This posting is a collection of articles that focus on the assessment and evaluation of student writing. The articles include useful resources such as checklists and evaluation forms to aid in your grading of students' essays and assignments.

Resources from Colorado State University

CSU's Writing Services website is a wealth of information on the creation of written assigments and evaluation of student's written work. Here's the CSU Writing Services website link.

 

Rhetorical Correctness: A Criterion for Evaluating Papers and Essays

By: Robert W. Watson

Perhaps the most difficult task for the educator is to evaluate a student's writing. An important reason for this difficulty is the educator's concern that the evaluation process is too subjective; that is, the "correctness" of a paper is perceived by the student as only the educator's unsupported opinion. This concern usually is the product of habitually seeing education as a process of right or wrong answers, whether this perception is viewed by the educator or by the student. While objective tests can examine the student's comprehension about facts and figures, written papers about divergent knowledge offer a challenge, because the student's paper cannot be evaluated by the same criterion as a true-false test about knowledge that is convergent.

For this reason, writing is given little priority by educational technocrats, who emphasize processes rather than rhetoric. Objective tests are satisfactory to determine whether a student has minimal knowledge required by the techocrats, and the student's standing can be readily determined by the grading scale. Students are technically and socially trained in order to "fit in American society." However, to employ rhetoric means having to evaluate differences in ideas, which is becoming more politically unacceptable in the schools, because differences create friction. In order to get a job, a student does not have to struggle with words or with ideas.

An objective scale is impossible for evaluating writing. In reality, like the mythological "average student," there is no such thing as an average paper. The reason is because papers deal with ideas, not with answers. Ideas cannot be viewed in terms of being average or above-average, but only as being clear and logical, or unclear and illogical. Ideas may express truth or error, but never are these ideas "average." Therefore, the evaluation of papers centers on whether the student successfully expresses his ideas in a clear and compelling way. While important to proper communication, grammar is not the emphasis when evaluating the student's work. Only after the educator has considered the presentation of the message are concerns about spelling, grammar, and mechanics addressed. However, since the technocratic establishment is hooked on GPAs, the educator must assign some letter grade in order to appease the misguided makers of policy.

The F paper should be rare. Every student is not so completely devoid of ideas that he cannot organize or discuss a topic. If the student fails, the reason will be his failure to acquire a working knowledge of grammar, and not because the student lacks ideas. The only real question for the evaluator will be to determine the difference between the A, the B, and the C paper. Typically, the difference between mediocre writing and uncommon writing is that the better writer uses transitions between thoughts and uses specific support in the form of examples, illustrations, and anecdotes. The common writer uses language that a politician uses--trite phrases, vague generalities, and noncommittal hedging. The difference between the A and B paper is that the writer of the A paper has written a nearly flawless product.

The Evaluator's Checklist

1. While not necessary, you should consider reading the essay aloud to the student. If the reading reveals weaknesses in logic and grammar, have the student revise the paper before any further evaluation. As you read the paper, the student himself will discover his own errors or lack of logic.

2. The second reading is to find failure in communication.

• Is there a weak thesis or, even worse, no thesis?
• Do the topic sentences fail to prove the thesis?
• Is the support just vague generalizations and not specific?
• Are pronouns used for subjects or objects?
• Are vague nouns used such as "person," "thing," "society," and "event"?

3. Use a check mark to indicate lines that have grammatical or spelling errors. The student is now required to discover his own errors without the educator's "correcting" them for him.

4. You should always create a short paragraph that will serve as the end note.

• Explain what the student is doing right.

• Tell the student what you would liked to have known more about in his paper, but that he failed to say.

• Find one--two at the most--concepts that the student needs to do for the rewrite or next essay.

• End with an encouraging note. Tell the student how pleased you are that he has progressed, how you enjoyed reading this particular essay, or some other appropriate remark. The evaluation ends on a positive note.

5. Assign a letter grade. The following criteria are used by colleges when assigning a grade to the paper. Papers are evaluated for content and organization, as well as for grammar and mechanics. Most college professors assign a failure to any paper with three major errors in grammar. Some colleges are even stricter regarding grammar.

6. Miscellaneous considerations

• Papers should be double-spaced, even when the student writes by hand. The space between the lines allows you to place your comments near the student's idea that needs attention.

• Always have the student rewrite the paper. Students need to learn that the first written product is always a rough draft.

The A essay:

• has a strong central idea (thesis) that is related to the assignment;
• has a clear, logical organization with well developed major points that are supported with concrete and specific evidence;
• uses effective transitions between ideas;
• uses appropriate words composing sophisticated sentences;
• expresses ideas freshly and vividly;
• and is free of mechanical, grammatical, and spelling errors.

The B essay:

• has a strong central idea that is related to the assignment;
• has a clear, logical organization with developed major points, but the supporting evidence may not be especially vivid or thoughtful;
• uses appropriate words accurately, but seldom exhibits an admirable style while the sentences tend to be less sophisticated;
• and has few mechanical, grammatical, and spelling errors that do not distract from the overall message.

The C essay:

• has a central idea that is presented in such a way that the reader understands the writer's purpose;
• has an organization that reveals a plan, but the evidence tends to be general rather than specific or concrete;
• uses common words accurately, but sentences tend to be simplistic and unsophisticated;
• and one or two severe mechanical or grammatical errors.

The F essay will exhibit one or more of the following problems:

• lacks a central idea (no thesis);
• lacks clear organization;
• is not related to the assignment;
• fails to develop main points, or develops them in a repetitious or illogical way;
• fails to use common words accurately;
• uses a limited vocabulary in that chosen words fail to serve the writer's purpose;
• or has three or more mechanical or grammatical errors.

Major errors in grammar: The following are considered major errors in grammar.

• Fragment
• Comma slice, or fused sentence
• Subject-verb agreement
• Pronoun-antecedent agreement or pronoun reference

 

MARKING and GRADING

Philosophy Courses, Joseph A. Buijs (University of Alberta)

Philosophical writing strives for clarity, conciseness, coherence, critical insight, and cogency. Keeping these goals in mind, written assignments will be evaluated using the following criteria, modified somewhat to suit the scope of specific assignments. See the appropriate Evaluation Sheets for each of the assignments of a course.

Requirements

• Have the requirements for the assignment been included?
  • Use of a Coursepack selection or of a selected reading?
  • Use of additional resources, if required?
  • Mention of a philosophical framework, if needed?

1. Introduction

• Does the introduction give an intelligible presentation of an issue for discussion, its significance, implications or problematic aspect?
• Is there is a clear indication of intent, direction or approach to be developed in the summary, paper, or essay? Is there a thesis-statement or statement of intent: what will be argued?

2. Conclusion

• Does the conclusion contain a clear summary statement: what has been argued?
• Does the conclusion tie in with the stated intention of the introduction?
• In larger papers, is there a recognition of limits, questions or further development?

3. Presentation: Spelling, Grammar, Documentation

• Are there proper margins, spacing, pagination, title page (if needed), etc.?
• Has the assignment been carefully proof-read?
• Is there use of inclusive language where appropriate?
• Are spelling, grammar, diction acceptable according to current conventional Canadian usage?
• Does the format for documentation (footnotes, endnotes or list of references) follow a conventional and consistent usage? Consult a style sheet or Documentation under Assignments for sample references.

4. Exposition: Issue, Argumentation, Research

• Is the issue under discussion clearly stated? Systematically presented?
• Are significant concepts defined or clarified?
• Is supporting argumentation laid out clearly and cogently?
• Is there an accurate and fair interpretation of views? Textually supported, if need be?
• Have relevant and significant resources been used in addition to, or instead of, the Selected Readings of the course?
• Have the resources been used appropriately? Do they support or show what they are intended to support or show?

5. Development: Critique, Defence, Justification

• Has the stated intention or focus been carried out?
• Is there critical assessment and are critical points adequately substantiated or justified?
• Are actual or possible objections considered and addressed?
• Is there an attempt to compare or contrast a reading selected for critical reflection with other similar or related resources?
• Is documentation indeed supplied for facts, claims, viewpoints, quotations or use of resources that need documentation?
• Does the development in a research paper support the conclusion drawn?
• Does the assignment show a personal contribution in terms of originality, understanding, assessment, application, or significance?
• Is there an attempt, if appropriate, to integrate the issue under discussion with other academic areas or personal experience?

The above are intended as guidelines in both writing and assessing written assignments. They do not comprise an exhaustive list of criteria nor a "formula" that guarantees success.

You may wish to consult the Check List for assignments or the sample Evaluation Sheet.

Grading

Written assignments will be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria. However, the mark will be determined on the basis of an overall, composite assessment, rather than any exact proportional weight for individual components. See the sample Evaluation Sheet for further comments on the marking & grading of individual assignments. Marks are assigned according to the following qualitative description and letter grade.

Descriptor	Letter Grade	10 point Equivalent	Grade Point Value	Percent Conversion
Excellent	A+	9.0	4.0	90 - 100
		A	8.5	4.0	85 - 89
		A-	8.0	3.7	80 - 84
Good	B+	7.5	3.3	75 - 79
		B	7.0	3.0	70 - 74
		B-	6.5	2.7	65 - 69
Satisfactory	C+	6.0	2.3	60 - 64
		C	5.5	2.0	55 - 59
		C-	5.0	1.7	50 - 54
Poor	D+	4.5	1.3	45 - 49
		D	4.0	1.0	40 - 44
Failure	F	---	0	0 - 39

The marks for individual components of the course are weighted according to the percentage assigned to them for the course. That is, the mark out-of-ten for each assignment is multiplied by an appropriate factor and then totalled. The total percentage mark is then converted into the letter grading system in part according to the above conversion scale.

However, the conversion scale is only "a rough mathematical guideline". The assessment of course grades may include, in addition to raw scores for written assignments, mid-term test, final exam, and other components of the course, such other qualitative considerations as overall class performance, individual improvement and class participation. However, individual grades will not be determined on the basis of a curve or scale according to some preassigned distribution.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that overall Grade Point Averages for a course in the Faculty of Arts could be expected to approximate the following:

a mean of 2.62 and median grade of B- for 1^st year, 100-level courses
a mean of 2.83 and median grade of B for 2^nd year, 200-level courses
a mean of 3.00 and median grade of B for 3^nd year, 300-level courses
a mean of 3.11 and median grade of B+ for 4^th year, 400-level courses

Here are two examples of sets of marks and their likely conversion into a course grade for two different sets of course requirements.

STUDENT A (Phil 339)	Raw Score	Course Weight	Weighted Score & Grade
Take home test # 1	B (7/10)	10%	7
Take home test # 2	B+ (7.5/10)	10%	7.5
Essay	A- (8/10)	40%	32
Final Exam	35 / 40	40%	35
	TOTAL	100%	81.5 = A-

STUDENT B (Phil 101/102)	Raw Score	Course Weight	Weighted Score & Grade
Assignment #1	C- (5/10)	10%	5
Mid-term	11 / 20	20%	11
Assignment #2	B- (6.5/10)	20%	13
Learning Cell	7 / 10	10%	7
Final Exam	25 / 40	40%	25
	TOTAL	100%	61 = C+

Last updated January 4, 2005

How Papers are Graded

GENERAL EVALUATION RUBRIC FOR PAPERS

By: Paul Halsall

Students sometimes do not understand how a paper is graded. The explanation of grading here derives from standards for Advanced Placement exams, and is called a "grading rubric". Note that this is the standard expected of good pre-college students. It outlines basic elements of a good paper, and attaches grades to them. The basic grade of a paper derives from its content. The difference between the higher and lower grades here may depend on issues such as presentation.

The Superior Paper (A/A-)

• Thesis: Easily identifiable, plausible, novel, sophisticated, insightful, crystal clear. Structure: Evident, understandable, appropriate for thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Paragraphs support solid topic sentences.
• Use of evidence: Primary source information used to buttress every point with at least one example. Examples support mini-thesis and fit within paragraph. Excellent integration of quoted material into sentences.
• Analysis: Author clearly relates evidence to "mini-thesis" (topic sentence); analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think of the material.
• Logic and argumentation: All ideas in the paper flow logically; the argument is identifiable, reasonable, and sound. Author anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel connections to outside material (from other parts of the class, or other classes) which illuminate thesis.
• Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction excellent; correct use of punctuation and citation style; minimal to no spelling errors; absolutely no run-on sentences or comma splices.

The Good Paper (B+/B)

• Thesis: Promising, but may be slightly unclear, or lacking in insight or originality.
• Structure: Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander occasionally. May have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic sentences.
• Use of evidence: Examples used to support most points. Some evidence does not support point, or may appear where inappropriate. Quotes well integrated into sentences.
• Analysis: Evidence often related to mini-thesis, though links perhaps not very clear.
• Logic and argumentation: Argument of paper is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Some evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not addressed. Occasional insightful connections to outside material made.
• Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction strong despite occasional lapses; punctuation and citation style often used correctly. Some (minor) spelling errors; may have one run-on sentence or comma splice.

The Borderline Paper (B-/C+)

• Thesis: May be unclear (contain many vague terms), appear unoriginal, or offer relatively little that is new; provides little around which to structure the paper.
• Structure: Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around. Few or weak transitions, many paragraphs without topic sentences.
• Use of evidence: Examples used to support some points. Points often lack supporting evidence, or evidence used where inappropriate (often because there may be no clear point). Quotes may be poorly integrated into sentences.
• Analysis: Quotes appear often without analysis relating them to mini-thesis (or there is a weak mini-thesis to support), or analysis offers nothing beyond the quote.
• Logic and argumentation: Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. May not address counter-arguments or make any outside connections.
• Mechanics: Problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction (usually not major). Errors in punctuation, citation style, and spelling. May have several run-on sentences or comma splices.

The "Needs Help" Paper (C/C-)

• Thesis: Difficult to identify at all, may be bland restatement of obvious point.
• Structure: Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent. Transitions confusing and unclear. Few topic sentences.
• Use of evidence: Very few or very weak examples. General failure to support statements, or evidence seems to support no statement. Quotes not integrated into sentences; "plopped in" in improper manner.
• Analysis: Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument; may be no identifiable argument, or no evidence to relate it to.
• Logic and argumentation: Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support. Simplistic view of topic; no effort to grasp possible alternative views.
• Mechanics: Big problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction. Frequent major errors in citation style, punctuation, and spelling. May have many run-on sentences and comma splices.

The Failing Paper

• Shows obviously minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the assignment. Very difficult to understand owing to major problems with mechanics, structure, and analysis. Has no identifiable thesis, or utterly incompetent thesis.

 

Source: Adapted from a internet post by Patrick Rael <prael@polar.Bowdoin.EDU>, " Re: what to say to students", [H-Teach@msu.net], 2 April 1996