Jon's
Totally Unscientific and Idiosyncratic Grading Guidelines
First, some things to remember:
- Grading
guidelines should be contingent on the nature and length
of the assignment. A two page paper will be asking for
something different than an eight page paper, for example.
In the same way, a research paper will be asking for
a different kind of writing than a position paper or
close textual analysis paper.
- Your
grading standards can change throughout the quarter-you
might grade a bit more rigorously on the first paper
to get students to work harder, for example.
- Although
your job is ostensibly teaching and evaluating literary
analysis, like it or not, you're also a writing instructor--grading
is a balancing act between these two roles.
- Grading
is finally subjective-and your students know this. Be
explicit about what you're looking for.
-
teaches
me something new
-
"original"
idea or synthesis of ideas that takes course material
beyond lecture/discussion
-
not
limited by a vague assignment, does justice to a sophisticated
assignment
-
specific,
"risky" thesis that is supported abundantly
and effectively
-
clear,
effective prose with precise diction, distinctive voice,
and consistent point of view
- knows
when to shut up
A B
paper--"okay..."
- capable
reproduction of ideas covered in class, or interesting,
but slightly misguided ideas
- engages
assignment, but in a limited way
- thesis
is there, but maybe a little too broad, or not concisely
stated; support sometimes inappropriate or sparse
- readable
prose that communicates ideas capably with a few grammatical
or sentence variation problem
- can
usually be described as either "awkward insight"
or "glib mediocrity"
- not
much critical thought
- potentially
productive ideas hampered by organizational problems
- consistently
avoids or misunderstands assignment or question
- thesis
either extremely superficial or nearly invisible; little
textual support, ample plot summary
- choppy,
imprecise prose that hampers communication of ideas
A D - F paper--"oh, no!"
- ideas
either incoherent or totally irrelevant to assignment
- organizational
disaster
- no
thesis
- no
relevant textual support
- no
continuity in the presentation of ideas
- poor
prose with abundant grammatical, syntactical, and spelling
errors
Jon
Hegglund, UC Santa Barbara Department of English, 1998
|
Resource
Description
|
| Author/Artist:
Adapted from the English Department TA Handbook.
Edited by Zia Isola |
Media: |
| Date
of Composition: Summer 2003 |
Dimensions: |
| Original
Course: |
Bibliographic
Information: |
| Description:TA
Handbook |
Location
of Artifact: |
| Category:
TA Training |
Date
of Publication/Exhibition: |
Period/MA
Field:
|
Keywords:
teaching strategies, grading, grade logic, TA
training |
|
| |
|
|
