€

VOLUME XV, NUMBER 26

= INNOVATION ABS TRACTS

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZA a sae ELOPMENT ;NISOD;, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN « WITH SUPPORT FROM THE WK KE

UNDATION AND THE SiD W RICHARDSON FOUNDAT O'.

 

A Grading System for Composition Papers

One minor but irritating problem most composition
teachers face involves identifying a method of grading
papers that is demonstrably objective, but not so rigid that
it allows no room for judgment. Put simply, most compo-
sition teachers are constantly pricked with this question
(often unspoken, but nonetheless present): “Why did I get
a B+ on this paper instead of an A?” or “How exactly do
you grade?” or “Why did I get this C?”

Of course, if the professor is using a strict numerical
system, he can simply beg the question: “Well, Susy, that
is pretty obvious: You have a 77 on the paper, and that
translates toa C.” And indeed she did. And she probably
would not have the nerve to ask the next logical question:
“Why 77?” But if she did, the answer might be: “Well,
Susy, if you go through the paper, you will see that you
lost three points in the first paragraph for three misspelled
words, five points on page two for a comma splice, 10
more points for ....” So Susy will go away. But she does
not accept the explanation.

Grading papers using a strict point-by-point scale is
grading with mirrors. It conveys the image of pure
objectivity in dealing with a craft that is subjective,
intuitive, judgmental, and a complex interplay of the
rational and the emotional. From ongin (the best ideas for
topics “come” to the writer) to end product (the reader
“responds” ), we are in a no-man’s land of relativity. Any
teacher who attempts to ensure order and fairness with
numbers in the game of writing is as deluded as a physi-
cist who attempts to apply Newtonian principles to
quantum mechanics.

Even worse, doing it by the numbers tends to focus on
those parts of the trade-like paper format, mechanics, and
organization—that are, to some extent, governed by hard-
and-fast rules, which can then be quantified by the
teacher. Unfortunately, this focus distracts both teacher
and student from the basics of writing: informing and
entertaining. One of my colleagues, for instance, requires
one-inch margins, an outline with each paper, no major
mechanical errors, various other impedimentia; and he
has a strict point system for enforcing those rules. While
all this may contribute to Susy’s appreciation of the finer
points of writing (at whatever cost to the basics); while she
may in fact be comforted by being able to see the rules, go
by the rules, and be graded by the rules; and while he can

Sh |

certainly justify Susy’s C, what has happened to the spirit
of her writing?

Most of us who eschew the Scylla of the numbers game
risk the Charbydis of letters. When we, as most composi-
tion teachers do, use a pure letter system, complete with
pluses and minuses, we are uncomfortably aware that to a
certain degree it is subjective, based on sound judgment,
we like to think, and fundamentally fair. (The few times I
have had occasion to compare grades with a colleague, the
differences turned out to be minor. In fact, on the occa-
sions when a student has taken a paper to a jury of his
peers—an appeals policy | use in composition—the jury
has come close to my grade more than 80 percent of the
time.)

But still: Why did Susy get that C? Let us be honest, if
not with Susy, then with ourselves. One of the major
reasons most composition teachers rely on letters rather
than on numbers is precisely because the system is
subjective. That is, it preserves what we think—cor-
rectly—is a necessary flexibility in judging a product that
results, after all, from a complex combination of craft and
art, rationality and intuition; and that results, in other
words, from following the rules and yet knowing when to
bend or even break them.

So I am about to propose a hybrid—combining num-
bers and letters. It is no panacea, but it still offers several
advantages over cither used exclusively. To begin, this
hybrid’s numbers are an illusion; that is, while the system
provides a measure of objectivity and some comfort for
those students who can be so comforted (thus perhaps
defusing Susy before she ever gets to the office), it still
preserves flexibility. In essence, what | propose is a
camouflaged letter system. Finally, though, as the system
is weighted, it has two other advantages: It provides a
certain order and objectivity to the grade; but because the
work eams points on a sliding scale tied to the writing
process, it also underlines the relative importance of the
various steps in that process. It works like this.

22B28

1 explain that each paper is graded on a 100-point
system, and | carefully show how the points earned
convert to the final letter grade. Usually, my conversion
scale is as follows:

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Administration

at College of Educaton, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austn, Texas 78712