To rate or respond, that is the question

Whenever I have received a paper with only a grade and no comments, I assume the grade is the most important part of the class (from the teacher's perspective). Thus, it has been difficult for me to focus on the writing process outside of the things the teacher "expects" (i.e. as has been the case, mechanics and style). The authors note, that “if papers had no other markings, they had grades or evaluative symbols” (p. 453). The discussion of the results pertaining to grades within Connors and Lunsford's sample was of interest to me, particularly because assessment is something in which I’m not well versed (yet, obviously). 

The authors note the ambiguity and vague nature of the grading notations made on papers in the sample: “we had meant to attempt an average of these grades, but the different systems they used and the different contexts out of which they came made such an attempt seem silly; we had no idea how to average notations such as ***, 94/130, 3.1, +, F+, and [smiley-face]” (p. 453). What does an ‘F+’ mean? That you’ve failed, but with an honorable mention? It’s somewhat ironic that although we assume there is a standard of correctness from which to assess writing and language, but we’ve yet to achieve a standard grading system to assess a text’s “standardness.”

If we follow Janet Auten’s advice (“that we need a rhetorical context for every disruption we make in a student text”), then we might think twice before disrupting an entire student text (and perhaps the student’s writing process) with an arbitrary or vague grade and no comment (p. 463). Or even a grade at all. By looking at comments or grades as potential disruptions, we may be more apt to make comments that come with distinct rhetorical context and purpose; comments that encourage the writer to continue.

I checked out NCTE's position statement on writing assessment, and thought it might be helpful for others to see. 

NCTE position statement on writing assessment
Result #2 of guiding principle #4 stood out to me: "Best assessment practice clearly communicates what is valued and expected, and does not distort the nature of writing or writing practices." In relation to what Connors and Lunsford had to say, the NCTE guidelines articulate the assessment practices that would be in tune with responding rather than rating. NCTE presents a set of guidelines, not a strict set of standards by which to follow in order to assign a grade. 

The first NCTE guideline states that the primary purpose of writing assessment is to improve both teaching and learning. I would hope that is one of the primary purposes of the writing classroom in general: to improve both teaching and learning. What goes on in the writing classroom is recursive: the teacher teaches, the students learn, and in turn, the students teach, and the teacher learns. And the cycle continues. When assigning a grade, we should take into account that each ‘A’ or ‘C’ or (God forbid) ‘F’ reflects our teaching in some way. The student hasn’t written in a vaccuum, but quite the opposite: the student has written in a social community, the classroom, and thus should be assessed in such a way.