Labor-Based Grading

This post was originally delivered as a conference presentation, later edited and presented at an English department summer retreat. I am in the process of revising it for an article submission. The article highlights three interrelated tenets of antiracist writing instruction that I have incorporated into my classes:

• The importance of separating feedback and assessment (via)
• Labor-based grading (and)
• Transforming a rubric (to be accessible and used as a tool to)
• Make assessment a core classroom activity

This blog post provides an overview of the all four of these principles. Below, I focus on the Labor part, though I believe I touch on all of these concepts.

Of course, a premise for this work is that every student has the right to their own language. The exigence for this work lies in the quantitative data that repeatedly shows unequal outcomes for non-white students.

Much of my research on this subject has centered on Asao Inoue’s work on antiracist writing and assessment (including his work with Mya Poe and others) and labor-based grading and Jesse Stommel’s work on ungrading. I have included the reference list to my earlier conference presentation below.

If as teachers, we cannot alter such pervasive unequal distribution of experiences and opportunities in our students’ lives, which affects who they are and what they bring to our writing classrooms, then I think our best strategy as antiracist educators is to change the way we understand and do writing assessment, while simultaneously building arguments and movements to change the larger structural racism in our society and schools. But this antiracist project begins in our classrooms because it is the only place we, as writing teachers, can begin. (Inoue, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies, p. 29)

Over the past few years I’ve been working to embrace Inoue’s ecological strategies aimed at creating more equitable outcomes. Last year I focused on revising the rubric I use in my writing classes, moving away from attempting to judge a piece of writing’s quality. Instead, I assess whether the writer is working to enact the strategies I introduce and reinforce in class (both through in-class writing activities and grade norming sessions in which we use the rubric to evaluate papers from previous semesters). A goal of this rubric is to turn subjective evaluation into objective observation; rather than delve into the murky depths of whether a thesis is sophisticated, I’m looking to identify whether its most foundational elements are present. I try to make sure the rubric is student-focused, providing as much concrete language as possible describing what an element should do/look like. Instead of signs of mastery, I’m looking for signs of learning. In addition to avoiding the kinds of bias that can come from non SEAE (Standard Edited Academic English) style, such a goal ensures developing writers have equal opportunity to learn the fundamental elements of invention and arrangement. While some might see this as a loss of rigor, I’ve come to see it as a move toward fairness and equity; students get rewarded for the work they do in my classroom rather than penalized for the work they didn’t do (for whatever reason) before they got there.

At the same time that I’ve been altering my rubric and the ways assessment operates in my classes, I’ve also been tinkering with how grades are weighted and/or determined. I started this process 7 years ago in multimedia composing classes, as I was looking for a way to encourage students to take risks and recognizing the disequilibrium and technological knowledge gaps that caused them anxiety. So, in addition to having students co-create rubrics in class, I implemented something close to Elbow and Danielewicz’s version of a grading contract, which guarantees a student a “B” if they complete fundamental expectations regarding production, attendance, revision, and more. They write:

Thus you earn the grade of B entirely on the basis of what you do—on your conscientious effort and participation. The grade of B does not derive from my judgment about the quality of your writing. Grades higher than B, however, do rest on my judgment of writing quality. To earn higher grades you must produce writing—particularly for your final portfolio—that I judge to be exceptionally high quality.

Inoue has been critical of this style of grading contract because “exceptionally high quality” often translates into mastery of Standard Edited American English. Even if it doesn’t, the emphasis on subjective assessment of supposedly objective standards likely institutes a barrier that prevents all students in a class from earning an “A.” This was the model that I used for a few years, but after reading Inoue, I’ve become a bit skeptical of a model that reserves excellence for an elite few, and bases that reservation on the quality of a final product. Chances are that I didn’t do all that much in my 16 weeks to “teach” them how to create that product. Chances are most of the factors that contributed to that product stretch back over life experiences that came long before that student entered my classroom. If we want to hold true to the promise of Inoue’s opening quote, if we want to design racially equitable classrooms, then we need to make sure that every student who enters our classroom on day 1 has as equal a chance as possible of earning an “A.” That’s what equity looks like: ensuring that every student gets assessed based on the work that they do in our classes, and not penalized for what they might not have learned or mastered before they walked through the door.

Before I explore ways of assessing labor, I’d like to clarify how my rubric and grading policies work ecologically: moving towards this kind of labor-based grading model means that the rubric becomes a purely pedagogical tool. It assesses the quality of a student’s writing without assessing the quality of a student. What sells me on this approach more than anything is how the phenomenological context in which students receive feedback shifts: from “defense” of a (often unwanted) grade to explanation of how the quality of writing can improve. When we liberate feedback and assessment from grades, we create a more productive learning environment for all of our students, one that rewards experimentation, risk, failure, and growth (see specifically Stommel on ungrading; Stommel’s system is quite different than Inoue’s since it relies on student self-assessment rather than labor criteria).

Nuts and Bolts of Labor Based Grading
I’d like to share Inoue’s example of a graduated grading system that he uses in an intermediate-level writing class, one that awards a student a grade based on how much extra/exceptional effort they invest in a class. He developed this model after changing jobs and working in a university that (like UNC) awards plus and minus grades.

Below I share my version of this labor-based approach that I will be using in my ENG 225 and ENG 301 classes this fall.

Labor-Based Grading (ENG 225)
Following contemporary research on assessment and student learning, this course eschews a traditional evaluative grading system (one in which I use a rubric in order to judge the quality of your work) in favor of a labor-based system (one in which you earn a grade through the consistency and quantity of your effort). Research on traditional grading shows that it often rewards students from more affluent backgrounds and penalizes students from marginalized backgrounds. Labor-based grading does not penalize students who enter a class without supposed foundational prior knowledge. Given the myriad (and often insufficient) ways writing gets taught in many secondary schools, and the wide range of literate experiences y’all might have had growing up, I want to provide an environment that lets everyone succeed regardless of their previous preparation and experiences. My understanding of “success” is built around individual growth and development–this course is successful if you leave it as a more proficient and confident writer.

However, effort alone will not necessarily make you better–we need to focus that effort. Class assignments will often come with rubrics that identify key concepts, genre conventions, strategies, or content that has to be included in a project. If you miss something, you will have the opportunity to revise and resubmit until you get it down. My expectation is for recognition of key concepts, not necessarily mastery. We will familiarize ourselves with project rubrics and key concepts by grading past projects together as a class. This should help familiarize you with some key genre conventions for academic writing.

Both disciplinary research and my personal experience suggest that consistent effort is the best way to achieve success. Put simply, the more you write, the more energy you invest into your writing, the better writer you will become. Thus, assessment in this class aims to measure how hard you try more than whether your writing is “good.” You will earn a B in this course if you:

• Pass in all assignments (relatively) on-time
• Address basic concerns of a project’s rubric
• maintain solid attendance, showing up to class on-time
• and receive positive assessments from group mates on our team project

To earn a grade beyond an “B,” you will have to invest extra effort in this course. Completing two of the items below will result in a B+. Completing 3 of the items below will result in an A-. Completing 4 of the items below will result in an A. Note that the first item is required for a grade beyond a B.

• Submitting revisions of the Sicart Analysis Paper and the Representations paper until they reach a 90% on the rubric and/or address key instructor comments (required)
• Visiting office hours in order to share drafts or ask meaningful questions about a project/reading/work (minimum 2 visits per semester)
• Bringing drafts of 2 papers to the Writing Center (be sure to get confirmation)
• Making consistent and meaningful contributions to class discussions (especially when we are reviewing scholarship or are grade-norming)
• Showing leadership and responsibility in group projects (noting what extra work you did in your self-reflection, taking into consideration peer assessment)

I recognize that some of these criteria might seem ambiguous. The last thing I want to do is to stress you out about whether or not you are doing well in this class. In fact, I’m aiming for exactly the opposite. The gambit I am playing here, backed by research, is that your writing will improve if you aren’t concerned about your grade, about whether your writing meets my subjective standard for what constitutes excellent writing. I think this model makes the path to earning an “A” more clear and accessible: do the things that we know tend to make you better writers and your grade will take care of itself. Do the things! You will complete a Google form in the final week of class that includes a self-evaluation, in which you justify your grade based on which of the things on the list you have completed.

For Further Reading

• Balester. (2012). “How writing rubrics fail: Toward a Multicultural model.” In Inoue and Poe, eds. Race and Writing Assessment (pp. 63-77). New York: Peter Lang.
• Behm and Miller. (2012). “Challenging the frameworks of color-blind racism.” In Inoue and Poe, eds. Race and Writing Assessment (pp. 127-138). New York: Peter Lang.
• Burns, Cream, and Dougherty. (2018). “Fired Up: Institutional Critique, Lesson Study, and the Future of Antiracist Writing Assessment.” In Poe, Inoue, and Elliot, eds. Writing Assessment, Social Justice, and The Advancement of Opportunity (257-292). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
• Daiker, Donald. (1989). “Learning to Praise.” Ed. Chris Anson. Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research (pp. 103-13). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
• Danielewicz and Elbow. (2009). “A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching.” College Composition and Communication, 61(2), pp. 244-268.
• Inoue. (2015). Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
• Inoue. (2014). “Theorizing Failure in US Writing Assessments.” Research in the Teaching of English 48(3), pp. 330-352.
• Poe, Inoue, and Elliot. (2018). “Introduction: The End of Isolation.” In Poe, Inoue, and Elliot, eds. Writing Assessment, Social Justice, and The Advancement of Opportunity (pp. 3-40). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.