Sharing My Course Documents
And some other resources that might be of interest
I always appreciate when people are willing to share the materials they create for their courses. It’s one thing to hear people talk about what they do and why they do it; it’s another to actually see the documents they’ve created and file them away as models for my own courses.
Today, I’m sharing two documents I’m currently using in my Writing 101 course: an updated version of my course progress tracker and a brand new document that contains guidelines for AI use in the class and an AI use contract. The semester is not even halfway over, of course, so it feels a little vulnerable to share them—I have no idea if they’ll actually work out in the end. But so far, there are a lot of things I like about the materials.
Before I get to that, a couple of updates and other resources:
Teaching in Higher Ed: “Learning About Grades from an Emerging Failure”
I’ve been listening to the podcast Teaching in Higher Ed for years, so I was thrilled when host Bonni Stachowiak reached out to ask if I would participate in a special episode. Bonni had recently had an interesting conversation with her fifth-grade daughter Hannah about grades and writing, which she recorded. On the podcast, I joined Bonni to discuss this conversation through the lens of “grading for growth,” a framework developed by Robert Talbert and David Clark.
It was such an honor and a joy to be in conversation with Bonni and her daughter. You can listen to the episode here or on your favorite podcast app.
The Alternative Grading Institute, December 17-18
I’ve also been working on another project that may interest some readers of this blog: a virtual Alternative Grading Institute. This two-day online event, sponsored by the Center for Grading Reform, is an “intensive, hands-on, online experience where faculty learn core concepts of alternative grading and build a course-ready grading scheme.” On the first day, participants will focus on aligning their grading practices with their pedagogical values and contexts. On the second day, they’ll build an alternative grading system for their chosen course, with guidance and feedback from peers and institute facilitators.
I’m collaborating with a truly all-star team for this event. During the Institute, Drew Lewis and Derek Bruff will work with participants interested in standards-based grading. Michael Palmer and Adriana Streifer will work with those interested in specifications grading. And Lindsay Masland and I will work with those interested in collaborative grading (sometimes called ungrading).
The Institute is open to higher-education instructors from all institution types, with a registration fee of $200 or pay what you can. Applications are due October 15, and we’ll only be able to accept a limited number of participants.
And now, without further ado, my course documents:
The Progress Tracker 2025
Here is the Progress Tracker I shared with students this fall. You can navigate the various sections of the document using the tabs on the left.
Back in 2023, I wrote about a new document I had developed to help students track their progress throughout the semester. Over the course of five posts, I explained the different facets of the document and how they worked:
The progress tracking document I linked to in these posts has since gone through two revisions. The one I’m using now is primarily different in that it places more emphasis on the three metrics I want us to use, as a class, to measure students’ progress and determine their final grades:
Quantity: how much work did you do?
Quality: how good was the work you did? (i.e., how close did it come to reaching our learning goals)
Growth: how much improvement have you shown over time?
Additionally, the self-assessments I have students complete throughout the semester are built into the document, so that when they go to write about their progress across the semester, all the information is right there.
But I think maybe the biggest individual change is that I now have an expanded table/checklist to help students make a reasonable case for their final grades:
Part of the reason I’ve expanded this over time is that many students a) felt uncomfortable determining their grade without clearer guidelines and b) tended to emphasize one category over another in their grade proposals.
Specifically, some students turned in work that wasn’t their best but proposed A’s (at least for their midterm grades) simply because they had completed all the assignments, more or less on time. I think this is mostly because I’m teaching first-year students. I suspect they’re used to checking off the assignment boxes and moving on—and not necessarily used to putting in lots of effort on homework. In any case, I wanted to emphasize that quality of work was just as important as quantity, even if it’s difficult to measure.
I have mixed feelings about this table. It feels a little more like a contract than I want it to. To be clear, students don’t have to check off every box in a specific category in order to propose that grade for themselves. If they miss a lot of classes, for example, but still complete most of their assignments and do high quality work, they can still propose an A. The table is meant to provide a set of guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules. But I worry a little that its contract-like nature promotes the kind of transactional mindset I’m trying to get away from.
On the other hand, the expanded table has the advantage of clarity. Students know in the first week of class what they need to do in order to make a reasonable case for the grade they want. We have a shared set of expectations from the very beginning, and that’s a good thing.
So far, the biggest challenge, as always, is getting students to actually keep up with and use the document. I think that will improve after their first self-assessment/grade proposal next week. I’ll report back after the semester’s over to share what I’ve learned and what changes I’m planning to make.
New AI Guidelines and Use Contract
Here is the “Use of Generative AI” document I shared with students this fall. You can navigate the various sections of the document using the tabs on the left.
In the past, I have discussed AI with students, collaborated with them to develop a set of class guidelines for AI use, and then allowed them to make their own choices about whether and how to use it (as long as they stayed within the guidelines).
I wasn’t, however, entirely satisfied with that approach, as I’ve mentioned before. The main reason is that most students weren’t very intentional about their AI use. I had several students turn to ChatGPT only when they felt stuck or panicked about completing their assignments, at moments when I think sitting with that discomfort a little while longer would have benefited them. I had other students who used AI frequently but weren’t very reflective, despite regular prompting, about how use of AI was affecting their learning.
This time, I’m asking students to make an intentional commitment to go “AI free” or “AI friendly” in the class. Students on the AI free track won’t use AI chatbots or reading/writing/research assistants at all. Students on the AI friendly track can use these tools when they want to, but there are several caveats:
Students commit to using it only in a limited number of ways (which I specify) for each assignment
They disclose their AI use to me by briefly describing it and sharing their chatlogs
They spend a little extra time reflecting on how their use of AI affected their learning after each assignment and on our regular self-assessments
All this is laid out in the AI use document I created over the summer. It contains…
Student guidelines for going “AI free”
Student guidelines for going “AI friendly”
A “Use Case Library”
An “AI Use Contract”
In the “Use Case Library” section, I list approved uses of AI for specific assignments in the class. In the “AI Use Contract” section, students make a public commitment to their chosen AI track, and I make a few commitments regarding AI as an instructor (mostly that I won’t use it). The contract also contains a section that spells out the potential consequences for AI misuse. (We developed a plan for addressing AI misuse collaboratively, as a class, and I expect it to change the next time I teach—so, I’ve left the particulars of that section out of the shared document.)
Like all first drafts of course documents I create, the whole thing seems too wordy to me. It also feels like it has an air of desperation in trying to control something that is ultimately out of my control. I cannot, in the end, make students use or not use AI in the ways I have suggested, and if they are clever enough to hide their misuse, I can’t really enforce any consequences for it. I’m well aware that some, maybe many, students will use AI in ways I know nothing about.
However, if students are interested in exploring AI, I want to be clear about what I think is appropriate or inappropriate for this class. This, so far, is the best way I can think of to do that.
Hard to say how this document is working so far, and I can report back later. But here are some preliminary notes:
Last year, most of my students were not that interested in AI and, I believe, would have largely chosen the AI free track. This year, my students are very interested in AI. About 25% opted for the AI free track, meaning 75% are going “AI friendly” for the class. I’ll admit that these numbers made me a little nervous at the start of the semester.
So far, however, most of my students haven’t used AI at all, even if they initially chose the AI friendly track. I suspect that’s mostly because we’ve been concentrating on rhetorical analysis, where (in my class) the assessments are more like worksheets than papers. I expect to see more AI use when we get into writing full-length arguments. But at least in the first half of the semester, I’ve been impressed with students’ wise judgments about where AI is and is not appropriate. That’s not to say there haven’t been any problems—just that they are far fewer, and more easily resolvable, than one might expect.
The biggest issue has been explaining the document and making the rules clear. Some students were initially confused about how to navigate the “Use Case Library.” I think we’ve (mostly) sorted out those issues now, after a lot of reminders, and I’m hoping the rest of the semester will go smoothly.
Things continue to be hard in higher ed right now, and I hope you’re holding up wherever you are and whatever you’re dealing with. I’d love to hear your feedback on the documents above, so please leave a comment if you have thoughts. And I hope to see some of you at the Alternative Grading Institute later this year!
Thanks for sharing the examples. Really helpful