Last week, all students in History-100, History-200, and History-300 took in-class diagnostic assessments designed to evaluate their ability to analyze and interpret sources. Although the assessments varied in structure across courses, all involved using evidence to respond to a prompt under timed conditions.
Keri Lambert, Chair in History and Social Science, explained that these assessments were designed to provide teachers with an early understanding of students’ writing abilities.
“These common assessments shared most of the same goals; for example, we wanted instructors to gain an early sense of students’ historical thinking and in-class writing skills and for students to receive some actionable feedback on a low-stakes assignment before completing more significant majors,” wrote Lambert in an email to The Phillipian.
In the 2026 State of the Academy, 66.3 percent of respondents identified History when asked which departments had an unreasonable grading disparity between teachers. Lambert elaborated on how these assessments would assist in grade norming across the department.
Lambert continued, “The written work supported grade norming exercises, which is when teachers discuss and assess anonymized student work to confirm that we would all assign the same grade and offer similar feedback. We want to curb students’ impressions that History instructors have different grading standards, so as a department we’re emphasizing these kinds of exercises and other alignment efforts.”
Students differed in their opinions of how accurately the assessment represented their writing abilities. Bella Huang ’28 discussed the limitations of such assessments.
“It definitely reveals a lot about how we work under pressure as a group, but at the same time, it’s pretty limited. First, everyone is really making the same argument somewhere along the same lines. Also, they’re relying on similar pieces of evidence. It establishes a good baseline, but I don’t think it does a lot to say how we [generally perform], since it’s the first assignment that we’ve had since we came back from a very long break,” said Huang.
The History-300 assessment took place during a 40-minute period on Monday. Echoing Huang’s sentiment, Hannah Jung ’28 questioned whether the assessment fully captured her capabilities. Nonetheless, she saw value in giving teachers a point of comparison for her later work.
“I don’t think it accurately represented my writing abilities because it was a really short period. I don’t think I was able to analyze the primary sources to my fullest extent, and the argument that I developed was kind of on the spot and it didn’t feel as thorough as it could have been…It’s a benefit for the student because the teacher will be able to see how much you’ve grown as a writer and critical thinking throughout their class,” said Jung.
The History-200 assessment took place during a 75-minute class period. Yet even with more time, Emerson Davis ’29 felt that the format made it difficult to develop her ideas fully.
“I don’t think one assignment can really show how someone writes in general. Sometimes I’ll have an idea that takes a while to develop, and you don’t really have that opportunity when you’re writing under a time limit…Certain stressors are a big factor in people’s writing abilities, and I think many students may not be able to write to their full potential under timed pressure,” said Davis.
On the other hand, Hannah Oh ’27, a Senior in History-300, said that the assessment more accurately captured her skills because of her familiarity with in-class writing.
“It accurately represents my writing because there have been a lot of in-class writings over the years. Because I’m a four-year Senior, I’ve experienced in-class writing, and so I feel like over the past four years I was able to develop my writing style and show it through this in-class. Honestly, I feel like this was the easiest in-class writing I’ve done so far,” said Oh.
Matthew Hession, Instructor in History, emphasized that the assessment’s main goal was to observe students’ analytical skills rather than their writing style.
“This assignment is less about establishing a writing style as opposed to giving students the opportunity to examine a handful of historical sources and write about them. As well, we don’t try to ‘establish’ a student’s writing style so much as support them in strengthening their skills of written inquiry and helping them find their own style (or voice),” wrote Hession in an email to The Phillipian. “By doing this assignment at the very start of the year, we’re able to see where students are in their skill development. It’s an assessment where we can observe students’ historical reasoning, skills of assessment, and claim-making.”
Jung also suggested that an in-class writing sample could provide teachers with a reference point when evaluating students’ future writing, especially as Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage grows.
“I know for some students, they find it really hard and stressful to do in-class writings, so it might not be the most accurate example of their writing. But I feel like it does help the teachers to some extent, knowing how a student writes compared to, for example, if someone used majority AI to write their essay,” said Jung.
Audrey Lasater ’30 noted that the assessment could build a stronger overall learning environment by helping teachers understand their students’ skill sets.
“It was important that the teachers could understand how advanced their class is in writing, what their class needs to work on, and specific students. It also showed the students what is expected in the class, the stuff that is coming up, and how to prepare for those things,” said Lasater.
