Holistic Grading vs. Analytic Grading: Effective Assessment Methods in Low & High
Stake Work
Courtney Simpkins, Graduate Teaching Fellow, English, Radford University
Lindsay Stinson, Graduate Teaching Fellow, English, Radford University
Abstract: Holistic grading offers more benefits in high stake writing assignments, comparable to
the benefits offered by analytic grading in lower stakes writing. Using the two major writing
essays in Radford University’s Core 101 course, the Opposing Viewpoints Essay and the
Academic Argument Essay, we examined four different sections’ assignments as the students
learned the writing process, genre, style, audience, and standard written English. All sections
encouraged process writing in order to monitor student learning, encourage collaborative
learning, and be able provide ongoing feedback. Students were asked to show and reflect on
their writing process through writing prompts, which facilitated class discussions, and later
helped form their drafts. There were two drafts required to be submitted for one peer review and
a conference before a final draft could be submitted to further encourage writing as a process
through accountability. Two of the sections focused more on the writing process focusing on
holistic grading in the final submitted essays, while two sections focused on the writing process
through analytic grading in the assignments due leading up to the final submitted essay. The
sections focusing on holistic grading, used a single holistic grading rubric; the sections focusing
on a more analytic approach, used an analytic rubric as a guideline. The end results were
intriguing as we were able to collaborate as a teaching team to weigh the benefits of each grading
style, as well as the students’ learning behaviors. We will discuss the pros and cons to both
grading styles, how each affected students’ learning the writing process and goals of Core 101,
and how the final submitted graded works might help them forward their conversations into their
academic careers.