Handle fuzzy effort criteria as charitable yes/no binary requirements with periodic check-ins¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

When a contract names indefinable but central qualities such as "consistent effort" or "thoughtful feedback", the authors avoid arguments by never accusing a student of failing a fuzzy criterion unless the violation is grossly flagrant, and by taking the student's word in any dispute. They settle for "charitable, crude yes/no decisions in a realm where people usually emphasize subtle differences of degree", sometimes building in formal check points twice a semester, and they ask students to self-assess the criteria in process notes or cover letters.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Violations must be grossly flagrant before being called
• Students' own word is accepted when they argue against a violation call

Constraints¶

• The criteria focus on experiences inside the student rather than observable features in a text, so they remain arguable in principle

Target Learners¶

• first-year college writing students

Target Learning Goals¶

• effort, perplexity, and progression of thinking in writing

Related Strategies¶

• Contract Grading
• Learning Contracts
• Checklists

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Danielewicz, Jane and Peter Elbow. (2009). A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching. College Composition and Communication 61(2). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/23309