The article that
I found to be the most handy/in-tune to my own experiences, practices and
policies was Peter Elbow’s “Good Enough Evaluation.” In the first few semesters
of teaching, I quickly began to realize that I was a obstinate grammar snob,
and this was a defect when it came to effective grading/assessment of student
papers, as I struggled to look past the stylistic, grammatical and mechanical
problems. My “value” in grammar inevitably eclipsed anything else that the
paper did well. As Elbow points out:
Conventional single number grades cannot fairly represent the
quality of multidimensional pieces of writing. Conventional grades inevitably
mask different teachers’ differential weightings. For example, one teacher
might give a B minus to a piece of writing that is brilliant but careless: it’s
poorly organized and has quite a few tangled sentences and lots of surface
mistakes. The same teacher might give a C or lower to a paper very careful
(clear, well organized, and without mistakes), but deeply perfunctory or
shallow in thinking. Yet another teacher with different values would give those
two papers exactly the opposite grades. (3)
Since I started using a grading rubric that emphasized every
facet of good writing, evaluated the “various dimensions” of the piece, I think
my grading has vastly improved and become much more unbiased, fair and logical.
The fear that a lot of teachers have about using a rubric as it can lead to a
more time-consuming grading exercise is real in the beginning. But in the long
term, it proves to be a lot less confusing than conventional single number
grading, more satisfactory in term of personal gratification, and also far more
beneficial to student development, as it enables students in understanding their
grades better.
Also, “there is no need for all teachers to agree on one set of criteria
for course grids. Indeed, teachers should make their own decisions about what
dimensions of performance are most important for their course” (10), or for
that matter, for each assignment. I tweak my scoring guide depending on the
assignment that I have at hand. Each rubric takes into account all the skills
that I want the students to learn from a particular unit/process. I do include
a “single number holistic grade,” which is the percentage of the total points
for the different criteria that the student gets to the total points.
I am attaching
my general scoring rubric that I use in my classes for assessing papers.
English Composition: A
Scoring Guide
|
|
4 =
Excellent
|
3 = Good
|
2 = Fair
|
1 = Poor
|
|
Score
|
Total
|
|
Criterion 1:
Subject, Audience, and Purpose
|
The essay’s subject is significant and manageable; the writer remains
focused on the essay’s purpose, as expressed in a thesis statement and
directs the paper to an appropriate audience.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
Criterion 2:
Elements of Reasoning
|
The essay considers the elements of good reasoning as it poses an
appropriate question or problem, identifies
any key concepts, uses evidence or examples, examines various points of view,
questions assumptions, draws conclusions, and analyzes the possible
consequences or implications of those conclusions.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
Criterion 3:
Organization and Development
|
The essay is carefully and strategically structured. Body paragraphs
effectively develop and support the thesis. Transitions and hooks meld the
essay together. Smooth flow exists between ideas.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
Criterion 4:
Source Selection
|
The essay includes sources that are relevant to the writer’s topic
and purpose, and sources are reputable, credible, and timely.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
Criterion 5:
Integration and Documentation of Sources
|
Use of sources supports thesis and/or topic sentences. Sources
are effectively and smoothly integrated into the essay, with accurate signal
phrases, accurate summary/paraphrase/quotations, and in-text citation
consistent to the established style (e.g., MLA, APA, CMS). End-text
documentation (e.g., list of works cited, references, or bibliography)
adheres to conventions.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
Criterion 6:
Sentence Structure, Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics
|
Not only is the essay relatively free of errors in grammar, usage,
and mechanics ,but it demonstrates an understanding of the language including
appropriate and precise diction and syntax variety.
|
|
4
3
2
1
|
|
|||
|
|
Communicating = C1, C3, C6 Higher Order Thinking = C1, C2,
C4 Information Management= C4,
C5
|
|
Total
|
|
|||
This is very helpful, Kavita. I too had trouble getting past stylistic and grammar issues in student papers to evaluate the content underneath. I had essentially convinced myself, "Well, if the style isn't there, the content isn't there either." Which in many cases was true. However, at JCC I'd get ESL students or students who struggled with dyslexia or something, and I'd be able to tell that interesting and insightful ideas WERE there. At the same time, I'd get a paper with clear writing that obeyed all the grammar rules, but which had a thesis statement that basically said, "Don't text and drive." Typically, I put extra weight on the complexity of the essay when I'm evaluating.
ReplyDeleteI too had students who had troubles with grammar and other mechanical stuff, but I learnt that there is content past these issues, and using a rubric greatly helped me to remember to weigh in all the different things.
DeleteI like the criterion break-down, especially the descriptions. It's possible the formatting is just obscured on this blog, but is the point distribution that you give to each section equal, in that proper grammar and usage is just as weighted as Criterion 1 and 2?
ReplyDeleteNice work!
Yes Steve, all criteria are given equal importance. But again, according to the assignment at hand, I change the point distribution quite a bit. I just could not fix the format on this blog :-(
ReplyDelete