is to help the student learn to evaluate his own performance accurately. A student who remains dependent on teacher grades is defectively taught in a purely cognitive sense; he cannot really do what he was allegedly taught to do because he cannot tell when or whether he did it. He is even worse off if he is dependent on grades for psychological reasons; he cannot invest himself in inquiry except "for credit" and a grade. The agenda for grading thus reflects an agenda for all learning and cognitive development; we gradually learn to do alone what at first we could only do through interaction with others.
Interaction and Revision
Mr. Dohle and I felt that it was imperative to ask for several drafts of the students' essays as the research progressed. This was important in order to support their learning while they were in the midst of research and writing. Each draft was read separately by Mr. Dohle and myself. We did not "grade" these early drafts; rather, we evaluated the historical accuracy of the content, suggested to the student avenues of research to explore, and in general offered suggestions that would establish a firm thesis and general direction for the essay. After our initial readings, Dohle and I discussed our evaluations and suggestions and returned the papers to the students. We followed up each draft with individual discussions and whole class presentations of the general rubric of the assignment.
This effort took considerable time and effort, at the very least 15 minutes
for each draft. However, this was a very good practice for it allowed Dohle
and myself to grasp the central criteria for our assignment and to agree
about specific student texts; in order to make our judgments more trustworthy.
We employed a similar strategy in our discussions with the students in order
to come to a consensus from negotiation. In this way, we were trying to
create what Peter Elbow calls "a culture of support; a culture where
the students and teachers function as allies rather than adversaries and
where students cooperate with classmates rather than compete with them.
Students, because they had the opportunity to revise, were encouraged to
take risks in both their writing and their research. In many ways, Mr. Dohle
and I were more concerned with the processes of student inquiry rather than
the finished artifact. Not surprisingly, the final papers showed considerable
improvement, but it was in the revision and reflection (or lack there of)
that exposed the real nature of student learning. Most interestingly, the
students commented in a research journal that reflected their own thinking
and research methodologies. These comments can be seen in the "De-Briefing
Session."
At the end of the first semester, I wrote exhaustive comments to the students
evaluating their essays. I used the general rubric for the assignment (a
criteria based description of an "A" Paper, a "B" Paper,
etc and then applied the individual attributes to their specific essays.
In this way, I was hoping to enhance the learning with evaluation by showing
the students that the evaluation is an inaccurate estimate of their performance.
However, since we were going to repeat this assignment in the next semester,
I also wanted this written review to help the student learn to evaluate
his own performance accurately. This was a formal attempt at dialoguing
with the student. It would be a detailed account of both their final result
and of the type of process that lead them to the production of the essay.
I exchanged the reviews with Mr. Dohle and he added his own comments on
the essay and effort. We then agreed upon the final grade and also on our
evaluation remarks.
We then returned the papers and had a two-class debriefing. At this point
we reiterated our criteria for the final evaluation by showing exemplary
essays. We spent a great deal of time explaining the necessity of vigorous
inquiry and the kinds of problems that students encounter in writing and
research. We strongly reminded the students that we were not interested
in their merely gathering information, but in constructing knowledge. (See
the separate sheet discussing this session.)
We both followed up with this debriefing by talking to the students individually about their work.
Critical Reflection:
This was one of the most important teacher development projects in which I've had the pleasure to participate. I found the collegiality of my partner, Mr. Dolhe, to be greatly energizing. By doing this revision together we have become critical friends that comment and reflect upon our teaching practices. The benefit of this review and reflection has been to allow us to restructure the curriculum for both history and language arts. We have found a comfortable way to support each other as we struggle with new pedagogical approaches.
(We owe many of these ideas to the work or Peter Elbow, whose insight into the composing process and teacher/student dialogue has helped us in our own dialogues with students and with each other.)
Back to the Top