Running Head: Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 1

Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria

D18
Chandler Gilbert Community-College
Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 2

Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria

The evaluation processes a student undergoes is typically a formal conclusion in which

the student is graded. Myself and many others can understand that not only is peer reviewing

another student’s work very difficult, but very complex. Swapping roles from a student to a

teacher is a large jump specifically within the education realm. As a first-year college student,

we may not feel as obligated to give meaningful feedback to our peers. Although we’ve acquired

many years of fine English education, it is still deemed overwhelming to say the least. Sorting

through another student’s paper and judging them based on performance requires some sort of

prerequisites. Evaluation in general needs a set criterion in which someone can organize and

prepare to receive the best possible feedback. Revising a paper should include the criteria of

rhetorical knowledge and purpose, processes in which the student undergoes, and knowledge of

basic conventions.

As we funnel our thoughts through these lenses of criteria we’ve set for the essay itself, it

allows the writer to specifically see areas where improvement is necessary, or where mastery is

achieved. It’s very difficult to give a response without credible criteria in which the student can

verify the wrongdoings and where they occur. Bias within one’s evaluation is inevitable in this

case. Although we can state that we’re not going to be biased in determining one’s grade upon

criteria, we are more likely to agree with something we can relate to. Depending on the situation

itself, or whether a student is receiving a grade for their work could possibly influence decisions

the reviewer makes within the evaluation process. Leaving meaningful feedback regardless is the

best possible favor you can give to another student’s body of work. Revising a paper should

include the criteria of rhetorical knowledge and purpose, processes in which the student

undergoes, and knowledge of basic conventions.

Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 3

Sorting through various e-portfolios, I came across one that caught my attention.

Specifically examining the rhetorical analysis of John F. Kennedy, I concluded that this would be

a prime example of Emily’s rhetorical knowledge. As she assesses the methods Kennedy applies

through rhetorical appeals, she constantly refers to the American people and his influence upon

them. “Within his inaugural address, Kennedy makes numerous appeals of pathos to the varying

emotions of the American public” (Hansen). She refers to various emotions one might go

through when the country is possibly undergoing great danger. She states that fear and

uncertainty led the American people to believe in Kennedy’s words and actions. Knowledge of

understanding this aspect of rhetorical pathos gives insight on Emily’s mastery of this

knowledge. The whole essay is strictly on rhetorical appeals within Kennedy’s speeches, and

allows me to see insight within her knowledge of these methods Kennedy used. Whether or not

rhetorical skills are difficult to identify, I still applaud her for the understanding in which she

gave. “Many studies have demonstrated the facilitating role of rhetorical devices in text

comprehension, but there are also studies where rhetorical devices have not shown such effect.

The present study sets out to explore whether readers' knowledge of rhetorical devices (that

is, rhetorical competence) moderates their effectiveness beyond general comprehension skills

and, consequently, whether rhetorical competence may be considered a component skill of

reading comprehension” (Sanchez).

Evaluating Emily’s writing from a process standpoint, she seems prepared with this

essay. She obviously needed to have some sort of knowledge within the subject of history to

perform well on this essay. However, she does not provide substantial evidence that she followed

the traditional writing process. The paper seems short of incorrect grammar and false use of

commas and such, which leads me to believe that this essay was thoroughly reviewed and
Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 4

remastered several times. Although, they are some instances in which incorrect citation or

conventions are applied.

Diving into the conventions of this essay, I can point out several situations in which she

fails to prove complete knowledge. For example, she states “‘Perhaps one of the most well-

known lines from this address, ‘For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be

certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.’ is a paradox that suggests that despite

the dangers of nuclear weapons, a future of peace is possible yet, proving that fear can in fact

evolve into hope, which for the American people were words desperately needed to be heard.’”

(Hansen). This sentence is structured very inefficiently as she rambles on about this quote. It

confuses the reader when one connects a lengthy quote with a lengthy sentence and combines the

two together. Conventions are deemed anything with linguistic structures which includes

spelling, grammar, punctuation and the practice of composing and revising. According to Naomi

Baron, a professor of Linguistic, he finds that “the data suggests that when teenagers transition to

college, they naturally shed some of their adolescent linguistic ways in fervor of more

formal writing conventions they learned in high school” (Baron). The use of conventions is often

a common norm when it comes to formal English essays. However, some of the most vital

elements used in the category of conventions can easily be forgotten or overshadowed by other

criteria such as rhetorical knowledge. Overall, Emily Hansen’s specific essay on rhetorical

appeals provides insight on Kennedy’s lifestyle and her previous experience as an English 102

student.

Crafting the lenses of criteria, I also looked at James LaRue’s Essay from the ASU

digication website. His portfolio contained various English projects he had written throughout

the semester. Going off my knowledge of rhetorical appeals, he really emphasizes this
Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 5

throughout his gay marriage essay. He applies all 3 of these rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos

and logos throughout his essay. Within one specific portion, he mentions his strength of

emotional arguments. “With so much emotional arguments it is hard to agree with Mr. Sprigg.

The first part of his article is very religion based. He says homosexuals are eager to get their

hands on social security benefits for their children in the case a significant other dies but what

makes them not worth it is their sexuality. He simply does not see homosexual couples as equal”

(LaRue). His sincerity to those who are homosexual reigns strong as he counters the article he’s

writing about. The writer seems to want a change for society, giving homosexuals the

opportunity to be equal. According to Ruta Vyas, a journalist for soft skills, she deems that it’s

essential to use necessary appeals when it comes to making a desirable change. “The paper

discusses these stages in terms of the challenges that individuals face to their values and identity

(Ethos), to their intellect (Logos) and their emotions(Pathos), and puts forward a suggested road

map of behaviors and ideals that leaders must demonstrate to address each of these in order to

bring about a successful change” (Vyas). Within this criterion, I believe LaRue really crafted is

argument among rhetorical knowledge terrifically.

The process LaRue underwent seems to be beneficial in his scenario. He states within his

e-portfolio that he went through the proper writing steps to achieve his final outcome. As the

reviewer, I believe this step is very vital when it comes to preparing a proper essay. Not only can

you catch key mistakes, but it allows the reader to fully understand the thought process in which

a student undergoes. His method of technology is superior as his e-portfolio is surrounded with

pictures of the ASU campus and classrooms. Overall, he did a fantastic job under this category

and shows skills of mastery under the process form of writing.

Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 6

LaRue’s ability to progress through the writing system was astounding. I also noticed that

he mastered the use of conventions throughout his essay. This often-overlooked criteria seems to

be handled very well throughout all 3 of his major essays. “Later in the same section, he talks

about issues with groups being sued but does not go into detail on any of the incidents. A case

that immediately comes to mind is that of a Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who made

headlines this month for refusing to issue marries licenses to gay couples in opposition to the

Supreme Court’s June ruling legalizing same-sex marriage” (James). This sentence specifically

displays his use of commas and conventions very nicely. He excels at placing commas where

they need to be and constructing the essay in which a reader can follow along without any

awkward pauses or brief grammar issues. “Method: A large sample of 1st-grade students (N =

527) was assessed on their language, reading, spelling, letter writing automaticity, and writing in

the spring. Data were analyzed using a latent variable approach, including confirmatory factor

analysis and structural equation modeling. Results: The seven traits in the 6 + 1 trait system were

best described as two constructs: substantive quality and spelling and writing conventions”

(Kim). This quote demonstrates how conventions are often found to be an easy task for

elementary level children, but often become forgotten or lost as the grade-levels increase. This is

a common mistake I find in most high-level English students. However, James LaRue definitely

showcased his ability to not fall for the fundamental writing error.

The last student I will be assessing is Madison DiLuccia. Her e-portfolio not only

includes a picture of her, but also a biography as well. She also shares a similar major in business

as I do, but my cultural bias will not be prone to give-in. In her project 3, she speaks about World

War II and how the Nazis took reign over the Jewish citizens. “The Holocaust is the worst

genocide historically. The individuals who were freed at the end of WWII were malnourished,
Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 7

sick, and afraid” (DiLuccia). Rhetorically speaking, one drawn out mistake these students have is

commonly appealing to emotion rather than straight facts. I like to think that high school students

tend to struggle under the logical category. Although this subject itself is very discreet and harsh,

I find that she often does not pull out facts within her essays. The social value of situations is

very difficult not to disagree with, and that’s why I believe college students typically take this

route. Identifying social problems is an easy argument to stick with overall. “Despite the growing

importance of 'social value' as a central feature of research ethics, the term remains both

conceptually vague and to a certain extent operationally rigid. And yet, perhaps because

the rhetorical appeal of social value appears immediate and self-evident, the concept has not

been put to rigorous investigation in terms of its definition, strength, function, and scope”

(Ganguli-Miltra). I believe DiLuccia takes advantage of this throughout her essays, allowing her

to broaden her argument among the article she’s attacking and against.

In her particular class, she actually has a specific process in which she goes through. Her

professor requires a power point, a full-length speech, and a large essay for each project.

Interestingly enough, she provides this all on her site within the ASU digication. This provides

me with much more information revolving around the topic and gives insight on the process she

went through within her various projects. Her grasp upon the writing process is very pinpoint and

also demonstrates the correct standards of what a college student should understand. “Writing

and speech provide the students to necessarily understand the project as a whole” (Laidler). The

professor specifically emphasizes the importance of not only performing writing tasks within his

English class, but other forms of writing such as speeches and power points.

Moving onto the conventions aspect, proper grammar is there and use of commas is on

point. Unlike the previous essay by LaRue James, she seems to be far more representative of an
Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 8

English 102 student. Critiquing her essays was quite difficult because I truly didn’t find many

flaws within it. Regardless of her cultural bias that seems to reign over most of her essays shown,

she seems to be right at par. Speaking through the lenses of an English 102 student, I can verify

that this essay demonstrates proper mastery under the conventions category and is bound to

receive an excelling grade.

In conclusion, forming an opinion from one essay to another is very difficult. Not only is

putting forth the time and effort to search for mistakes is hard, but it taught me to not only focus

on the negative, but the positive as well. As reviewers, we tend to look at what students are doing

wrong rather than rewarding them for doing what’s right. Too much gratitude can be bad as well

but giving feedback should never be one-hundred percent negative either. I believe as fellow

English 102 students, we can all understand that some of these essays can really be at a flaw

sometimes. It’s hard to dictate if one’s portfolio is better than another’s, since my experience

under this category of “peer-assessments” is lacking. I don’t plan on becoming a full-time writer

nor an English professor. It all boils down to my experience and how I choose to specifically

critique my fellow students. However, in my opinion, revising a paper should include the criteria

of rhetorical knowledge and purpose, processes in which the student undergoes, and knowledge

of basic conventions. From student to student, teacher to teacher, we can all learn from one

another. Providing positive or negative feedback will only improve our writing and carry over

into our everyday lives.

Evaluation of Student Writing Criteria 9

References

Baron, N. S. (2005). Instant Messaging and the Future of Language. Communications Of The

ACM, 48(7), 29-31. doi:10.1145/1070838.1070860

Ganguli-Mitra, A., Dove, E. S., Laurie, G. T., & Taylor-Alexander, S. (2017). Reconfiguring

Social Value in Health Research Through the Lens of Liminality. Bioethics, 31(2), 87-

96. doi:10.1111/bioe.12324

Kim, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the

Dimensionality of First-Grade Written Composition. Journal Of Speech, Language, And

Hearing Research, 57(1), 199-211.

Laidler, H. W. (1950). Writings and Speeches of Eugene V. Debs. ILR Review, 3(4), 608-609.

Sánchez, E. e., García, J. j., & Bustos, A. a. (2017). Does rhetorical competence moderate the

effect of rhetorical devices on the comprehension of expository texts beyond general

comprehension skills?. Reading & Writing, 30(3), 439-462.

Vyas, R. (2013). Managing the Dimensions of Ethos, Pathos and Logos of Change Through

Transformational Leadership. IUP Journal Of Soft Skills, 7(3), 7-22.