SIX-POINT SCORING GUIDE
This scoring guide describes the criteria for evaluating students' portfolios. While the standards address specific elements within individual texts, the final evaluation expresses a holistic evaluation of the complete set of materials. Although faculty use a six-point scale, the evaluations fundamentally divide into two groups: scores of 4-6 indicate a competently written set of texts, meeting standards of quality the faculty expect from students completing their first term at Coe; scores of 1-3 identify portfolios with significant inadequacies in fundamental writing skills.
6 Content: Texts insightfully explore pertinent issues; depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.
Organization: Focused and coherent organization.
Development: Telling details, penetrating examples or comparisons.
Style: Smooth, effective mastery of diction, sentence variety, and transitions.
Editing & Mechanics: Few, if any, errors in mechanics, usage, and sentence structure.
5 Content: Some depth and complexity of thought; worthwhile insights on important issues.
Organization: Effectively organized, coherent writing.
Development: Good development in some passages with supporting details.
Style: Clear, efficient writing, though may lack the originality or power of a 6.
Editing & Mechanics: Diction, sentence structure, & mechanics are solid; few editing errors.
Addresses questions raised and explores issues, though less systematically
Shows clarity of thought but may lack complexity; not arresting in originality or power.
Organization: Reasonable organization, though may be weak in some paragraphing or transitions.
Development: Some effective details; occasionally ideas may be left stranded.
Style: Basic competence in writing; some flexibility and variety in sentence structure.
Editing & Mechanics: Occasional errors in mechanics and sentence structure, but most usage is accurate.
Content: May distort or neglect important dimensions of
issues being discussed; understanding of readings may be
incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading; analysis is often
Organization: tends to be simplistic, mechanical.
Development: Absence of details, insufficient descriptions; examples are obvious or unoriginal.
Style: Errors in sentence structure; limited sentence variety; unsure control of language.
Editing & Mechanics: Errors in usage and mechanics may occasionally interfere with reading.
2 Content: Important tasks ignored or misunderstood; serious difficulty reading & responding to texts; serious errors in reasoning or developing key ideas; contradictions in statements.
Significant structural problems, necessary
material missing or
Development: Writing dominated by cliches and simplistic claims and support.
Style: Some basic composing skills but minimal sentence variety or flexibility.
Editing & Mechanics: Frequent errors in sentence structure, usage, mechanics.
1 Content: Major portions of portfolio not completed; compositions difficult to comprehend
Organization: Overall impression of disorganization and confusion.
Development: Serious difficulties with developing ideas or examples and illustrations.
Style: Writer is not in control of basic conventions of Standard English.
Editing & Mechanics: Consistent, serious faults in sentence structure, usage, mechanics.
PORTFOLIO SCORING SHEET
The portfolio evaluation is based on the
reader's appraisal of each text according to five
1. CONTENT (A top-rated portfolio
demonstrates serious thinking and engagement with topics;
2. ORGANIZATION (Structure of paragraphs and papers appropriate to nature of content)
(Effective use of examples, illustrations,
quotes, details; significant ideas
4. STYLE (Fluency, variety, and flexibility in sentences; good phrasing and word choice)
5. EDITING & MECHANICS
(Prose observes conventions of Standard
English in grammar,
FINAL EVALUATION OF PORTFOLIO (Six-Point Scale)
6 = Cogent, well-articulated compositions; effectively organized & developed.
5 = Clean, clear writing; no major problems.
4 = Adequate writing; some flaws but mastery of most conventions for academic prose.
3 = Marginally competent writing; significant deficiencies in at least one of the five criteria.
2 = Significant deficiencies in at least two of the five criteria.
1 = Significant deficiencies in three or more of the five criteria.
|Return to FYS Portfolio Page|
This web site created and maintained by the Coe Writing Center. Copyright 2001.
E-mail Dr. Bob Marrs with any questions, comments or suggestions.