When large lecture classes incorporate small group discussions, the discussion sessions are typically overseen by Group Leaders—undergraduate or graduate students who organize the group’s meetings, assign roles to group members, and answer questions that group members are unable to answer. After each discussion session, one member (the assigned “writer” for a topic) writes a short summary (often called the “write-up”) of the material discussed by the group. This write-up is then graded by the Group Leader. This document prepares Group Leaders for the responsibility of grading these write-ups.
The materials here are designed to be used by the course instructor, teaching assistant, or other individual who will act as a “trainer.” The training typically requires about two hours. Ideally, all Group Leaders must be present at the same training session—this is important to ensure as much standardization of grading as possible. The meeting should be held in a conference room containing a whiteboard.
At the beginning of the meeting, the trainer passes out Sample discussion question and answer in this document and acquaints the Group Leaders with the sample discussion question and answer. He/she then passes out three copies of the annotated assessment sheet and discusses the grading criteria and the examples in the annotations. After the Group Leaders have become familiar with the discussion question and the “correct and complete” answer to that question, the trainer distributes the first unannotated sample paper (example 1) and allows the Group Leaders to work independently to grade it. An annotated version of the paper (example 4) is provided in this document to familiarize the trainer with the types of comments that might be made.
After everyone has finished grading the paper, the trainer then leads a discussion. The following questions may lead the discussion:
- Did anyone find any inaccuracies in this sample? If so, what are they? How many points were given for “accuracy” by each of you? Why?
- What problems with clarity or audience-appropriateness were found? How many points did each of you give for that category? Why?
- Did this summary completely cover the answer to the question? Were the discussion and description covered in sufficient depth? How many points did you each award for “depth/completeness”?
- Were there any problems with style or organization? What were they? How many points did this paper earn for that criterion? Why?
The trainer may use the white board to make notes for the group and keep track of individuals’ point allocations. Group Leaders and the trainer discuss the “standards” for awarding points until a group consensus is reached.
At this point, the trainer distributes papers #2 and #3 for grading. Versions of these papers with limited annotation are provided for the trainer’s use. After the Group Leaders have finished grading the papers, the trainer leads a discussion similar to that described above. The goal of the process is to reach a common understanding of how to use the assessment sheet so that the grading will be as standardized as possible.




