1. Alternatives to Traditional Grading: Helping Students Break the Mold
Tiffany N. Dewell, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana
Tiffany Dewell is a graduate student at Purdue Calumet where she teaches first-year
composition. She is one semester away from acquiring a Master’s Degree in Composition and
Rhetoric and is currently engaged in classroom research on direct instruction of metacognition
and reflection in the writing classroom.
Grades don’t give needed information, but they do announce judgments
which can tyrannize good writers and paralyze poor ones. – William Irmscher
Regardless of discipline, most higher-education courses have one thing in common:
grades. At the institutional level grades present a variety of issues: they often convey inaccurate
measures of ability; the meaning of any specific letter grade can vary significantly from
institution to institution; and they often either fail to consider growth or consider it to too high of
a degree. These are important issues that affect students and teachers alike; however, the impact
of traditional grading within individual classrooms is equally as problematic. In fields where
concepts are concrete, like mathematics, traditional grade-based assessment can work quite well.
Other disciplines, particularly composition, allow for a greater variation of what is “right and
wrong” and are better suited for a more versatile assessment system.
Teaching writing effectively requires going beyond placing a grade on students‟ work;
we must also provide students with written feedback (whether criticism, praise, or both) so they
can understand why they received a particular grade; herein lies the problem. When grades and
feedback are paired in this way, feedback becomes no more than justification for the grade,
causing it to become less pertinent to the students‟ individual texts. However, it is by
“provid[ing] students with performance objectives relevant to them [as individuals]” (emphasis
mine) we are better able to “contribute to their learning and self-efficacy development”

2. (Morozov). In other words, individualized written feedback can be one of the best ways to teach
writing if it is not influenced by outside factors. It follows that grade-based assessment in the
writing classroom places limitations on our ability to teach students effectively. This article,
then, is primarily concerned with the direct impact of grades on the way we teach writing, and
how they affect our students‟ ability to grow as thinkers and writers.
Many writing teachers compare most, if not all, student work to a set of established
criteria said to define “good” writing. The criteria vary from classroom to classroom and are
dictated by the nature of the particular assignment or genre, but the basic concept is the same:
individual criteria are assigned point values, resulting in a grading rubric. Student work is
evaluated and assigned value; points are then added up and a grade is assigned based on how
well students‟ writing measures up to the criteria. This system often focuses primarily on
mechanics and formatting, failing to acknowledge ideas and concepts. The grade, then, functions
as the final judgment of a piece of writing; it is expected (and even anticipated) by students and,
at some point, required by most institutions. This system places a tremendous amount of
pressure on composition teachers to align their responses to students’ writing with the
grade they give, resulting in unnecessary limitations on response that would otherwise be
geared toward encouraging growth in writing and thinking.
There is little doubt that a large majority of teacher feedback is influenced by grading as
described. In a 2011 case study concerning the practice of giving feedback on students‟ written
assignments, Jinrui Li and Roger Barnard discuss Connors and Lunsford‟s “discourse analysis of
comments on 3,000 marked papers” which “found that more than 80% of the comments
indicated a judgmental tone: overall, the feedback was grade driven.” When teachers‟ attention
is focused on determining a grade for a piece of writing, students‟ texts are read not to see what

3. has been said, but to compare the text to the established criteria and subjectively measure how
well the writing meets those goals. (I use the word “subjectively” here because it is widely
accepted that different teachers grade the same work with different results despite grade norming
practices and other efforts to synthesize standards and values.) When this happens we comment
in ways that justify the grade we are going to give rather than providing feedback that helps
students improve their thinking and writing. Instead of responding by saying “I really want to
know more about what happened next,” we write, “Not enough description.” Rather than asking
a question like “How did this experience make you feel?” we tell the student where they have
failed: “You did not fully describe your emotions.” It is easy to see from these examples how the
nature of our comments changes based on what our goal is.
When the focus is grading, we lose sight of the student as a developing writer and instead
see only writing that must be ranked. When we tell students what is “wrong” with their
writing instead of asking questions and trying to help students make meaning of their texts
there is little room for students to grow. In her honest and enlightening article, “I Don‟t Grade
Papers Anymore,” Marylyn E. Calabrese discusses the benefits she has realized by moving away
from grade-based assessment. She has learned through experience that “[f]or teachers, grades get
in the way of other kinds of responses” (28). By indicating quality via a letter grade, we are
communicating to students that we care far more about how closely their work conforms to our
expectations than about what they have actually said.
The problem with grades is not limited to graded work; it persists even when responding
to an essay in draft stage that won’t be assigned a grade. Because the ungraded draft will
eventually lead to a version of the text that is graded, there is an implied pressure for teachers to
lead students in the “right” direction. Our comments in this scenario, then, are meant to be

4. helpful but only insomuch as they can direct students back to the criteria used to evaluate their
writing. When a grade is looming at the end of the drafting and revising process, teachers feel
compelled to tell students what to do in order to get an “A.” We might write comments such as
“Add more detail here” or “Revise your thesis statement so that it includes a description of the
problem.” These comments are directive and corrective which is “unlikely to engage students”
(Parr and Timperley). This type of assessment model functions primarily to aid in explaining
ourselves, not helping students. At this early, and I believe, crucial, stage of students’ writing
processes, comments should be less directive and instead focus on asking questions and
making comments that will guide students toward making discoveries and clarifying their
ideas.
When feedback is not limited by grades, there is more freedom to both praise and
criticize students‟ texts in our comments. We no longer have to worry that we have said too
many good things about the writing yet given a grade of a “C” or that we offered a great deal of
criticism on a well-written paper that has earned an “A.” When the pressure of grading
throughout the semester is lifted, teachers can begin to truly assess student writing, not solely as
it compares to a rubric or set of criteria, but as thoughts and ideas written by individuals who are
just beginning to learn how to express themselves through writing. According to William
Irmscher, “comments on an ungraded paper can tactfully indicate degrees of improvement that
grades cannot register” (153). No pressure to assign grades means we can respond with our
genuine responses as a reader. This is much more insightful (and, I would argue, enjoyable) than
steering students toward meeting the goals of a rubric. As noted by Judy Parr and Helen
Timperley in their article addressing feedback and student process in the writing classroom,
“[t]he nature of feedback can…encourage surface versus deep learning.” When responses turn

5. students back to the criteria as the basis of value, their learning is not likely to go beyond the
basic activity of comparing and contrasting their text with the boundaries of the assignment.
However, when feedback is meant to turn students‟ attention back to their text, what they have
said, and how they have said it, it encourages students to think rhetorically and take ownership of
their words.
Years of schooling have conditioned students to believe their grade is more important
than their work, and research shows that “[g]rading frequently takes its toll early in life,
undermining student learning and inhibiting social, emotional, and ethical development” (Hiller
and Hietapelto). This concept is reinforced every time students receive high grades for revising
in accordance with their teachers‟ comments (which are frequently more like instructions). This
practice has convinced students the teacher knows all and that their own role in the writing
process is simply to do what they are told. Peter Elbow suggests that “[c]onventional grading
seduces too many students into thoughtlessness;” in other words, students tend to blindly accept
feedback as explicit instructions they should follow to earn a higher grade. These directive
comments “can take students’ attention away from their own purposes in writing a particular
text and focus that attention on the teachers’ purpose in commenting” (emphasis in original)
(Sommers 149). One important goal in first-year composition classes is to teach students to take
ownership of their work and to use the writing process as a means of figuring out what they
think. If, as Sommers suggested, our grade-based comments draw students away from their text
and into ours, we have undermined our goals. Asao Inoue, Professor of Rhetoric and
Composition at Fresno State, describes the negative impact grades can have on student writing in
his article “Community-based assessment pedagogy.” Inoue confessed that he would often
“leave a student conference or the grading of a paper feeling unsatisfied…knowing that the

6. student will not hear the good in [the] comments, only see the disappointing grade. And that
grade will overdetermine not only how that student understands her writing in my class, but our
relationship and her ability to grow as a writer.” Inoue calls attention to not only his student‟s
growth as a writer but also to the impact of grades on the student-teacher relationship, another
important element for student success in the writing classroom.
When we assign a letter grade to an essay most students cannot help but focus almost
entirely on the value of their text as designated by the grade instead of the value of what they
have said and our response to it. If we hope to train students to write mechanically and fulfill a
series of prompts, then this system works quite well. If, however, our goal is to inspire students
to grow through their writing and learn how to think critically and explore their ideas, we must
utilize an assessment system that allows us to respond in ways not undermined by grades. By
implementing alternatives to the traditional grade-based assessment model in composition
classes we can offer students truly valuable responses that will in turn provide the feedback
needed to reach course goals. Furthermore, setting grades aside allows for a more connected
curriculum, one that works cohesively throughout the semester and is not defined by the “stop-
and-start” motion resulting when the class moves from a graded final draft to a new assignment
or project. The most important benefit of replacing the current assessment model is that when
teachers respond as educated (or perhaps even privileged) readers instead of “graders,” we offer
feedback that allows students to begin envisioning themselves as not merely students, but as real
writers who have something important to say. They learn to see true value in the meaning
constructed in their writing, as opposed to seeing value only as it is conveyed by a single letter.
Up until this point I have argued that grading imposes limitations on response, producing
feedback that is primarily directive, ending with only negative results for students. While I

7. maintain this stance, I do not mean to suggest that our comments should never be written from
the perspective of teachers who have the knowledge to help students refine their composition
skills. In addition to providing students with feedback in terms of our response as a reader and
audience member, we also need to respond in an instructive manner. Without this element, we
could certainly encourage students to grow as writers, but we would be leaving out the important
elements that lead to overall academic growth and success. Though I have criticized the role of
rubrics and criteria in terms of their impact on response, when they do not exist as the sole
framework for responding they can be very useful. In my own teaching, I respond as both a
genuine reader and also an informed teacher; I give feedback from a dual perspective that offers
more than either method can on its own. This has been challenging because I have used the
traditional grade-based assessment system in my classroom and often felt my comments
conflicted with the grade, leading me to modify my responses. I doubt I am alone. The ideal
feedback is that which gives our response as a reader and offers guidance about meeting
criteria. This allows students to better see their writing from different perspectives and to view
revision as a tool to improve both their ideas and their craft.
Besides allowing for improved feedback and student learning, less grading means that we
can look at the semester as a whole and see writing on a continuum instead of viewing the
semester in chunks. Often first-year composition courses are structured and paced to work
around three or four major writing assignments. Once one assignment has gone through the
drafting stage and the final, graded draft is submitted, there is a tangible shift in the direction of
the class as new concepts are introduced and a new focus emerges. The old work is left behind,
considered finished. The class moves on. When the finality of grades is eliminated, early pieces
of writing can continue to be revised and viewed as sites for learning and improvement as

8. students continue to learn new concepts. Overall, this results in a more cohesive class and better
allows students to transfer skills from one essay to the next. Our comments, too, can take on
more meaning when they are not seen in isolation or as “belonging” to a specific essay. In her
article “„Get it off my stack‟: Teachers‟ tools for grading papers,” Nicki Baker suggests that
“[f]or students to benefit from feedback, they need to view comments as helpful for future
writing, not as individual teachers‟ comments about individual assignments.” In the traditional
classroom, where each assignment is graded and assigned a percentage value where 100% =
perfect, students tend to isolate each assignment as an individual means to earn points rather than
making connections between different pieces of their writing and seeing the course as a whole.
When response is improved and students view the course on a continuum we can also
raise our expectations of students as responders, both to their own writing and their peers‟. By
giving feedback based entirely on our genuine response to student writing from the
perspectives of both a reader and a teacher, we are modeling an important revision
technique for students. We show students through our responses that while technical
knowledge of writing is important, it is not the only thing that counts. They begin to learn that
questioning meaning is equally as important as correcting grammar, and they gain confidence in
their ability to improve their writing and to help their peers improve as well. If we offer the right
type of feedback to students, allowing them to use it as a tool to improve their own assessment
skills, students will effectively practice response, assessment, revision, and of course, additional
writing and thinking. We want students to leave our classroom with the ability to see their own
writing as a site for revision, not as students dependent on a teacher to guide them. After all, we
cannot teach every student how to become a perfect writer—we ourselves are not perfect writers.

9. Through effective feedback, however, it is possible to teach students how to become competent
at assessing and revising their own writing.
Since using grade-based assessment is clearly not the ideal method for writing classes,
what alternatives do we have? In her article “A Simple Alternative to Grading” Glenda Potts
notes that “[a]t colleges as diverse as Antioch, Sarah Lawrence, Evergreen State, Reed,
Bennington, Oregon State, and Brown University, grades are optional or nonexistent.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology did not grade freshmen at all for over twenty years.”
While completely eliminating the drudgery of grades is certainly a goal for the rest of us to work
toward, until that outcome is realized writing teachers must find a way to work within the
system, delivering the grades institutions ask for without impeding on students‟ learning. Any
type of alternative assessment considered must shift students’ focus away from points and
grades and gear them toward being writers who “need and want thoughtful commentary to
show [them] when [they] have communicated [their] ideas and when not” (Sommers 148).
Research suggests a number of alternatives to traditional grading that help teachers “figur[e] out
ways to [assign grades] with the least damage to students‟ achievements and, hopefully, with
added benefit to their performance” (Lipnevich and Smith). Some of the best options are
assessment of a comprehensive or reflective portfolio to determine a final grade and grading
contracts.
In a portfolio-based assessment system, students‟ writing is not graded until the end of
the semester, creating the ideal atmosphere for students to learn and for teachers to respond
effectively. A comprehensive portfolio consists of the entirety of students‟ work done throughout
the semester, whereas a reflective portfolio asks students to select only their best pieces of
writing. Both options should include an introductory essay where students reflect on their writing

10. processes and revision techniques and point out specific parts of the included writing showing
their growth and knowledge. In order to assess these portfolios for a grade, the teacher evaluates
elements such as the student‟s writing process, ability to reflect, and the quality of final drafts,
allowing the final grade to represent the comprehensive body of student work. Because the
teacher will already have a wealth of knowledge regarding students‟ writing ability after having
read and commented on each student‟s various drafts throughout the semester, assessment of the
portfolio will often be confirmation of what the teacher already knows. Kathleen Jones, who
teaches humanities at a high school in Alberta, Canada, believes that “the writing portfolio is a
structure that will help simplify assessment and grading and at the same time help make learning
meaningful in our classrooms.” Using portfolio assessment as an alternative to traditional
grading is ideal because it eliminates grading throughout the semester, allowing teachers and
students to focus on learning.
Grading contracts offer a classroom scenario where teachers are relieved from the
pressures of grading and students are able to learn without worrying about individual pieces of
writing affecting their course grade, allowing them a great deal of freedom to explore their ideas.
In fact, in their article on contract grading Tammy Bunn Hiller and Amy B. Hietapelto write that
“contract grading is an elemental structural component of postmodern pedagogy,” suggesting
that traditional assessment methods are outdated and need to be adapted to fit the needs of
today‟s students and teachers. Although some might argue that grading contracts allow for too
much ambiguity, “[p]rovided the demands are high enough and the rewards not too lavish, a
properly-constructed contract system is not out of line with other grading practices throughout a
college” (Smith). Peter Elbow and Jane Danielewicz, proponents of grading contracts, offer
teachers an example of how such a system has worked in their article “A Unitlateral Grading

11. Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching,” published in 2008. In this system students are
guaranteed a “B” in the course as long as they meet all the requirements of the contract. The
contract is specific about attendance, participation, revision, and students‟ roles as peer
reviewers. Elbow and Danielewicz anticipate criticisms of their system and respond with
evidence of how the grading contract has worked within their classrooms. Their research
suggests that “[w]hen students spend fourteen weeks doing everything the contract requires…the
quality of their writing improves enough to warrant a B…[a]t first, this was only an article of
faith or hope, but over the years we have seen it borne out.” The benefits of this system are
significant: teachers can “continue to give students evaluative feedback on their writing” but by
“decouple[ing] those judgments from grades (up to a B)” students “react to [teachers‟] evaluation
in a more sophisticated way” (Elbow and Danielewicz).
But how will students respond to such a system? Hiller and Hietapelto found that “an
overwhelming 94% of [their] students preferred [contract grading] to traditional grading systems
and 96.5% recommended that [they] continue to use contract grading in future classes.” I
introduced this concept to a group of 17 students enrolled in my 2014 summer semester first-year
composition course, using Elbow and Danielewicz‟s contract as an example. The responses
yielded many positive comments indicating most students felt they would be less stressed about
writing, have more freedom to write their own texts, rather than what the teacher was looking
for, and have less anxiety about breaking the mold and writing a paper that looked and sounded
different than the “good” examples students are so often encouraged to mimic. Any negative
comments I received expressed concerns with students taking advantage of the system and issues
with attendance factoring into the grading contract. I implemented a modified version of that
contract during the Fall 2014 semester with good results. In a letter of advice to the next

12. semester‟s class, one student wrote “Get used to no grades. There is not a grade on a single
paper. The uncertainty might be stressful at first, but I actually found that I cared more about
writing than I did about the grade. Just be prepared.” I continue to use a contract system in my
FYC courses, making changes and improvements each semester.
Despite the obvious benefits, teachers are resistant to using grading contracts in their
classrooms for a variety of reasons. Many fear that students will try to take advantage of such a
system, or that it will yield grossly inaccurate grades; perhaps there is resistance from writing
program administration that discourages more teachers from trying grading contracts as an
alternative to grades-based assessment. Whatever the reason, we must consider what is most
important and that is fostering student growth and learning, something grading contracts allow us
the freedom to do.
For teachers uncomfortable with or unable to eliminate grades, community-based
assessment may be a reasonable alternative. It puts students in the role of the teacher, taking the
well-known practice of peer review to the next level, asking students not only to give feedback
on their classmates‟ work, but also to assign a grade. This method, while it does involve frequent
grade-based assessment, takes pressure away from the teacher and offers some benefits that
traditional grading does not. In order to be successful, standards and criteria must be clearly
outlined and agreed upon by the class as a group. By playing a role in determining the criteria for
assessment, students better understand expectations and gain a sense of control over their
education. Additionally, students will need to be taught how to read their peers‟ writing from the
perspective of an evaluator and in doing so will become more proficient in revising their own
writing. For students, this process of learning how to assess writing is the greatest benefit of this
approach. In his book Reconciling Writing Assessment: Why Students Should Grade Students,

13. Steven J. Pearlman suggests that “if students do not know how their writing is read, they cannot
know how to write.” While this system provides an extra benefit for students insomuch as they
learn more about assessment than they might in a typical composition class, many teachers
(myself included) are likely to be uncomfortable with the idea of letting students determine the
value of their peers‟ writing. Of course, this model could be adapted to allow teachers to have the
final say, or even framed as a joint teacher-student assessment; because teachers are not the only
one determining the value and quality of student texts, feedback will not be as constrained as it is
when coupled with a grade. If, however, we invalidate students‟ capabilities in this way, there
seems little point in going through the motions only to end up with what is essentially the
traditional grade-based assessment model. This method presents a possible alternative to
traditional grade-based assessment and offers real benefits to students in terms of their ability to
“gain a fuller understanding of both writing and assessment in the academic discourse
community…and of the decisions that go into the process” (Yin).
Despite the lack of any widely agreed upon formal definition of grades, these letters carry
a lot of weight—their meaning has been socially constructed to represent not only the quality of
the work behind the grade, but the value of the person who did that work. In the same way that
teachers assess student work and measure it against established criteria, others (potential
employers, teachers, and parents, to name a few) assess the students themselves based on their
grades. Until the assessment system changes at the institutional level, it is up to teachers to
do whatever we can to intervene and make sure that grading does not take away from
students’ ability to learn or interfere with teachers’ ability to teach. One way we can do this
is to teach without grades, delaying any official assessment of student work until required by the
institution. Portfolio assessment and grading contracts, or a combination of the two, seem to

14. present the most viable options for teaching and responding effectively while still determining a
final course grade.
Most students think of their writing as valuable only to the extent that it offers an
opportunity to earn points. As long as teachers keep reinforcing this concept by handing out
grades for every essay, this frame of mind will prevent students from ever writing to their fullest
potential. We must shift the focus away from points and grades and push students toward being
responsible and confident writers. In doing so we will provide students with the skills they need
to be successful in their academic careers, to develop self-efficacy, and, most importantly, to
believe that what they have to say is more valuable than any single letter could possibly convey.

15. Sample Grading Contract
This grading contract sets forth my expectations of you in a straightforward way at the beginning
of the semester. It has been carefully developed to encourage you to take the necessary steps
to develop the habits of a successful writer.
The use of a grading contract invites you to take control over your learning experience in this
class. You are in the driver’s seat and yield the power to make the choices that will determine
your overall course grade.
If you meet the expectations outlined below, which will require a significant amount of time and
dedication on your part, your writing will improve tremendously over the course of the semester
and you will have learned what it takes to successfully navigate a demanding course, a skill you
will be able to put to good use throughout your academic career.
Grade of A:
- Miss no more than 2 classes during the semester
- Complete all drafts of all major essays, meeting the deadlines and length requirements
- Complete at least 90% of all other assigned work
- Actively participate in virtually all class discussions
- Submit “polished” final work that reflects clear, edited prose with no more than 1 or 2 errors
- Exhibit insightful awareness in your writings concerning relevant concepts and issues
- Demonstrate exceptional understanding of rhetorical situations and strategies
- Visit the Writing Center at least once during the semester
Grade of B:
- Miss no more than 4 classes during the semester
- Complete all drafts of all major essays, meeting the deadlines and length requirements
- Complete at least 85% of all other assigned work
- Actively participate in most class discussions
- Submit “polished” final work that reflects clear, edited prose with minimal errors
- Show awareness in your writings concerning relevant concepts and issues
- Demonstrate adequate understanding of rhetorical situations and strategies
- Visit the Writing Center at least once during the semester
Grade of C:
- Miss more than 4 classes during the semester
- Late or insufficient submission of any draft of a major essay
- Complete less than 85% of all other assigned work
- Occasionally participate in class discussions
- Submit work that is not “polished” and contains consistent errors

16. - Little awareness in your writings concerning relevant concepts and issues
- Lack of understanding rhetorical situations and strategies
- Fail to complete one visit to the Writing Center
Grade of D/F:
- Miss more than 5 classes during the semester
- Failure to submit any draft of a major essay
- Complete less than 80% of all other assigned work
- Rarely participate in class discussions
- Submit work that shows little to no evidence of “polishing”
- No awareness in your writings concerning relevant concepts and issues
- No evidence of understanding rhetorical situations and strategies
- Fail to complete one visit to the Writing Center
About earning an A:
Earning an A in this class will require consistent and quality work from you all semester. You
must meet the goals of the contract and your work must consistently demonstrate these
qualities:
- Excellent audience-awareness
- Awareness of the overall rhetorical situation surrounding your work
- Appropriate use of rhetorical strategies in relation to the rhetorical situation
- Effective organization
- Sound reasoning
- Clarity of thoughts and ideas
- Appropriate tone and voice
- Thoughtful and insightful awareness concerning the topic you are writing about
About earning a C or lower:
I hope no one will aim for these grades. The quickest way to C, D, or F is to miss classes and
show up without assignments. If you are missing classes and behind in work, please stay in
touch with me about your chances of passing the course.
Extenuating Circumstances
I do understand that, occasionally, extenuating circumstances can occur, preventing even the
most diligent student from meeting the contract guidelines. It is important in these situations that
you speak with me privately at the earliest possible time to discuss your options for receiving
credit in the course. It is important to remember that “extenuating circumstances” are those that
are unforeseeable and unpreventable: suffering a serious illness or injury (which results in
formal documentation), the death or critical illness of a close family member, and jury duty all fall
within the parameters of extenuating circumstances. Events that are not considered
“extenuating” are: working overtime, exam stress, failure of computer/printer equipment, time
management issues, or misunderstanding due dates/work requirements.
If you have questions about this grading contract, please ask!

17. Works Cited
Baker, Nicki Litherland. “„Get it off my stack‟: Teachers‟ tools for grading papers.” Assessing
Writing. 19 (2014): 36-50. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Calabrese, Marylyn E. “I Don‟t Grade Papers Anymore.” English Journal. 1982, 28-31.
Elbow, Peter. “Do we need a single standard of value for institutional assessment? An essay
response to Asao Inoue‟s „community-based assessment pedagogy.” Assessing Writing.
11 (206): 81-99. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Elbow, Peter and Jane Danielewicz. “A Unitlateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and
Teaching.” English Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 3. (2008). Web. 30
Apr. 2014.
Hiller, Tammy Bunn and Amy B. Hietapelto. “Contract grading: Encouraging commitment to
the learning process through voice in the evaluation process.” Journal of Management
Education 25.6 (2001): 660-684. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
Inoue, Asoa. “Community-based assessment pedagogy.” Assessing Writing. 9 (2005): 208-239.
Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Irmscher, William. Teaching Expository Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston.1979.
Print.

18. Li, Jinrui and Roger Barnard. “Academic tutors‟ beliefs about and practices of giving feedback
on students‟ written assignments: A New Zealand case study.” Assessing Writing. 16
(2011): 137-148. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Lipnevich, Anastasiya A. and Jeffrey K. Smith. “Response to Assessment Feedback: The Effects
of Grades, Praise, and Source of Information.” Educational Testing Service. 2008. Web.
Apr. 21 2014.
Morozov, Andrew. “Student attitudes toward the assessment criteria in writing-intensive college
courses.” Assessing Writing. 16 (2011): 6-31. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Parr, Judy M. and Helen S. Timperley. “Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and
learning and student progress. Assessing Writing. 15 (2010): 68-85. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Pearlman, Steven J. Reconciling Writing Assessment: Why Students Should Grade Students.
Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook. 2010. Print.
Potts, Glenda. “A Simple Alternative to Grading.” Inquiry. 15.1 (2010): 29-42. Web. 30 Apr.
2014.
Smith, John A. “Contracting English Composition: It Only Sounds Like an Illness.” Teaching
English in the Two Year College. 26.4 (1999): 427-430. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication.
33:2, 1982, 148-156. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
Yin, Muchun. Book review of Reconciling Writing Assessment: Why Students Should Grade
Students. Assessing Writing. 20 (2014): 77-79. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.