![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
SIX-POINT SCORING GUIDE FYS Portfolios 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.
4 Content:
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.
3
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.
Organization:
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 Student: Instructor:
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)
3.
DEVELOPMENT
(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.
Concluding Comments
|
||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||