STEP ONE: Identify your grading criteria.

If you have a copy of the assignment or writing manual, you can make a list of the grading criteria. Sometimes you are provided with a list for your class, if so, try to develop your own grading criteria first, and then compare your list to the one that was provided.

Start with the basics:

Brainstorm what you expect according to the assignment. For example…

- the paper should include abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion

- it should be double-spaced

- it should be between 3-5 pages long

- it should have at least 4 references cited within the paper

Identify the pieces of each section:

- Abstract should include a summary statement from each of the other sections.

- Introduction should include background, rationale, and well-written hypothesis

- Results should have a narrative sentence and a figure or table.

STEP TWO. Make these criteria easily evaluated.

After you have generated a list, look at it critically to make sure each part is easily evaluated. For example, grading criteria of a "well-written a hypothesis" is rather vague… what makes a hypothesis well-written? Try to break it down to something you can more easily assess.

For example, the hypothesis should include the following major components: (independent variable, dependent variable, direction… whatever your criteria are). This is much more easily evaluated… find the hypothesis, check if it has all the components.

STEP THREE. Prioritize!

At this point you might feel overwhelmed looking at the list of so many very specific things to look for, but take heart!

Here’s where you take a step back and think: What are the main things I need to evaluate?

If you could read only a few sentences in a scientific paper, what would they be? This will change with assignment, but generally it will be:

1. hypothesis

2. summary of evidence

3. conclusion

Start by highlighting the top three items on your list, (make sure each is easily evaluated) then try to group items that are similar, like all the specifics of page length, font size, etc. in a group. Are there groups that are more important than others?

STEP FOUR: Identify Connective goals.

Think about why you chose those 3 items in STEP THREE, what makes them so important? In the scientific paper, this may seem obvious… because they are the backbone of the paper; the hypothesis guides the evidence on which the conclusions are made. But, did you get the "unspoken" goals with that statement? There are direct connections among the sections of a scientific paper (the evidence is connected to the hypothesis, and the conclusions are connected to the evidence, and the leg bone's connected to the hip bone…). Unfortunately, these connections seem so obvious to us that we often neglect to make them explicit goals for our students, but this is a HUGE part of a well-written paper.

State directly to your students what you expect from them in this regard. They need all the help they can get in this area because they easily get lost in the details of all the grading criteria too, like page length, and the parts of a hypothesis; things that are easy for them to understand. They often spend so much time with these specifics that they never notice the lack of connection between sections. This is one area you can really help your students understand but it is up to you to make these goals apparent.

Here are some examples:

Ø your main figure/table should directly answer your hypothesis.

Ø your main conclusions should be based directly on the evidence presented.

Ø your background information should explain the pieces (independent and dependent variables, measurements, etc.) of your hypothesis.

Ø your discussion should address the information presented in the background - if something is irrelevant to your discussion then it is likely irrelevant to your introduction.

Notice that these criteria are a little more "fuzzy" than the previous list. It is difficult to break these items into wording that is as easily evaluated, and that's OK! Some of the items get at more abstract, higher order thinking skills that, if they could be easily broken down and evaluated, probably wouldn't be higher order thinking skills.

STEP FIVE: Put it all together

Take your initial list of grading criteria generated in STEPS ONE, TWO, and THREE and add to it the list you generated in STEP FOUR. Look at your specific assignment and identify the main criteria - both specific (such as the hypothesis should contain variables and direction) and connective (the results should answer the hypothesis) and then start mapping out a game plan. Group similar ideas together. What connections do you want to make sure are made? What sentences do you want to make sure are clear? Put numbers in front of the things you think are most important to the student's paper. (See left column on page 6)

In the case of the three items identified in STEP THREE, you will read the hypothesis first, then look at the evidence with questions in your head of "do they match? Does the hypothesis refer to one measurement and the results to another?" Then look at the conclusions: Are the conclusions based on unsupported assumptions or the data actually presented?

STEP SIX : Create an "OUT OF ORDER" reading strategy

Once you've identified the criteria you wish to stress, you need to match the grading criteria with the actual components of the student's paper (i.e. hypothesis, conclusions, methods, etc.). Put these in order with the questions you've identified (see the right side column on p. 6)

STEP SEVEN: After the strategy, get the context.

When you've gone through and read according to your strategy, you need to go through the rest of the paper to gather context for the student's writing.

By doing this you will get a feel for the student's organization and language skills which are critical to effective writing but cannot be identified in a single sentence.

You need to read the entire paper, but once you understand the student’s framework (by reading those most important pieces first) you will be able to assess the details they provide much more easily.

STEP EIGHT: Evaluate and Improve your system

As you read your students' papers, and after you've completed your first stack, be sure to take time to sit back and think of ways to improve your system. It is a way of reading that changes constantly as you improve your understanding of the papers and the process of writing. You are in a constant state of flux of understanding so don't let your strategy go stale - update it regularly.

Different priorities will require different strategies, so depending on what connections you want to make, you can change the order of your reading. How would your perception change if you read the following order: title, conclusions, results. What do you think would be emphasized with this strategy? (See p. 12)

Example of a grading criteria and reading strategy

Here's part of a basic reading strategy for a traditional scientific paper. On the left are the main things I have identified to read in the student's writing. On the right is my reading strategy that I have in front of me while I read. They are in the order that I read them.

Grading Criteria (developed in STEPS 1- 5) 1. Can the student write a testable hypothesis? 2a. Does the student understand how to effectively display data in a way that will help his/her reader understand the evidence? 2b. Does the student understand the evidence? 3a. Can the student create appropriate conclusions based on the evidence collected? 3b. Does the student acknowledge the connection between the conclusion and the hypothesis? 4a. Does the student base his/her discussion on the evidence collected? 4b. Can the student successfully incorporate contextual information to help his/her reader understand the importance of the results? 5a. Does the student understand how to identify relevant information and literature, and the process of writing? 5b. Is the student's hypothesis shown to logically follow from background?

Order of Reading

(Developed in STEP SIX)

1. Hypothesis

a. does it have all the components? (in/dependent variables, direction expected)

b. is it testable and disprovable?

2. Main results

a. Figure/table: does it directly answer hypothesis? (same variables?)

b. Summary: does it identify trends that directly answers hypothesis?

3. Conclusions

a. Is it based on the evidence presented?

b. Does it answer hypothesis (support or disprove)

c. Any supported assumptions?

4. Discussion

a. Does it provide a summary of evidence early in section?

b. Does it incorporate rationale information from Introduction?

5. Introduction

a. Is the background relevant to the hypothesis and the discussion?

b. Is the rationale clearly explained

6. Here's where classes and individual professors and TA's will mostly diverge, but it will include things like the methods, title, overall organization, grammar, etc…