I’ve been grading. Last year I was frustrated at how much time we spent on grading at the end of the semester, when it wasn’t going to help the students learn at all. Now I know that that’s called summative assessment and that what I wanted was formative assessment, assessment that actually helps students improve. So this year, students are handing in short essays that are being graded as we go. I realise this is pretty standard in much of the world, but it’s very weird for Norwegian universities. When I was a student you were left completely to yourself all semester, apart from the lectures in huge auditoriums, and then you had two week or eight hour exams at the end of each year. Yes, very old-fashioned pedagogy. I liked the independence of it, though.

For this assignment I asked the students to write 600 word textual analyses (readings) of websites, where they were to define and answer a clearly stated question. They’ve done great jobs! The assignment details and descriptions of grading criteria are available as a PDF, and the work was posted in the students’ weblogs, with trackbacks to the main weblog for the course.

The students kept asking me to show them examples of readings of websites. I couldn’t find them many. At least now we have a collection here.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “grading website analyses

  1. Espen

    When I was a student you could be left all alone for three semesters at a time. It was called “udelt mellomfag” (undivided major). So instead of nine to twelve exams, like my current uni is practicing, you could have only (a big) one. Of course, you could also hand in your unsupervised Dr Philos dissertation, and get a tenured job without ever taking a standard exam.

    Working in the factory it all became is much safer and nicer, of course.

  2. Jill

    You mean I could have skipped all those exams!? What a pity – I never realised I didn’t need first year uni to get a Doctor Philos… 🙂

    I did like being able to work at my own pace. After university here, I hated the grade school feel of Stavanger College, where everything seemed so slow. We were led by the hand, tiny groups, attendence expected. Hm, perhaps I’ll speed up my teaching.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.