EVALUATING STUDENT ESSAYS

In the introduction to Contemporary Rhetoric: Conceptual Background with Readings, W. Ross Winterowd notes, "The factors involved in writing are overwhelmingly numerous and unknown" and work by "processes we only dimly understand." One thing we know for sure, he says, is that feedback is essential. That’s why it’s important to structure our classes to allow time for response, by both teacher and peers.  As teachers of writing, however, we have a dilemma.  Eventually we know (as do our students) that we will become the final grade-givers.  Our role then as givers of feedback is a dual one comprised of responding to essays and grading them.  Recognizing the difference is crucial.

Responding

Intervening in the writing process, or responding to drafts before grading, is one way to make this process constructive.  In our classes, it should be rare that we assign a grade to a paper we have not discussed with the student.  It should be rare, too, that other students--for example in response groups or in pairs--have not read and commented on a paper before it is graded.  These peer responses can range from informal questions ("What would you like to hear more about?") to detailed worksheets.  Regardless, students will need guidance in learning how to become good responders.  (See the advice in this handbook on peer response.)

In commenting on student papers, we should remember that students learn through approval and a sense of accomplishment, not just from dissatisfaction with their shortcomings.  Our initial comments should try to address what is right (not wrong) with the paper, what are its strengths and potentials (rather than where it fell short).  We need to be honest, of course, but positive, too.  Consider the student’s point of view during the early stages of class: What is the point of revising an essay that the teacher has deemed worthless?  Why try to learn to write if one must always fall short?  In most student writing there is something that can begin a discussion of the work either in its substance (informative, interesting examples, clear structure) or presentation (with certainty, with humor, with a fresh insight).  When we find and comment on a positive quality of the paper, we not only encourage the student, but we make it more likely that these positive features will reappear in other essays.  We aim to reinforce these positive qualities as well as to discourage or eliminate error.  If we look at essays with an eye to revision, it is often easier to respond positively.

Grading

Eventually we become graders.  This is easier if we have used intervention techniques of response and encouraged revision.  It is easier, too, if we have already done some grading sessions with students.  You might distribute your grading guide to students or have them define their own criteria for what makes a good essay.  Then read several pieces of writing--preferably not from that particular class--and discuss their strengths and weaknesses and assign a grade.

SAMPLE GRADING GUIDE FOR ESSAYS

This is adapted from a grading guide developed by William Irmscher, who evaluated in five areas; content, form, diction, correctness, and style.  This guide focuses on content, form, rhetorical awareness, mechanics, and style and diction (language awareness.) Note that this is only a general guide and that the context and nature of the specific assignment will suggest additional (or other) criteria.

A = Demonstrates high competence

¨    An ability to be reflective and thus gain insights that are personal and often illuminating.

¨    A capacity to develop ideas flexibly and fluently, yet with control and purpose.

¨    A strong rhetorical awareness and considerable success in dealing with the exigencies of audience, purpose, and subject matter.

¨    Written fluency; an ability to use punctuation rhetorically, for effect as well as for clarity.

¨    A willingness to be inventive with words and structures in order to produce a clearly identifiable style, even though at times the efforts may be too deliberate or fall short of the writer's intentions.  A special concern for—and often delight in—language.

B = Demonstrates Competence 

¨    An ability to absorb ideas and experience and to interpret them meaningfully in a context of the writer's own conceptions.

¨    A capacity to develop an idea with a clear sense of order.

¨    Demonstrates some rhetorical awareness: text is designed with an audience and purpose in mind.

¨    An ability to use mechanics as an integral part of the meaning and effect of the prose.

¨    A capacity to draw upon words adequate to convey the writer’s own thoughts and feelings; ability to weigh alternate ways of expression as a means of making stylistic choices possible.

C = Suggests Competence

¨    Tends to depend on the self-evident and the cliché; Discourse is often uninformative.

¨    Problems with organization.  Organizational plan is obvious and perhaps inappropriate (e.g, five-paragraph essay), OR essay is produced aimlessly, apparently without a plan.

¨    Sense of audience and purpose is erratic or incompletely worked out.  Although there may be some audience appeal, most of the writing is writer-based.

¨    An ability to use mechanics correctly or incorrectly in proportion to the plainness or complexity of the style.  (i.e., sentences may be kept short, simple, and fairly correct; or sentences are longer and more complex, but with more errors.)

¨    A limited range of words and expressions, leading to tedious repetition or dependence on cliches.  A general unawareness of choices that affect style and thus an inability to control the effects a writer may seek.

D = Suggests Incompetence

¨    Tends to exploit the obvious.  Suggests lack of understanding, difficulty with reading, failure to grapple with a topic, or lack of interest.  Content is generally superficial.

¨    Demonstrates rudimentary or confused development and organization.  The paper tends to wander aimlessly because of a lack of overall conception, OR it may have a semblance of form without the development that makes the parts a whole.

¨    At best, a vague sense of audience and purpose; little success in pursuing the purpose consistently and appropriately for an audience.

¨    Frequent failure to make careful distinction among periods, commas, and semicolons; difficulty with standard usage.  High incidence of error in all but the shortest and simplest sentences.

¨    Either a tendency to write highly convoluted sentences that are close to the rapid associations of our thoughts before we straighten them out, OR a tendency to play safe by avoiding the sentence elements that invite error (introductory modifiers, embedding, coordination, and various other sentence-combining techniques).  Likewise, an attempt to “play safe” with words seriously limits the writer’s ability to express ideas.

F = Demonstrates Incompetence in all or most of the five areas