General
Grading
Criteria for Nonfiction
Admittedly,
with creative works, once we get past the fairly objective evaluations
one can make about the basic mechanics of writing, we enter the arena
of art where evaluations are essentially subjective judgments. Still, I
do have the advantage of approaching your stories in the same way I did
the stories of dozens and dozens of reporters during my more than 20
years in the news biz. It is my hope that much of the discussion and
analysis of literary journalism will drive the way you write and the
way I think about your writing when it comes to the onerous task of
grading another's creative work. Given that, here is an
as-objective-as-possible rubric for grading your work.
A
This is simply just great work. I am ready to run down the hall and
yell “I have the next Hemingway or Didion in my class. I hope she
remembers me when she’s famous.” The work far surpasses the basic
requisites of the assignment in what if offers and in the understanding
and communication of that information. It is well written, with few or
no mechanical errors, it is a product of original and deep thinking,
its driving idea is well-focused and sustained throughout by prose
larded with lush but coherent prose. If this is a presentation, it
shows an excellent grasp of the subject, it is well organized and
professional, reveals some rehearsal on the presenter’s part and, if
relevant, includes relevant visual aids and handouts.
B
Above average in its fulfilling of the basic requirements. It contains
only a handful of mechanical errors. It reveals a well-focused and
well-supported idea, but it reveals a paucity of original thinking. The
writing is rhythmic and the expression is clear. If this involves a
presentation, it shows the presenter is knowledgeable about his topic.
Presentation my be a bit clumsy and the visual aids and handouts may
lack relevance.
C
Barely meets the requirements of the assignment requirements and
reveals a lack of understanding of the subject. Main idea lacks focus
and
adequate sustaining evidence. Thinking is not original and possibly
parodical. Language is hackneyed and pedestrian. Writing is poorly done
and ideas are disjointed. There are many mechanical errors, poor
sentence construction, disjointed flow of ideas, frequent mechanical
errors. If a presentation, it shows that the presenter has some
knowledge but it is poorly presented. Aids are wholly inadequate.
D
Far from meeting requirements. Effort looks like it was done the night
before. Mechanical errors are many and there is no original thinking
going on here. If a presentation, it shows a total lack of
understanding of topic and is probably incomplete. Appears it was put
together the night before. Relevant aids lacking or wholly inadequate.
F
Failing, late or missing work,
often a reflection of constant tardiness, lack of preparation and
study, and many absences from class. |