Professors who teach American drama or modern theater surveys often assign Long Day's Journey into Night as a cornerstone text, and they also assign writing to match. In a class of eighty or more students, even a short response paper creates a serious grading load for one instructor and a few teaching assistants. The challenge is to preserve the quality of feedback while keeping turnaround times reasonable.

One practical solution is to design assignments that have a narrow analytical target. A two-page paper that asks students to analyze how a single scene builds tension through dialogue and stage directions is easier to grade than an open-ended essay about family. The constraint also helps students, who often write better when the task is clearly bounded.

Clear rubrics are even more important in large courses because multiple graders must apply the same standards. Without shared criteria, students in different sections may receive very different scores for similar work. A rubric with explicit performance descriptors, along with a short calibration meeting, reduces this problem.

Calibrating Teaching Assistants

Before grading begins, instructors should have all graders score the same set of sample essays and compare results. Differences in scoring usually reveal unclear rubric language or unspoken assumptions about what counts as strong analysis. Resolving these early prevents disputes later and helps new teaching assistants feel confident.

• Distribute a rubric with written descriptors for every performance level
• Hold a calibration session using three or four anonymous sample essays
• Agree on a shared bank of feedback comments for common issues
• Spot-check a random sample of graded essays from each grader
• Keep a record of rubric clarifications so future sections use the same standards

Balancing Depth and Volume

Not every assignment needs the same level of feedback. Low-stakes response papers can receive brief, targeted comments, while a major essay deserves more detailed attention and possibly a conference or revision opportunity. Varying the depth of feedback according to the stakes helps allocate time where it matters most.

Professors can also use class time to address common issues, which reduces the need to repeat the same comment on every paper. A fifteen-minute discussion of the most frequent errors from the first essay often improves the second round dramatically. Students are more receptive when they see that the problems are shared.

Using Technology to Support Consistency

Large courses are a natural fit for tools that apply a rubric uniformly across every submission. An AI grading assistant can produce a first draft of feedback for each student, tied to the same criteria, which teaching assistants then review and refine. This approach preserves human judgment while relieving the most repetitive part of the work.

Instructors should be transparent with students about how feedback is generated and reviewed, and they should maintain the right to override any score. When used carefully, technology supports a more equitable experience for students in large sections. It also gives professors more time for office hours and discussion.