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