University courses on Balkan and Yugoslav literature often include Koreni alongside other major works, which means students write several analytical essays in a single term. Professors face a heavy reading load, and the essays tend to be longer and more theoretically ambitious than those in secondary school. Without a clear workflow, grading can take over weeks that were meant for research.

The first step in building a workflow is to define the assessment criteria at the course level. A shared rubric across all essays in the term helps students see growth and helps graders apply the same standards from the first assignment to the last. It also makes it easier to onboard teaching assistants.

Next, schedule the grading in advance. Setting aside specific blocks of time and capping the number of essays per session prevents fatigue from influencing scores. Many professors find that two or three focused sessions are more effective than a single marathon.

Designing Assignments for Efficient Marking

Assignment design affects grading time more than most instructors realize. A prompt that asks for a focused argument about a specific aspect of Koreni, such as how narration shapes the portrayal of rural society, produces essays that are easier to compare and evaluate. Open-ended prompts yield more varied papers, which can be rewarding but slower to mark.

• Use focused prompts that call for a clear, arguable thesis
• Provide a rubric with criteria tied to course learning outcomes
• Set a word limit that matches the depth you can realistically assess
• Require a short proposal or outline before the full essay
• Offer a model paragraph so students see the expected level of analysis

Working With Teaching Assistants

Large lecture courses depend on teaching assistants, and consistency among graders is a common concern. Hold a norming session in which everyone scores the same two or three sample essays and discusses differences. This investment pays off in fewer grade appeals and a fairer experience for students.

Provide TAs with a bank of model comments tied to rubric categories. This helps them give substantive feedback quickly and keeps the tone consistent across sections. Encourage them to personalize the comments rather than copy them directly.

Providing Feedback That Supports Scholarship

At the university level, feedback should push students toward more sophisticated engagement with the text and with secondary sources. Comments might ask how an argument relates to existing scholarship on Ćosić or on the Yugoslav novel. This helps students see their essays as contributions to an ongoing conversation.

Where possible, pair written feedback with brief office-hour conversations for students who are struggling or who show unusual promise. A ten-minute discussion can accomplish more than pages of comments, especially when the issue involves argument structure.

Reducing Repetitive Work With Technology

Much of the routine feedback on essays, such as noting unsupported claims or unclear structure, is repetitive. AI grading tools that apply a professor's rubric can draft these comments, freeing time for the higher-level observations that require disciplinary expertise. The professor reviews every output and retains full control.

When introducing such a tool, be transparent with students and with your department about how it is used. A clear policy on review and responsibility maintains trust and ensures that technology supports, rather than replaces, scholarly judgment.