| |
Evaluation Criteria
These criteria were developed collaboratively by the teaching
staff and administrators of PWR. By following these criteria,
instructors can maintain consistent evaluation standards among
and within classes as well as ensure that students are gaining
the skills outlined in the PWR Goals and Principles Statement.
These criteria can also serve as prompts for developing a general
syllabus statement about evaluation as well as assignment-specific
evaluation criteria. (Note: We will continue to work on adapting
these criteria to PWR 2 during the Summer Institute and throughout
the year.)
The following descriptions delineate the expectations and evaluation
standards of the Stanford Program in Writing and Rhetoric:
Successful writers carefully take into account the rhetorical
situation (purpose, audience, persona) in which
their writing will function, developing the compositional
elements (content, organization, style, and form)
in response to the demands and boundaries set by the particular
writing task. Rhetorically-aware and effective writing thus
cannot be reduced to a formula, but is better conceptualized
and assessed as the dynamic play of the writer’s choices
among the available composing strategies.
The descriptions below aim to explore this dynamic through listing
and reflecting on some traditional terms of rhetoric and composition.
A Excellent. Writing or oral/multimedia presentation is of
consistently outstanding quality, addressing a complex and significant
topic and successfully handling the complex interaction among
topic, audience, purpose, and persona in relation to content,
organization, style, and form.
- Topic – a clearly focused approach to a complex and
significant subject, which effectively frames and illuminates
the topic in surprising and informative ways
- Audience– a sophisticated understanding
of their values, assumptions, and expectations
- Content– sustained arguments that are
well-supported with multiple forms of evidence and “good
reasons,” fully developed with strategies such as analogy
and illustration (and in research-based writing, demonstrating
a sophisticated understanding of and ability to use, evaluate,
and integrate a wide range of source materials)
- Form – strong control of the conventions of academic
discourse: format, syntax, paragraph structure, punctuation,
diction, mechanics, documentation. The control is strong
enough to allow the writer to push the boundaries of the conventions
in imaginative and effective ways, especially in oral/multimedia
presentations.
- Organization– a clear and imaginative
structure or pattern that provides coherence, leads the audience
from idea to idea, clarifying relationships and connections,
and shows a mature awareness of genre and media
- Persona– a rhetorical stance and
voice that serve the purpose and appeal effectively to the
audience, whether that audience is listening to or reading
the work of the writer.????
- Purpose– a carefully articulated,
achievable aim (or aims)
- Style– varied and forceful sentences,
purposeful and apt diction, and appropriate and carefully-nuanced
tone that expresses the personality (ethos) of the writer
and engages the audience
B Good. Writing or oral/multimedia presentation is of consistently
good quality, addressing an appropriate and significant topic
and competently handling the complex interaction among topic,
audience, purpose, and persona in relation to content, organization,
style, and form.
- Topic– a clearly focused approach
to a significant subject
- Audience– a general awareness though
not an in-depth understanding of their values, assumptions,
and expectations
- Content– sustained arguments generally
supported with evidence and “good reasons,” developed
with strategies such an analogy and illustration (and in research-based
writing, demonstrating an understanding of and ability to use,
evaluate, and integrate a wide range of source materials)
- Form– generally strong control of
the conventions of academic discourse: format, syntax, paragraph
structure, diction, punctuation, mechanics, documentation
- Organization– a clear structure or
pattern that provides coherence, generally leads the audience
from idea to idea, clarifying relationships and connections,
and shows awareness of genre
- Persona– a rhetorical stance and
voice that generally serve the purpose and appeal to the audience
- Purpose – a clear though not fully articulated or
achievable aim (or aims)
- Style – varied sentences, apt diction, and appropriate
tone that expresses the personality (ethos) of the writer
and attempts to engage the audience
C Average. Writing or oral/multimedia presentation is of average
quality, addressing an acceptable but general topic and formulaically
handling the interaction among topic, audience, purpose, and
persona in relation to content, organization, style, and form.
- Topic – a general approach to an insufficiently-focused
subject
- Audience – a limited awareness of their values, assumptions,
and expectations
- Content – inconsistently-sustained arguments supported
with general evidence and weak logic, insufficiently developed
with diverse rhetorical strategies (and in research-based
writing, not demonstrating a clear understanding of and ability
to use, evaluate, and integrate a wide range of sources)
- Form – inconsistent control of the conventions of
academic discourse: format, syntax, paragraph structure, punctuation,
mechanics, diction, documentation
- Organization – a general structure or pattern that
provides some coherence, inconsistently leading the audience
from idea to idea and showing a limited awareness of genre
- Persona – a rhetorical stance and voice that do not
consistently serve the purpose and appeal to the audience
- Purpose – over-generalized or scattered aim (or aims)
- Style – unvaried sentences, limited and repetitive
diction, and uneven or inappropriate tone that does not effectively
express the personality (ethos) of the writer or effectively
engage the audience
D Poor. Writing or oral/multimedia presentation is of poor
quality throughout, or work is incomplete.
NP No Pass. Writing does not meet the basic requirements of
the assignment or has been turned in late.
These criteria should guide you in creating the evaluation statement
for your own syllabus. You probably will not want to include
the fully elaborated statement above, but be sure that your evaluation
statement is consistent with the PWR criteria.
|
back
to table of contents
|
|
|
 |
|
