The first time I marked student writing was during my first teaching job at a college in Oman. The class was like a CLB 3, but the academic curriculum had the students learning essay writing. I couldn’t make heads or tails out of Talib’s (not his real name) writing. There were mangled sentences, missing words, misspelled words, wrong words, and errors I’d never seen before. His essay was organized, so the only mark I figured I could give him was a 1 out of 10.
When I handed back the essays to the students, Talib cried out, “What this?” He tore up his paper and threw the pieces at me. He then collected them all up and stormed out of the class.
Later that day, my Head of Department, Mr. Samir (not his real name), called me into his office. He showed me Talib’s paper, which Talib had taped up and given to Mr. Samir, who gave the paper a 3.
“Derek,” said Mr. Samir, “never give these students 1. I agree with your mark, but they take it as an insult. And, think about what’s best for the student. Is 1 going to help Talib?”
I was teaching at a college, but I was being schooled at Hard Knocks U.
Since that day, the lowest mark I’ve ever given a student for writing is 4 out of 10, even if that particular piece of writing is really worth only 0.5. I did Mr. Samir one better. I still won’t go any lower than a 4 out of 10.
Now, some might say I’ve compromised my integrity by perhaps giving a student a false assessment of their work. I disagree. Why? Because marking writing is about more than marks, as I learned from my encounter with Talib.
Although we tend to think that it’s just business—nothing personal—when it comes to feedback, that’s not completely true. Of course, a mark is not a comment on who a student is as a person; all the same, marks have the power to either build up a student or knock them down.
As I learned with Talib, it is important when marking writing to consider how that student will receive their mark. Students take pride in their work, and see it as a reflection of themselves, not necessarily on who they are as a person, but on their ability to learn, and, thus, their intelligence. So, just as we engage in differentiated instruction in the classroom, so too we might consider differentiated marking.
Easier said than done, especially for those of us teaching higher-level classes with more sophisticated writing assignments than writing email requests. A colleague has three upper level classes with a total of well over 70 students. Needless to say, marking his students’ writing is time-consuming and cumbersome.
What I’m getting at, however, is not necessarily holding up an essay like a fine wine to the light. No. Teachers have to be prudent with their time, of course. Rather, be politic—if a piece of writing clearly misses the mark, there’s no need to crush that student with a 1. If the total mark is out of 10, far better for that student if you give them a 4.
It’s important, of course, for students to know where they need to improve and that they didn’t succeed with that assignment. At the same time, seeing a 4 has a different effect on morale than seeing a 1. I err on giving them a 4 even if their work really is only deserving of a 1. I emphasize what they need to work on, while, at the same time, using the mark to send a message that gives them reason to keep going rather than losing confidence.
And that’s what Talib was really doing that day. He wasn’t just tearing up the paper; he was showing me that I had shredded his confidence. I then spent the term trying to tape it back together again.
6 Comments
I think that Talib’s response was something we’ve all felt. While I completely understand your rationale for the bottomline grade being a “4” out of 10, I might also have done some 1:1 with him.
Crack open the rubric. Have the student go through it with that fine-toothed comb. Have him self-reflect – did he really and clearly demonstrate (point A, point B, etc), and if so, how? This, by the way, is also a good way to look into the student’s processes and is a somewhat decent indication of GenAI assistance.
The other thing that caught my attention was the emotion involved in your student’s response. I get that this event likely preceded GenAI. From his tantrum, er, demonstration of frustration, I’d be fairly certain that this was his work entirely. His effort. There is accountability here, and, like you mentioned, ego and pride involved.
Building confidence in our students is part of what we do; crushing their egos is going to send them running into the ever-loving arms of ChatGPT, where they will receive the unending praise and support that they’re craving.
The less confidence that they have in their own abilities, the more likely they will end up accepting GenAI output without critical thinking and reflection. (Check out Ping’s 2024 study on this), and THAT’S more of a problem than the grade they receive on their work.
It’s never just about the grade. I think you’ve shown that. Thanks for your post!
I’d still assign “0”s, though – for non-submissions, or if they’ve left the final line from ChatGPT in their response “Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you!”
Hi Jen,
Yes, this incident preceded Ai. There was no ChatPG in the early 2000s. I took my cue for grading the students at that desert college in Oman from my first Head of Department. The expat teachers had to also adapt to the local culture when dealing with the students, be that teaching, one on one, and marking. The best rule to follow when in a foreign country is ‘when in Rome.’
I’m glad you brought up the problems with Ai. Personally, I am against it generally, and in education specifically. However, as you point out, teachers can’t escape Ai. It’s a technology we have to deal with whether we like it or not. Interesting, too, is the psychological element of learning that you point out – students’ need for affirmation, rather than prioritizing learning.
It’s a brave new world we’re in now.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Derek
Great message, Derek, about giving students the morale boost they need to keep going. I’ve been in the same situation as you because I used to stick too ardently to the checkboxes on rubrics. I have learned to be a little more flexible with those boxes and I comment on skills that students do well on. As Jen mentions above, there’s the problem of copy and pasting from AI now. I think it’s even more important than ever to give positive feedback to students who have the courage to use their own words and are eager to develop their skills, especially when they see some of their peers copy straight from AI and get better marks! We should embrace AI in our lessons and for some assignments, but we need to evaluate students based on how they are genuinely working on their skills and progressing in class; otherwise, what’s the point? I’ve presented some ideas for that in this week’s post 😀
Hi Jennifer,
With yours and Jen’s responses, I see the prevalence of AI in our classes. I haven’t seen it in my classes, at least, not yet. So, the AI issue is not something I think about. Maybe I’ve just lucked out here with my classes. My Literacy students are some of the best I’ve had in my career. Yes, they want to move to CLB 1, but they’re hungry to learn. Same with the 3/4 students I’ve had the last two years. Maybe I’m a fuddy-duddy, but I don’t see a place for AI in the classroom.
Thanks for your response.
Derek
Derek – I came back to your blog article because I was thinking about what you had said earlier about grading. I absolutely don’t think that you’re a “fuddy-duddy” in your reluctance to jump on the AI in Education bandwagon.
And just because you’re not embracing AI with open arms doesn’t mean that you’re not forward thinking. I’ve been rethinking how AI is being used in our field a lot lately. I haven’t done a complete about-face, but I’ve been proactively learning and educating myself about it. About the tech companies behind large language models. About the hype. About the over-promise. About how the data has been collected/stolen in order to profit the Tech Bros.
There has got to be a better way, because I really want to believe that AI tools have some benefit for our teachers and students.
Hi Jen – I’m not against AI, although, as you can tell, I am skeptical about it. Like you, I want to be open to using it in the classroom, but as a supplement to good old fashioned paper, pencils, and teachers making their own materials. I have several colleagues who use AI to create activities and tests, such as Roshi for listening activities. I get that. Making one’s own listening activities and tasks can be frustrating. However, having said that, what I’ve found my AI embracing colleagues is that they use it for expediency and efficiency. Overall, I am not a fan technology in general, although I stop short of being a Luddite.
You raise important questions the tech companies behind this technology. If you remember back to the 2020 U.S. election, it was revealed that Facebook created bespoke algorithms for its users to send them news items that would incite anger in them. And just the other day, my friend was telling me that his phone sent him information about a store he might like. He got that notice because he’d been talking with someone and his phone ‘heard’ him and thought, hey, he might like some useful information. Anyway, you are prudent to question and research. Would that those who embrace AI as a godsend do so too. Alas.
I don’t mind being a fuddy-duddy. I’m quite honored to be thought of as such.
Thanks for your message.
Derek