ge A LL LL

100-90 Ato A-
89-75 B+ to B-
74-60 C+ toC-
59-50 D+ to D-

49-0 F

Note, I said “usually.” This is the first advantage of
this system: You can arrange the scale any way you
want. I, for instance, usually make the B and C range
more generous than the extremes, because that arrange-
ment basically conforms to the grade distribution in most
composition classes—almost an even split between B’s
and C’s, with a sprinkling of A’s, D’s, and F's. In short,
my point system mirrors the reality of my letter system,
and, in essence, helps ensure that it stays that way. It is
important to ensure that the numbers mirror your
judgment, not dictate it.

Which brings us to the heart of the system: how the
writer earns the points. The system preserves flexibility
in the major areas, it allows precision in the minor areas,
and it preserves the balance between major and minor
steps in the writing process and underlines the hierarchy
of values inherent in writing. In sum, it stresses that what
writers write is much more important then how they
write; yet, it still forces attention on the latter since,
cumulatively, Susy can lose up to half the points available
if she does not write in a satisfactory manner.

The point scale is as follows:

Format 10 points
Mechanics 15 points
Readability 25 points
Content 50 points
Total Possible 100 points

in essence, we have a sliding scale of value, where a
good limited topic and excellent detail in its support are
rewarded with the majority of the points; where readabil-
ity (lam especially concerned with organization, transi-
tion, minimizing wordiness, and elimination of
choppiness) is rewarded substantially, not as much as
content, but commensurate with its importance in getting
a message across; and where mechanics and looks, while
of relatively less importance, still total a quarter of the
grade.

The benefits are substantial. First, 50 points in the
content and 25 points in the readability section allow
substantial room for judgment. Next, points can be
deducted in the latter two areas only to a certain point,
but precisely, error by error.

This does several things: It provides at least some “by
the book” objectivity where it is possible to do so; and,

Suanne D. Roveche, Editor

frankly, it avoids two extremes of grading which both
feature over-reliance by the teacher on mechanics. On the
one hand, with this system you will be less tempted to
give a rotten paper a C simply because it is free of
mechanical errors—mainly because the system forces you
to pay attention to basics, too. On the other hand, it
positively inhibits an automatically low grade just for
poor mechanics or format.

My 16 years of experience support my belief that if
Susy loses substantial points in the minor areas, 99 times
out of 100 she is going to also lose points because of major
problems in content and readability. In all cases, how-
ever, this system reinforces the point that really bad
papers suffer from basic problems. So if Susy flunks, she
will not be able to take refuge in this rationalization:
“Well, I have never been any good at this grammar stuff.”

202828

In other words, good, bad, and mediocre papers will
carn the grades they deserve. This system just makes ita
little clearer, if Susy cares to look, about how her paper
earned her that grade. It also preserves your basic
prerogatives of judgment, while circumscribing them just
enough to reinforce the essential motion of a hierarchical
writing process that no one—teacher, student or profes-
sional writer—can ignore.

This system also allows various exceptions and
adjustments. You can, for instance, implement this
system gradually, as a refinement of your standard letter
grading system. (I introduce it in Comp I only toward the
end of the semester, for the last few papers. By that time
the students have grown accustomed to me, to writing,
and to my grading; this scheme then fine tunes and
reinforces everything that has gone before.) The system is
nota panacea. However, at worst it can help keep Susy
from your door, and at best it may actually help clarify
the writing process for her.

©

Robert Lee Mahon, Instructor, English

For further information, contact the author at East Central
College, P. O. Box 529, Union, MO. 63084.

November 12, 1983, Vol XV, No. 28
©The University of Texas at Austn, 1993
Further dupkcation § permitied by MEMBER
wnspiutons for thew own personnel

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS 1s a publication of the Nabonal Ins btute for Staff and Organzatonal Development (NISOD),
Department of Educatonal Adminis traton, Collage of Educaton, EDB 348, The University of Texas al Austn, Aussn, Texas
78712, (512) 471-7545. Funding in part by the W. K Kellogg Foundabon and the Sid W. Richardson Foundation. sued weekly
when classes are in session dunng fall and spnng terms. ISSN 0199-106X