Currently, in my Introduction to Creative Writing (CW) course, as well as those taught by my colleagues, the emphasis is placed on developing craft skills, process, and workshop. Traditionally, student creative writing is graded against a rubric that examines such difficult to pinpoint areas as “Voice” and “Creativity.” The rubric, developed by the instructor based on the course and assignment objectives, is meant to allow the instructor to assess student writing more objectively. While this method can have effective results in helping student writers develop their skills, the problem with teacher-imposed assessment, according to Asao B. Inoue, is “hiding behind power relationships set up by the judgment of student writing by teachers who use a dominant discourse. To put this another way, power is hidden more effectively because a set of white racial dispositions are already hidden in the assessment in various places, assumed as the standard.” As we ask students to shift from the academic writing they have been practicing, many students, particularly developing writers, ELL students, and first-generation college students, fall short of the expectations that inform current assessment practices. The problem, according to Laura Greenfield, is that these expectations are skewed to the “standard White English fairytale,” or the idea that there is only one acceptable form of discourse to which many of our students do not have access.
Just as Inoue asks who is privileged by traditional grading in the basic writing classroom, it is important to ask this question in the creative writing classroom. In a discipline that privileges white writers, expectations that students will emulate white writers and Standard White English are harmful. In her “Framework for Diverse & Equitable Programs in Creative Writing” guidelines, Janelle Adsit urges that “[t]he aesthetic values, or standards of ‘good writing,’ that are mobilized in a classroom are explicitly identified and discussed as culturally contingent.” If we are to encourage and support Creative Writing students to develop their voices, it is imperative that our grading systems do not penalize students for code meshing, code switching, or writing in any vernacular that is comfortable for them to use. Contract grading, as Inoue argues, is an effective way to practice just, anti-racist grading. By grading students on their labor and only providing feedback (not a grade) on their work, we ensure a more equitable classroom.
Inoue’s integration of contract grading in Basic Writing as a way to create a local ecology in each classroom, as well as to serve as an anti-racist assessment tool, is one that warrants replication to test effectiveness in different level courses. Contract grading, using Inoue’s practices, is a recursive process that encourages community building and active engagement, both vital to the workshop-based classroom, by involving students in developing assessment criteria and inviting them to engage in reflective writing. As a community, building on my adaptation of Inoue’s contract, the class shapes a contract that outlines the expectations for achieving varied grades. Students commit, in writing, to the grade they want to achieve. As the course progresses, students and the instructor may renegotiate assessment tools. This method explicitly shows the places where power lurks in the classroom and distributes it among the class members, including, but not limited to, the instructor.
After conducting a one-semester study of the effectiveness of contract grading in increasing student engagement in first-year composition classes, funded by my institution’s Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant program, I decided to try this system in my 200-level CW course, believing that contract grading not only levels the grading playing field for all students, it also allows students to take more risks and engage more fully in the activities inherent to a workshop-based classroom.
Disrupting students’ current understanding and expectations surrounding grading, especially grading of writing can achieve several things:
- Shift their focus from product to process
- Equalize power by expanding students’ definition of what constitutes “good writing”
- Increase student engagement
- Increase retention
- Deepen critical thinking by involving students more directly and centrally in assessment
Assessment is the basis of effective pedagogy; traditional assessment tools fall short on inclusiveness. Assessment cannot be valid if it privileges one group over another. By understanding the effectiveness of contract grading in assessing students’ growth as writers from its use in FYO courses, I was able to revise my CW course to include it.
One of the tenants of contract grading is that students earn their grade by meeting certain criteria to which they have agreed. Those criteria include attendance, participation (defined by the class in an early meeting), and hours spent on course work outside of class.
In a traditionally graded class, I allow students the equivalent of two weeks of absences without penalty, and I take a deduction for each absence thereafter. Being tardy three times results in one additional absence. Students are invited to negotiate several parts of the contract, and the attendance policy is one of those parts. The revisions students have requested include:
- Clarifying that a tardy means coming into class at a time that allows students to learn and contribute meaningfully.
- Including a “life happens” policy for times when a student might need more than two weeks’ worth of absences, whether for physical health, mental health, or family reasons.
Within the first week of the semester, I ask students to help develop a list of what participation looks like and what does not count as participation. Before we create this list, I spend some time talking about the structure of the class—we spend part of the semester generating new work, part of it in workshop, and part of it revising work—to help the students consider what participation in this class means. Next I ask students to free write about how they have participated in other classes, and how they would like to participate in this class. I guide the discussion and ask students to think about how a shy person might participate, and how a person who does a lot of talking in class can participate more constructively. Here are two sample lists generated by past classes, appearing as the students developed them:
- Feedback: constructive criticism when work is shared
- Annotate readings (helps focus)
- Taking notes in class—shows you’re paying attention to what’s being said
- Speaking up in class: whether discussing readings or peer work
- Small group activities: make sure to speak and contribute in those ways
- 1:1 time to discuss questions (among peers/with prof)
- Talk about ideas—build conversations
- Make notes on hard copies of peers’ work: show what changes you want to suggest
- Prepare ahead for discussions
- Be respectful of peers’ work
- Be open to feedback
- Ask good questions
- Turn work in on time to show you’re mentally participating even if discussion is hard for you
- Listen to others
- Push yourself to move past shyness about sharing work/presenting
And here is another class’s list:
- At least one relevant comment per class—aim to resonate with peers
- Workshop: attentive behavior—offer feedback: what worked, what you craved
- Put in effort—slow workshop down so good participation is viable
- Pay attention
- Stay focused
- Listen to others
- Be here
- Make sure criticism is constructive
- Lateness—be respectful—just sit down and start to work and participate
- Grace when “life happens”: communicate w/professor about needs
- After 30 minutes lateness, use discretion—may count as absence
- Sharing and Collaboration:
- Say something in groups
- Genuinely want to help others
- Confidentiality
- Safe Haven
- No personal judgment—their writing is not them
- Be respectful of how others want to express themselves and what they want to write about
- Be not only safe but also supportive (if someone is struggling—can we offer something positive? Lists of #s, board on Plato—be willing to listen—don’t offer solutions unless a person asks for them?)
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of contract grading is the use of the Labor Log (this is the original version of the Labor Log I’ve used, and here is a streamlined version developed by a colleague after we talked to students about their challenges using the Labor Log. This tool asks students to track the time spent, outside of class, working on the course material, which includes readings, exercises, drafting, revising, and writing workshop feedback comments. Here is the language I use in the contract to connect hours worked to grades:
According to the WSU website, three credits equals 7.5 hours of work per week (3 hours per credit, with an hour equaling 50 minutes). You spend 2.5 (true) hours in class, leaving 5 hours for homework. For this course, you will decide what grade you want to receive by deciding how much time you will spend on your work outside of class. You will log this time and at the end of the semester average it out. Some weeks you may do 10 hours and other weeks 5, but you cannot cram all of your hours in at the end of the semester.
- A=5.5 or more hours per week
- A-=5.25
- B+=5
- B=4.75
- B-= 4.25
- C+=4
- C=3.5
- C-=3.25
- D+=3
- D=2.5
- F=0-2.5
Students track their hours using a labor log kept in a Google Doc and which they share with me. They note the date, amount of time worked, what they did, and a brief reflection about what they did. I provide several samples to help students model effective reflection. Every two weeks I check in on the labor log (more frequently if a class seems to warrant it). I point to strong reflections, and encourage students to build up to more hours to reach the grade they desire.
Of primary importance to me is ensuring that my assessment of students is equitable, anti-racist, and truly student centered. Contract grading, while not perfectly achieving these goals, comes closer to them than traditional grading, particularly in the CW classroom.
Because successful CW classes often rely on building a strong sense of community, using contract grading is a sensible and productive approach. During the first week of class, students work together to negotiate and finalize the contract with me, which helps create the community bond necessary for workshop success. Here is how the negotiations work:
Prepare:
- Watch Carol Dweck’s TedTalk on growth mindset. I give the students a worksheet that offers them opportunities to reflect on Dweck’s key ideas, which they complete and discuss in small groups.
- Annotate the draft contract using the Google Doc comments feature. I ask students to annotate as a “silent discussion” with their reactions, questions, and anything else they want to include.
- Free write about the areas of the contract we’re negotiating. Even though the students have usually had several days to reflect on their suggestions, a few moments to free write can help them to determine what changes are most important to them as well as to get their minds in the game.
- Small group discussion They return to their small groups and together hash out what they, as a group, most want to see included in the contract, and then we return to a whole group to share the ideas.
Negotiate:
- Groups share their ideas. I capture the ideas on a Google Doc projected on the screen so students can see the ideas as they take shape.
- Discuss new additions.
This activity usually takes most of a class period, and the time spent is worthwhile.
Finalize the contract:
- Integrate student ideas into the contract.
- Students read and sign the contract.
- I sign, return a copy to the student, and keep a copy myself.
For many students, this is an important community building and trust building activity. I am showing them that their voices and thoughts matter to me. I am de-centering myself as the authority of how the class should work. And I learn what the students really need from the class. For example, students in a recent class asked if they could include some self-care hours as they felt that was important to their creativity. We agreed to 30 minutes of self care per week. The students not only learned how to negotiate and become participants in shaping the class, they also learned how to ask for what they needed.
I noticed students taking more risks as well, perhaps because of the trust built during the contract negotiations. Those risks took a variety of forms. For some students, it meant speaking up in class or sharing from their free write because they knew it counted as participation. For other students it meant trying a poetic form that makes them uncomfortable or that they feel they aren’t “good” at. The assurance that their grade comes from putting the time in rather than from writing something groundbreaking soothes their anxiety in trying a new form.
Another benefit is that they feel more comfortable writing about what they know, the axiom that they hear in nearly every CW class. By this I mean not that they set a story in their town, but rather that they confront their emotions and bring them to the page. A student in the first CW I taught using contract grading shared that they felt safe writing about deeply personal concerns because they knew they would not be graded with a numerical or letter grade, but only for putting in the time to work on the piece. They said they would not have done so in a class with traditional grades. How do we put a value on the story of someone’s difficult situation? It was not something that I had considered prior to the student’s comment, but it has since become an important reason that I continue to use contract grading.
Students often feel at the start of the semester that clocking five or more hours of creative writing outside the classroom is asking too much of them. Yet by the end of the semester, many identify that hour target as a motivator to push themselves to do more writing, to revise more than they would have, and to spend more time reading and commenting on the work of their peers. And almost across the board, those students who put in the hours to earn a B or higher show improvement (as observed by my reading of their work throughout the semester and their reflections on their work) in their ability to consciously use craft elements as well as their ability to effectively perform workshop. There’s one simple reason why: they are writing more than they ever have before.
When I entered my MFA program, my writing improved dramatically because suddenly I was writing almost every day. It’s no surprise, then, that undergraduates who commit to creative writing work five hours a week show clear progress and build stronger writing habits to sustain their creative practices.
As much as I advocate for contract grading in the CW classroom, there are, of course, drawbacks. It’s important to note that these drawbacks have not caused me to change my mind about the value of contract grading in CW.
Students may game the system. Inherent in the use of contract grading in the CW classroom is a willingness to trust students. Some students may “cook the books” by padding their labor log. Having students keep their labor log in a shared Google Doc and conducting regular labor log check-ins helps to alleviate dishonesty. The Google Doc History feature allows the instructor to review when and how changes were made to the labor log if it seems radically different (increased hours) than what it has been during the semester.
Students don’t know how to manage their time effectively. For many students, carving out five hours for one class’s work seems insurmountable. Many may be used to approaching their homework as a chore to be finished as quickly as possible. Others may have tight schedules with home, sports, work, or community obligations in addition to their coursework. To help students understand that they do have time to put in the hours, at the start of each semester, I ask them to complete an assignment called the 168-hour endeavor.
Students feel anxious about what their grade is at different points throughout the semester. For many students, my class may be the first time they have encountered anything other than traditional grading. While I have considered inviting students to vote whether or not they want to use contract grading, I decided that they don’t have enough knowledge about it in the first week of class to make that determination. I impose it on them, but I scaffold the introduction of the grading system with details in the contract as well as videos (Dweck, described above) to help them to understand why I have chosen to use this system.
I’ve found it useful to provide a worksheet to students where they can track the same information I track in determining their grade. It includes a place to note dates of absences and tardies; a place to note if assignments were turned in on time; a place to note each week’s labor log hours. At mid-semester, I remind them to complete the worksheet so they can determine what their grade at that moment is and what they need to do in order to achieve the grade they want by the end of the semester. This is an effective tool for helping them to feel more confident about their standing in the class, and it also reminds them of how the grade is determined.
A final tool that I have found useful is end-of-semester 1:1 conferences. As a final project, students are required to write a reflective letter and compile a portfolio to show off their growth during the semester. I set aside 20-30 minutes per student so that we can review their plans for their reflection and portfolio. We also use some of that time to review their standing in the class. I ask them to prepare by tallying their labor log average hours, number of absences and tardies, an overview of what work was submitted on time vs. late, and an argument for the grade they believe they have earned.
Students welcome these conferences, especially the opportunity to talk through their semester. They will point out weeks when they did not make their required hours and weeks when they exceeded them. Often students are modest and argue for a grade lower than what they earned. Students also sometimes make cogent arguments for how much time and effort they have put into the class and the growth they recognize in themselves as a result. These conferences are meaningful and center the student in a powerful way. We come to an agreement about their final grade (pending portfolio submission), which eases the student’s concerns.
Students feel frustrated by having to keep the labor log. Early in the semester, I remind students to enter their work in the labor log. I do more frequent labor log checks, and I sometimes provide in-class time for students to get caught up on their labor log. For some students, maintaining the labor log remains tedious. Some students procrastinate and learn the difficult lesson of how much worse procrastination makes the task.
The opposite has also been true, though. Some students have found the opportunity to reflect on their work enlightening. They learn more about their habits of working and writing, including times that are more productive for them, what kind of work (reading, writing, commenting on peers’ work, revising) necessitates what level of attention, etc. Many students, at the end of the semester, look back on their labor log and are proud of just how much time they have put into their writing.
Labor log checks can be time consuming. It took me several semesters to develop a system to check labor logs in a way that was meaningful for the students yet did not add additional work to an already heavy load. Since I typically use contract grading in other courses I teach as well as Creative Writing, in any given semester I may have close to 75 labor logs to check. It is important to provide feedback on the labor log to ensure that students begin to see it as a useful practice and to encourage them to continue logging their hours and reflecting on them.
To this end, in my university’s online system (Blackboard), I set up assignment dropboxes for submitting links to the labor log. I schedule the first three checks weekly. The first is to ensure that students have set up their labor log correctly, including using the naming protocol I require. The next two are designed to leverage the pressure of an assignment to motivate students to complete the log in a timely manner.
Students work in a Google Doc to which they give me editing privileges. I scan through the document looking for strong reflections or moments in reflection that I can respond to. If the reflections are not robust, I provide an example of what I hope to see. I also look to see if time worked on a project that seems too long (maybe the student needs help navigating) or too short (again, the student may need help or may have given up on an assignment too soon). If the student is low on hours, I may suggest activities that are “labor log worthy”—an on-campus event (when we are on campus), an article that they might spend time with, a local poetry reading, or an activity to spark their imaginations.
This feedback, done using the comments feature, is fairly quick to write, and most importantly, it provides me a window into each student’s learning as well as a way to enter into conversation with even the most reticent student.
Students are used to traditional grading and find contract grading intimidating. Like so many of us, students are intimidated by the unknown. I’ve discovered, though, that if I remind students of why I’ve chosen to use contract grading (greater equity, to empower them to take more risks), provide encouraging feedback on their labor logs, offer strong feedback to help them improve their writing and workshop skills, and meet with students to discuss their standing in the course, many of them start to understand the benefits.
While contract grading can be challenging to integrate into a class, with ample framing, a focus on collaboration, and regular reminders of how the contract system encourages growth mindset, most students embrace it and find themselves writing more than they have before, coming closer to proudly calling themselves creative writers, and improving their skills through regular practice.
–
Beverly Army Williams is a writer and a writing teacher at Westfield State University. Her work has appeared in The Ekphrastic Review, The Dandelion Review, and Project 333 among other places. She serves on the board of Perugia Press and holds an MFA in creative writing from University of New Mexico.