Writing across the curriculum asks every department to teach and assess writing, not just English. Chemistry departments often agree in principle but hesitate in practice because grading essays is time-consuming and faculty feel unprepared to assess prose. A shared reading such as Joe Schwarcz's "Radar, Hula Hoops, and Playful Pigs" can provide a low-barrier starting point. Its short commentaries give students approachable material to write about without requiring advanced technical background.

The first decision is scope. A department that tries to add major writing assignments to every course at once will burn out its faculty within a year. Starting with one or two courses, such as an introductory course and a general education offering, lets the department learn what works before expanding.

Next, agree on a small set of writing outcomes that every participating course will assess. Examples include explaining a concept in plain language, using evidence to support a claim, and organizing a short essay logically. A short list is easier to teach, easier to grade, and easier to report on than a sprawling list of aspirations.

Building one rubric the whole department can use

A shared rubric is the backbone of the workflow. Faculty who disagree about grading standards will not agree on much else, so spend time drafting rows and performance descriptions together, then test them on a handful of real student essays. The goal is not perfect agreement but enough alignment that a score means roughly the same thing across instructors and sections.

• Choose three to five rows that match the department's agreed writing outcomes.
• Write level descriptions using observable features rather than general adjectives.
• Score a common set of sample essays independently, then compare and discuss differences.
• Revise the rubric wording wherever two faculty members read a row differently.
• Store the final rubric and anchor papers in a shared folder available to all instructors and graders.

Dividing the grading load fairly

Faculty with large lecture sections cannot be expected to grade as many essays as those with small seminars. Distribute work through a mix of teaching assistants, peer review, completion credit for some assignments, and AI-assisted first-pass scoring. The mix should reflect section size and the resources available, and it should be transparent so that nobody feels the burden is unevenly shared.

Training matters as much as tools. Hold a short calibration session each term where graders score the same essays and compare results. Teaching assistants in chemistry often have little experience grading prose, and an hour of shared practice dramatically improves consistency.

Where AI-assisted grading fits in the workflow

AI grading tools work best as a first reader. They apply the department rubric to each essay, generate comments tied to specific rows, and flag unusual papers for human review. Faculty and teaching assistants then spend their time confirming scores, adding scientific insight, and handling edge cases rather than writing routine comments from scratch.

Adopt the tool in stages. Run it alongside hand grading for one assignment, compare the results, and adjust the rubric language where scores diverge. Once faculty see that the tool agrees closely with their judgment on routine papers, they usually become more comfortable relying on it for the first pass.

Using results to improve the curriculum

Consistent scoring produces data the department can use. If students across courses are weakest on using evidence to support claims, that is a signal to build more practice into the curriculum. If scores on explaining concepts are strong, the department can spend its attention elsewhere.

Review the data at a yearly meeting and decide on one or two changes for the next year. Small, steady adjustments are more sustainable than sweeping reforms, and they keep faculty invested in a writing program that clearly produces better student work.