I think I might pinch Dr Crazy’s strategy for grading essays – she uses a checklist as a front page where she checks off things like “Paper offers adequate context (historical, theoretical, and/or critical) for the claims that it makes about the text(s) under discussion” – or the contrary (“paper does not offer…”) and thus sums up strong and weak points allowing more useful feedback and more efficient grading – without sacrificing traditional comments in the margins.

I start a new teaching unit tomorrow: IKT og lÊring, or learning and technology. There’ll be lots on blogs and wikis, and some wonderful guests (I’m so lucky!) – and also essaywriting. It’s silly how motivating I find tricks like the one Dr Crazy described. Suddenly I’m all excited about getting to give feedback on essays soon. Good thing I know how to fool myself into working, eh?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Norman Hanscombe

    The “Cover Sheet” approach (provided always that it’s tailored to fit the particular essay) is the only effective and efficient way to mark an essay. Sadly, some markers have used it to avoid having to make the traditional comments within the body of the essay, but I guess we can never prevent even the best of ideas being abused by some? But I’m confident you’ll treat it like salt and pepper — just because one comes across pepper, for the best results, you don’t suddenly stop applying salt to the meal?

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

screenshot of blogpost from sept 11, 2001, about blogger.com showing blog posts about the attacks
Networked Politics social media

25 years since September 11

I’ve been reading through my blog posts on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. The things that stand out to me – in addition to the horror of the attack itself – are how massively we (or at least I) used the web to understand what was happening, […]

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]