• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!



Page history last edited by PBworks 16 years, 6 months ago

Although each specific technical writing performance has it's own context (rhetorical situation) and criteria of value by which each unique case should be assessed, they following template will give us an initial framework for making distinctions and assessing the efficacy of our work:


These grading standards establish five major criteria for evaluation at each grade level, from an "A" grade all the way down:


1. purpose and resonance

2. reasoning and content

3. structure/organization

4. expression


Of course, every composition will not fit neatly into one grade category; some essays may, for instance, have some characteristics of B and some of C. The final grade the essay receives depends on the weight the grader gives each criterion. At the same time, in keeping with ENC 4260's emphasis on the rhetorical dimension of technical writing practice, resonating with a particular group of users and their purpose/context is top priority.


The A "paper"


1. The A paper fulfills the assignment with purposeful language, images, and sound. This piece effectively meets the needs of the rhetorical situation in terms of establishing the writer's stance, attention to audience, purpose for writing, and sensitivity to context. When appropriate to the assignment, the writer demonstrates expertise in employing the artistic appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos appropriately and even deftly.

2. The topic itself is clearly defined, focused, and supported. The piece has a clear thesis that is supported with specific (and appropriate) evidence, examples, and details. Any outside sources of information are used carefully and cited appropriately, but freely, with a working knowledge of the creative commons. Valid reasoning is accompanied by sound rhetorical choices and an awareness of the topic's complexities.

3. The organization--chronological, spatial, or emphatic--is appropriate for the purpose and subject of the piece and the medium of delivery, wiki (links, links, and more links!). The introduction establishes a context, purpose, and audience for writing and contains a focused thesis statement. The following paragraphs are controlled by (explicit or implicit) topic sentences; they are well developed; and they progress logically from what precedes them. (If appropriate, headings and subheadings are used.) The conclusion moves beyond a mere restatement of the introduction, offering implications for or the significance of the topic.

4. The prose is clear, readable, and sometimes memorable. It contains few surface errors, none of which seriously undermines the overall effectiveness of the paper for educated readers. It demonstrates fluency in stylistic flourishes (subordination, variation of sentence and paragraph lengths, interesting vocabulary), blends well with still and moving images and sound. Transitions effectively gather and direct attention.


The B


1. The B follows and fulfills the assignment. The essay establishes the writer's stance and demonstrates a clear sense of audience, purpose, and context.

2. The topic is fairly well defined, focused, and supported. The thesis statement is adequate (but could be sharpened), especially for the quality of supporting evidence the writer has used. The reasoning and support are thorough and more than adequate. The writer demonstrates a thoughtful awareness of complexity and other points of view.

3. The B essay has an effective introduction and conclusion. The order of information is logical, and the reader can follow it because of well-chosen transitions and (explicit or implicit) topic sentences. Paragraph divisions are logical, and the paragraphs use enough specific detail to satisfy the reader. The writer demonstrates a thoughtful awareness of multimedia compositional technique and appeals.

4. The prose expression is clear and readable. Sentence structure is appropriate for educated readers, including the appropriate use of subordination, emphasis, varied sentences, and modifiers. Few sentence-level errors (comma splices, fragments, or fused sentences) appear. Vocabulary is precise and appropriate to context. Punctuation, usage, spelling, and the ratio of words to images/sounds conforms to the conventions preferred by the audience the writer hopes to enjoin. Transitions are in place and direct reader attention adequately.


The C


1. The assignment has been followed, and the essay demonstrates a measure of response to the rhetorical situation, in so far as the essay demonstrates some sense of audience and purpose.

2. The topic is defined only generally; the thesis statement is also general. The supporting evidence, gathered honestly and used responsibly, is, nevertheless, often obvious and easily accessible. The writer demonstrates little awareness of the topic's complexity or other points of view; therefore, the C essay usually exhibits minor imperfections or inconsistencies in development, organization, and reasoning.

3. The organization is fairly clear. The reader could outline the presentation, despite the occasional lack of topic sentences. Paragraphs have adequate development and are divided appropriately. Transitions may be mechanical, but they foster coherence. However, missed opportunities to create appeals, links, and attention distract the reader.

4. The expression is competent. Sentence structure is relatively simple, relying on simple and compound sentences. The paper is generally free of sentence-level errors; word choice is limited or inconsistent. The essay contains errors in spelling, usage, and punctuation, and the writer misses easy opportunities to explore the interactive and rich-media potential of the wiki medium.


The D


1. The D essay attempts to follow the assignment, but demonstrates little awareness of the rhetorical situation in terms of the writer's stance, audience, purpose, and context. For example, the essay might over- or under-estimate (or ignore) the audience's prior knowledge, assumptions, or beliefs. The writer may have little sense of purpose.

2. The essay may not have any thesis statement, or, at best, a flawed one. Obvious evidence may be missing, and irrelevant evident may be present. Whatever the status of the evidence, it is inadequately interpreted and rests on an insufficient understanding of the rhetorical situation. Or it may rely too heavily on evidence from published sources without adding original analysis.

3. Organization is simply deficient: introductions or conclusions are not clearly marked or functional; paragraphs are neither coherently developed nor arranged; topic sentences are consistently missing, murky, or inappropriate; transitions are missing or flawed.

4. The D essay may have numerous and consistent errors in spelling, usage, and punctuation, and the writer fails to enact the interactive and rich-media potential of the medium.


The F


1. The F essay is inappropriate in terms of the purpose of the assignment and the rhetorical situation. If the essay relates vaguely to the assignment, it has no clear purpose or direction.

2. The essay falls seriously short of the minimum length requirements; therefore, it is insufficiently developed and does not go beyond the obvious.

3. The F essay is plagued by more than one of the organizational deficiencies of a D essay.

4. Numerous and consistent errors of spelling, usage, and punctuation hinder communication, and the writer disregards or fails to leverage the interactive and rich-media potential of the medium.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.