| The "Warning Signs" page identifies 10 problems that typically arise when marking is not student-oriented. It is intended for experienced markers and mid-career instructors who are finding themselves increasingly frustrated by grading procedures that eat up their time and energy but do not seem to be appreciated by students. New Faculty, who may not have much experience with marking undergraduate papers, may want to skip this page. | |
| The "Do's and Don'ts of student-oriented grading" page provides specific advice on effective grading practices. The advice is premised on the understanding that professors and students start from different frames of reference, and that understanding the student perspective, and modifying one's procedures to better meet the actual learning needs of students will help you become a better &mdash more efficient, more effective — marker. | |
| The sample rubric provided illustrates how students can be given clear direction and held to a high standard while still being allowed considerable latitude in choosing their own content and approach, thus retaining ownership of their written work. We argue that student ownership is a key to improving the quality of student work and learning. | |
| "The Student Frame of Reference" is a paper distributed at Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Conference,
Brock University,
June 14-17, 2000, and subsequently became the basis of "Falling Through the Hoops: Student Construction of the Demands of Academic Writing," in Andrew Stubbs and Judy Chapman, Rhetoric, Uncertainty, and the University as Text: How Students Construct the Academic Experience. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina, 2007. This is the key paper on this site because it is both the research and philosophical foundations for the advice found in the rest of the site. Abstract Starting from an analysis of the characteristics of "satisfactory" and "excellent" student writing, we argue that much of the feedback currently provided to students is actively counter-productive. Improvement in student achievement requires a change in how these students view university, their instructors, and the role of writing, rather than additional instruction in either the subject content or the mechanics of paper composition. For example, we argue that the most crucial feature of writing at the marginally "satisfactory" level is the absence of "ownership": many undergraduates believe that they "have to give the professor what s/he wants hear". It is this (mis)understanding of the university context which denies students ownership of their papers, and so ultimately undermines their potential for learning and achievement. Consequently, changes are needed in the way we structure and grade assignments to allow these students to take their own voice seriously and to develop the other metacognitions necessary to achieve excellence. | |
| "I'm an 'A' Student, But You Only Gave Me a 'C': Addressing Student Misconceptions of the Grading Process" is a paper that suggests how to turn unreasonable requests from students for better grades into 'teachable moments'. | |
| Runté's website on test construction and test taking. Includes the basics of multiple-choice question design, essay question design, and a section on testwiseness — simple tricks that students can use to improve their tests scores, and that represent test flaws that instructors need to avoid. | |
| About the Authors |
