If like me you hate grading, you might be interested to read about some approaches to “labor-based” grading that I’ve been trying—including some of the struggles and questions I’ve had. But first, like an internet recipe article that must be suffered before getting to the actual ingredients, I’ll start with a tangential reflection that includes a bit of background on how I came to labor-based grading in the first place. Maybe it will prove helpful. It’s also okay to skip to “Two Practices for Labor-based Grading” below!
Background
To start at the beginning, I worked in a writing center where the philosophy was very “hands off” – no writing on student essays, pose questions, get the writer to do the talking.
Later, my graduate program taught me that this student-centered approach, this “problem-posing” practice was theorized by radical educators like Paulo Freire and bell hooks; the philosophy went well-beyond writing center “best practices.”
Then, as I finished a PhD in composition and rhetoric, one of my areas of focus became “basic writing.” Often referred to as developmental writing (sometimes remedial writing), basic writing has more or less been a facet of every U.S. university since the era of open admissions in the 1960s. The course is intended to serve students who underperform on whatever placement measure is being used (a written exam, a standardized test, high school GPA, etc.). It typcially does not count toward graduation and in some places comes with extra fees because administration views it as “pre-college” coursework.
The nature of “basic writing” is that students often come to the classroom having been told they are “bad” writers. Likewise, they might have had their confidence stolen from them over the years by repeated standardized testing. Basic writing occupies a space on the margins of the university, and many teacher-scholars see this marginal status as an opportunity for innovation and progressive language study (most of my close colleagues and myself included—for instance, see this co-written piece with Prof. William DeGenaro).
A troubling fact, though, is that basic writing can place an undue burden on students who may already be in a vulnerable position at the university. Recently, composition faculty at UM-Dearborn agreed to remove the basic writing requirement and replace it with a one-credit supplemental writing “studio” that students could take alongside other writing intensive courses.
All this to say, my experience in basic writing courses taught me how to use low-stakes writing assignments to help build student confidence, encouraging them to produce more writing, that is, more labor that can be counted.
There’s also an important caveat to acknowledge: If one truly believes in a Freirian, critical pedagogy, grading itself, low-stakes or high, labor-based or otherwise, does not necessarily undo a century of student dispossession.
On that delightful note, here are some ways I’ve approached labor-based grading in my own classes (along with relevant citations and further reading).
Two Practices for Labor-based Grading
- Scaffold or sequence low-stakes assignments that …
- have a clear, stated, or collaboratively developed purpose, such as building toward a longer, focused essay or project;
- include a concrete set of minimum requirements for credit.
In this case, an assignment is marked “complete” or “incomplete.” Incomplete assignments can be redone for full credit.
Benefits for me: Students have multiple opportunities to get credit for the labor they spend working toward a higher-stakes assignment. They also receiving feedback on those low-stakes assignments, rough drafts, annotations, research, peer review, etc. Low-stakes writing encourages risk-taking and experimentation. It also helps with issues of plagiarism as I see a project at several stages through multiple drafts.
Low-stakes work can sometimes lessen the burden on faculty when a clear set of minimum requirements is available for each assignment that I can quickly “check off,” letting students know they are “on the right track” without extraneous commenting from me. Comments turn into questions, are exploratory, and point students to longterm goals.
My limitations: Due dates are tricky to manage if you want to be flexible and allow for unlimited tries on low-stakes assignments. And, though the high-stakes project gives low-stakes work a purpose, I have not experimented with alternative forms of grading for the high-stakes work.
- Labor Log, a low-stakes assignment that …
- is turned in weekly and asks students to describe the work they did and reflect on their progress
- can be reviewed quickly by the instructor
- provides evidence that can be returned to for valuable reflective work.
Benefits for me: I first used these in my COMP 270: Technical Writing for Engineers class, and one major benefit is that not only did the the log facilitate reflection, but students also had to attend to the rhetorical elements of design, data presentation, categorization, and definition. I had them revise the design of their log halfway through the term as well so they could reflect briefly on the log’s usability.
It was also easy for me to check these off each week—they did not feel like an added burden to my own labor.
Final reflective work can sometimes be vague or abstract. Labor logs can provide a semester-long artifact to ground end-of-term reflection.
My limitations: Articulating a purpose beyond neoliberal accountability can be challenging. In his book on labor-based grading, Asao Inoue talks about how he wants labor logs “to be an honest reflective tool for students, not an accountability measure” (139). He struggles with balancing using the logs to reward student labor and encouraging students to use them earnestly rather than as a thing to complete for credit (155).
I think using logs like this takes some trial and error, so I’ve tried to have fun with it rather than treat it like a high-stakes semester long project.
Inoue, Asao. “CHAPTER 4: What Labor-based Grading Contracts Look Like.” Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. WAC Clearinghouse. EBook. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/labor/.
It’s useful to highlight this other aspect of Inoue’s discussion of labor logs:
I ask students in their labor logs to rate each labor session they record with a simple 1-5 engagement rating, 1 being completely unengaging, 3 neutral, and 5 a most engaging session overall. (152)
When students have to rate their own engagement, as Inoue observes, they also then have to define for themselves what it means to be “engaged” in their coursework—also a useful class discussion to have.
These are just two aspects of labor-based grading that I have useful in transitioning to fewer grades with more useful and valuable labor.