In a university course on post-9/11 fiction or contemporary American literature, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close often appears alongside works by Don DeLillo, Art Spiegelman, and Mohsin Hamid. Students are expected to write longer papers that engage with criticism, use theoretical frames, and contribute an original argument. Professors with large lecture sections and only a few teaching assistants face a serious grading challenge. Consistency and depth must be balanced against limited time.

One difficulty is that undergraduate papers on this novel vary widely in sophistication. Some students draw on trauma theory to discuss the difficulty of representing catastrophe, while others write a personal response with little engagement with scholarship. A rubric should recognize both what the assignment requires and what students at different levels can reasonably achieve. Clear expectations reduce arguments about grades later.

Another difficulty is grader agreement. When several teaching assistants share a section, their standards can drift, and students quickly notice that one grader is stricter than another. Calibration sessions, in which everyone scores the same sample paper and compares results, are the traditional fix. They work, but they require time that many departments do not have.

Rubric Design for Upper-Level Literature Papers

University rubrics for literary analysis usually address argument, use of evidence, engagement with secondary sources, and prose style. For a paper on Foer, you might add a row for attention to form, since much of the critical conversation about the novel concerns its visual and typographic experimentation. Descriptors should be specific about what distinguishes an A paper from a B paper, such as whether the student puts secondary sources in conversation or merely quotes them. Specific language reduces subjectivity.

• Argument: an original, defensible claim that develops over the paper
• Textual evidence: close reading of specific passages and formal features
• Critical engagement: accurate, purposeful use of secondary sources
• Context: awareness of the historical and literary setting of the novel
• Style and citation: clear prose and correct academic documentation

Grading Secondary Source Use

Secondary sources are a common site of weakness. Students sometimes drop in a quotation from a critic without explaining how it supports their argument, or they misrepresent the critic's position. Feedback should ask students to state clearly what they are borrowing from a source and what they are adding. This habit is central to academic writing and is worth reinforcing in every paper.

Plagiarism and citation problems also require attention. Check that direct quotations are marked and that paraphrases are properly attributed. Where problems appear, treat them as teaching moments first unless the pattern suggests intentional misconduct. Clear guidance about your expectations on the first assignment prevents many later issues.

Scaling Feedback Across Large Sections

Professors and teaching assistants can lighten the load with tools that produce consistent first-pass feedback. Platforms like GraideMind apply the same rubric to every paper, so a student's grade reflects the criteria and not the grader's mood or the order in which papers were read. Human graders then review the feedback, focusing on the argument and originality that matter most. This can also help standardize grading across sections.

Be transparent with students and with teaching staff about how these tools are used. Explain that the rubric is yours, the final decisions are made by a person, and the tool helps organize the initial response. Clarity preserves trust and fits within academic integrity norms. Departments may also want to set shared guidelines so that practice is consistent across courses.

Using Feedback to Build Better Second Papers

The first paper of the semester sets the pattern for the rest. If feedback identifies one or two priorities, such as sharpening the thesis and integrating sources more smoothly, students can focus their effort on the second assignment. Ask them to submit a brief note describing how they responded to your comments. This reflection makes revision deliberate.

Office hours are also a valuable complement. A student who received a mid-range grade on a paper about Foer's use of form may benefit from a ten-minute conversation about what a more ambitious argument would look like. Efficient written feedback frees up time for these conversations. The combination of consistent grading and personal mentoring is the hallmark of strong undergraduate instruction.