A Grading Algorithm

script by Marvin Simkin

Now that we've finished remixing, we will create a evaluation sign-up page, or GradingHub. Let's use our RemixGrid as a template: once three people have signed on to evaluate an assignment, that particular spoke on the grading hub is closed. Each of us will evaluate three projects. For the narrative assignment, projects include the following elements:

1) an "original" narrative

2) remixing activity, distributed across three peer narratives

3) a revised "final" narrative. If step 2 involved significant remixing, step 3 can take step 2 further, and present a "final" narrative deriving from remixing activity. Crucial: careful attribution and citation.

Consider all three elements together, and provide a rationale for the points you award to the overall rhetorical performance. Here's a recipe for grading:

DAY ONE

(1) Set aside at least an hour. You may not need it, but it will be good to have the time.

(2) Scan, skim, browse, and then, read through the project carefully. Now read it again. If you spot spelling, stylistic or grammatical errors, fix them (make sure that you are logged in under "user settings," first). This way you have not only judged the project but also improved it. If there are places that you feel ought to respond to CounterArguments or tropes not entertained by the writer, make links and name and/or include them. Remember, CounterArguments aren't necessarily antagonistic, and you should probably only dock points if an obviously available common-place is elided or neglected. Try to compress the narrative into an enthymeme with a major and minor premise.

(3) Ask yourself the following questions, and keep track your responses in the word processor or text editor of your choice: Do I want to read it again? Do I understand it's purpose? Would a recognizable community of users understand the writer's purpose? Test your answer with some research. Do I want to actualize any of the goals of the paper? Are these goals ascertainable, that is, can I find the document's "starting points" and assumptions (premises). Can I recognize and follow the lines of narrative, argument, and inquiry it promises and endeavors to develop, can I follow the directives it offers to users? Have I come away from the narrative with a fresh perspective on the topic(s)?

(5) How well does the wiki space you are engaging and evaluating draw from and deploy relevant tools of narrative and argument for its case? Can I find places where the narrative could have been strengthened? Was the space composed in an accessible manner? Was it designed for ease of use? Use the language developed in this course to discuss these moments in the rationale you write to support the number of points you assign to the project under review.

6) Now trace the remixing activity performed by the narrative project under review. How effective is this rhetorical performance? Some revisions aim to introduce new ideas to peer narratives in process. Are these sharp remixes stimulating? Other revisions amplify the plot, tropes, and patterns already at work in the narratives they select and remix. Do these remixes improve the found original, or in any way open up the work in progress in ways that make it easier for others to revise? Most of us also query narratives in progress, and make suggestions for revision. Consider the efficacy of these communications, as well.

More about the text you will write for each grade you assign: what grade does the project persuade you to give it? Why? How? Think of this as a short causal argument: "This paper caused me to give it a "17 out of 20 points" because...." Post your evaluation to the wiki.

DAY 2 (subject to revision)

7) Now, having prepared an easy-to-follow rationale, that is, now that you have compiled the responses you tracked as a form of support the grade you calculated, arrange an instant message session with the peers who selected the same site for evaluation. In your respective browsers, open the space you have evaluated and will now evaluate together. Discuss the different aspects of the space that you both noticed and wrote about in your intitial evaluations, or an aspect of the space that one of you emphasized, and the other did not, or some dimension of the space that neither of you noticed until now. Record this session and mix it into the wiki. Set aside 30 minutes for this process.

Looking ahead

For group-composed major assignments, groups will grade other groups. For smaller individual assignments, peers will self-select by choosing a link on a "finished" assignment page.

This grading algorithm, like everything else on the wiki, is open to addition, subtraction and revision. Item number six is both necessary and sufficient to the algorithm. Each member of the class must grade at least one project other than (or in addition to) their own, and your grading efforts will themselves be graded and folded into your final class grade.

GradingGrid

4311 Grading Rubrics

compressed and remixed for ease-of-use

Meghan's Rubric

Richard's system