Coordinating Graders and UCAs

Many TAs lead a small team: undergraduate course assistants (UCAs), graders, or other TAs. Suddenly the job includes splitting work fairly, setting deadlines, keeping five people grading the same way, and following up when someone falls behind. Nobody trains you for this, and it matters: a study in which 28 experienced graders scored the same 40 intro programs found their agreement was very low, even with a shared rubric. Consistency comes from how the team works. This page covers dividing the work, calibrating, keeping track, following up, and the boundaries every grader needs to know, with message templates you can adapt.

Defaults that work. If you only take four things from this page:

Split by question, not by student, so each question is graded one way.
Calibrate before anyone grades for real, on the same three to five submissions.
Set an internal deadline before the release date, with time to spot-check.
Follow up early, privately and in writing, starting with "is something blocking you?"

Dividing the work

Split by question. One grader, or a pair, owns a question across every submission. A rubric change then applies to everyone, and regrade requests go to the person who graded that question.
Split by student only when context matters, such as projects, demos or interactive grading, and plan for more variation between graders.
Balance hours, not counts. A long proof takes longer than a multiple-choice question. Check each person's total against their hours. UCAs in particular have a fixed weekly average, and grading is not their only duty.
Keep grading separate from lab or office-hours time, so neither gets squeezed.

Getting everyone grading the same way

Write the guideline down. Build the rubric from the reference solution after looking at about a dozen submissions. Give common mistakes their own items, keep "incorrect" separate from "no answer," and avoid one-off point adjustments.
Calibrate. Everyone grades the same three to five submissions on their own, then compares. Turn each disagreement into a clearer rubric item.
One person approves rubric changes. Graders propose changes in the staff channel; you decide and announce them. Otherwise the rubric forks.
Spot-check every grader. Regrade a small sample from each person, compare score distributions per grader, and fix drift before grades go out.

Creating Rubrics and Grading to Them has more on calibration and writing criteria.

Keeping track

Set an internal deadline a day or two before grades are due to students, so you have time to check.
Track progress where everyone can see it: the grading progress view in Gradescope, or a shared sheet.
Use one staff channel and a short weekly check-in. As the team grows, give each lead a small group.
Make the escalation path clear. Anything unusual (suspected cheating, a student in distress, a dispute) comes to you, and you take it to the instructor.

When work is late

Ask early, privately and in writing, and start by asking what is in the way. Most late grading is a schedule problem, not a motivation problem. Offer a realistic new deadline, or move part of the work to someone else. Keep a short note of what happened in case your instructor asks. If it keeps happening, talk to your instructor rather than quietly doing the work yourself.

Onboarding a new grader

Privacy training (FERPA) before they see any student work.
The course's expectations: hours, deadlines, how to ask questions.
A practice grading set with feedback from you.
Who to ask, and how fast to expect an answer.

Boundaries every grader should know

Graders apply the rubric and write feedback. They do not set policy, grant extensions, decide integrity cases or discuss anyone else's grades.
Privacy: student work and grades stay inside the course tools and the course staff.
Conflicts of interest: nobody grades a friend, roommate or partner. Swap that submission to another grader.
Suspected dishonesty goes to you, and from you to the instructor. Graders don't contact the student about it.

Feedback and thanks

Tell graders specifically what was good about their work ("your comments were clear enough that we got only two regrade requests"), give one thing to improve, and credit them in front of the staff and the instructor. Undergraduate course staff stay, and get better, because of the relationships. Offer to write a reference for anyone who has done good work.

Templates

Assigning the work

"Hi all, Homework 4 grading is open. Q1 and Q2: [name]. Q3: [name]. Q4 and Q5: [name]. That's about 3 hours each. Please grade the 4 calibration submissions by Tuesday 6 pm and post your scores in the grading channel. Internal deadline Friday 5 pm; grades go out Monday. Rubric questions go in the thread, not as new items. Thanks!"

A calibration meeting

"Before anyone grades Q3: 20 minutes on Zoom, Wednesday at 4. Grade submissions 12, 47 and 88 beforehand and bring your scores. We'll settle the differences and lock the rubric."

When work is late

"Hi [name], Q3 shows 40 of 180 graded, and the internal deadline was Friday at 5. Is something blocking you? If you can finish by Sunday noon, great. If not, tell me today and I'll move part of it to someone else. Either is fine; I just need to know."

Thanks and feedback

"[Name], thank you for Q4 and Q5. Your comments were specific enough that we got only two regrade requests. One thing for next time: raise edge cases in the thread before adding rubric items. I'll mention your work to Professor ___."

Coordinating Graders and UCAs

Dividing the work

Getting everyone grading the same way

Keeping track

When work is late

Onboarding a new grader

Boundaries every grader should know

Feedback and thanks

Templates

Assigning the work

A calibration meeting

When work is late

Thanks and feedback

Further reading