Evaluating and Grading Multilingual Students’ Writing

Questions about how to fairly assess the work of multilingual writers is one of the most common questions that the WAC program hears. Many instructors want to uphold their high standards for student work, including ensuring that students are following academic writing and grammar conventions expected in US higher education. Nevertheless, they understand that multilingual students are reading and writing in a second, third, fourth, etc. language and may not always adhere to these conventions in the way that they consider correct.

We will discuss this important question through looking at a few possible approaches.

Approach #1: Hold all students to the same standards because that is the most fair approach

In a survey of over 100 faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges and in-depth interviews with 12 of those instructors, Zawacki and Habib (2014) found that many professors are committed to all students for writing errors. They believe that the absolute necessity of clear communication in academic study and future occupations justifies marking and taking off points for errors; that it, in other words, helps students in the long-term.

One professor in the study explains that she grades student papers without looking at the names, using the same standards because “No one’s going to give them a break when they’re working… You just get left behind, so why not get told that now when you’re a student rather than get hit in the face with it when you get out there working” (198). A mathematics professor noted that language precision is necessary in assessing students’ understanding of course content, saying that “if you say that there’s ‘a’ solution, we know that there may be another solution, but if we say ‘the’ solution, that means there cannot be another solution,” arguing for the importance of correct articles (199).

Pros

This approach considers students’ long-term issues studying, living, and working in a foreign language. Many professors in Zawacki and Habib’s (2014) study shared that they work closely with multilingual students (in office hours, providing extra feedback, etc.) because they care about their success, and they find that their students are thankful for this.

Cons

Marking errors and penalizing students’ grades because of errors takes a lot of time and risks overloading both instructors and students. Not only that, as mentioned in the “Marking Errors” section, this kind of grammar feedback has not often been found to be effective, and it has been found to be counterproductive in some contexts for some students. Additionally, the motivation of marking and grading students based on setting them up for success in the future isn’t always in line with students’ plans. Many will return to their home countries after graduation and aren’t interested in long-term integration in the US workplace. Furthermore, the idea that multilingual students will be punished in the workplace for language issues in the future is not necessarily true and not a justification for using practices that are known to harm students in the present.

Approach #2: Take a hands-off approach by focusing on meaning and ignoring sentence-level errors

Grammatical errors play a much less significant role for some instructors who focus their comments on larger rhetorical issues and meaning, rather than the sentence-level. Ives et al. (2014) share one history instructor’s perspective regarding the relative importance of content over grammar: students “really have to show that they know the subject material. And they have to show that they have some kind of argument…. Organization to me is very crucial, but I see it as tied in with argument… You can’t fail a paper for spelling and grammar and mechanics alone” (227). Similarly, some instructors put disciplinary knowledge ahead of writing skills, and still others question whether they (as subject-area, but not writing, specialists) are the right people to be teaching students about grammatical rules and writing skills (Cox 2014).

Pros

Focusing on students’ meaning within their papers communicates to multilingual writers that their ideas do matter, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and “higher order” or “global” concerns like making a clear argument, using appropriate evidence, and meeting an assignment’s requirements. Zawacki and Habib find that when instructors are strongly focused on identifying multilingual writing errors, they often miss meaningful content in theri students’ writing. A conscious decision to “read for meaning” allows instructors to do the intellectual work of their field.

Cons

Multilingual students can still be in the process of acquiring the language, and some feedback on their grammar and adherence to lower-order academic writing conventions can be useful. Choosing not to give feedback on sentence-level errors can prevent students from realizing their consistent errors. Even if an instructor is not a writing expert, they can note certain patterns of repeated errors, confusing phrasing, or incorrect use of terms. Dana Ferris’s extensive research with error and multilingual writers indicates that feedback as simple as circle errors or pulling a check mark in the margin can facilitate multilingual writers’ own successful self-editing (2011).

Approach #3: Redefine what we mean when we think about “standards” for academic writing

Multilingual writing specialist Michelle Cox (2014) calls on faculty to refigure what we mean by “error” and “standards.” She argues that expecting the same level of language proficiency from multilingual writers is, itself, unfair. Because the process of writing and learning to write in a second language is distinctly different from writing and learning to write in a first language, says Cox, we simply cannot equitably hold students to the same standards. Practically speaking, that would include not penalizing the grades of multilingual students who have sentence-level errors in their writing.

Pros

This approach takes the middle ground between the previous two. Students aren’t penalized for sentence-level errors, and sentence-level errors need not be ignored. Using this approach, an instructor can mark patterns or consistent errors without reducing points, both helping students understand where they can improve their grammar without making them feel overwhelmed or worried about their grade in a way that L1 students usually don’t have to experience.

Cons

This approach has a risk of  setting up a double standard for evaluating students writing in their first or dominant language.

Sources Cited

Ferris, Dana. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011.

Cox, Michelle. “In Response to Today’s “‘Felt Need’: WAC, Faculty Development, and Second Language Writers.” WAC and Second Language Writers: Research Towards Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Zawacki, Terry Myers, & Cox, Michelle. (Eds.). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press: 2014: 299-326.

Ives, Lindsey, et al. “‘I don’t know if that was the right thing to do’: Cross-Disciplinary / Cross-Institutional Faculty Respond to L2 Writing.” WAC and Second Language Writers: Research Towards Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Zawacki, Terry Myers, & Cox, Michelle. (Eds.). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press: 2014: 211-232.

Zawacki, Terry Myers, and Anna Sophia Habib. “Negotiating ‘Errors’ in L2 Writing: Faculty Dispositions and Language Difference.” WAC and Second Language Writers: Research Towards Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Zawacki, Terry Myers, & Cox, Michelle. (Eds.). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press: 2014: 183-210.