MARKING and GRADING
Philosophy Courses
Joseph A. Buijs
Philosophical writing strives for clarity, conciseness, coherence, critical
insight, and cogency. Keeping these goals in mind, written assignments
will be evaluated using the following criteria, modified somewhat to suit
the scope of specific assignments. See the appropriate Evaluation Sheets
for each of the assignments of a course.
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
Requirements
●Have the requirements for the assignment been included?
●Use of a Coursepack
selection or of a selected reading?
●Use of additional resources, if required?
●Mention of a philosophical framework, if needed?
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
1. Introduction
●Does the introduction give an intelligible presentation
of an issue for discussion, its significance, implications or problematic
aspect?
●Is there is a clear indication of intent, direction or approach
to be developed in the summary, paper, or essay? Is there a thesis-statement
or statement of intent: what will
be
argued?
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
2. Conclusion
●Does the conclusion contain a clear summary statement: what
has been
argued?
●Does the conclusion tie in with the stated intention of
the introduction?
●In larger papers, is there a recognition of limits, questions
or further development?
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
3. Presentation: Spelling, Grammar, Documentation
●Are there proper margins, spacing, pagination, title page
(if needed), etc.?
●Has the assignment been carefully proof-read?
●Is there use of inclusive language where appropriate?
●Are spelling, grammar, diction acceptable according to current
conventional Canadian usage?
●Does the format for documentation (footnotes, endnotes or
list of references) follow a conventional and consistent usage? Consult a
style sheet or Documentation under Assignments for sample references.
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
4. Exposition: Issue, Argumentation, Research
●Is the issue under discussion clearly stated? Systematically
presented?
●Are significant concepts defined or clarified?
●Is supporting argumentation laid out clearly and cogently?
●Is there an accurate and fair interpretation of views? Textually
supported, if need be?
●Have relevant and significant resources been used in addition
to, or instead of, the Selected Readings
of the course?
●Have the resources been used appropriately? Do they support
or show what they are intended to support or show?
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
5. Development: Critique, Defence, Justification
●Has the stated intention or focus been carried out?
●Is there critical assessment and are critical points adequately
substantiated or justified?
●Are actual or possible objections considered and addressed?
●Is there an attempt to compare or contrast a reading selected
for critical reflection with other similar or related resources?
●Is documentation indeed supplied for facts, claims, viewpoints,
quotations or use of resources that need documentation?
●Does the development in a research paper support the conclusion
drawn?
●Does the assignment show a personal contribution in terms
of originality, understanding, assessment, application, or significance?
●Is there an attempt, if appropriate, to integrate the issue
under discussion with other academic areas or personal experience?
The above are intended as guidelines in both writing and assessing written
assignments. They do not comprise an exhaustive list of criteria nor a
"formula" that guarantees success.
You may wish to consult the
Check List
for assignments or the sample
Evaluation Sheet.
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grading
|
Top of Page
Grading
Written assignments will be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria.
However, the mark will be determined on the basis of an overall, composite
assessment, rather than any exact proportional weight for individual components.
See the sample
Evaluation Sheet
for further comments on the marking & grading of individual assignments.
Marks are assigned according to the following qualitative description and
letter grade.
|
Descriptor |
Letter
Grade |
10 point Equivalent |
Grade Point
Value |
Percent
Conversion |
|
Excellent |
A+ |
9.0 |
4.0 |
90 - 100
|
|
A |
8.5 |
4.0 |
85 - 89 |
|
A- |
8.0 |
3.7 |
80 - 84 |
|
Good |
B+ |
7.5 |
3.3 |
75 - 79 |
|
B |
7.0 |
3.0 |
70 - 74 |
|
B- |
6.5 |
2.7 |
65 - 69 |
|
Satisfactory |
C+ |
6.0 |
2.3 |
60 - 64 |
|
C |
5.5 |
2.0 |
55 - 59 |
|
C- |
5.0 |
1.7 |
50 - 54 |
|
Poor |
D+ |
4.5 |
1.3 |
45 - 49 |
|
D |
4.0 |
1.0 |
40 - 44 |
|
Failure |
F |
--- |
0 |
0 - 39 |
The marks for individual components of the course are weighted according
to the percentage assigned to them for the course. That is, the mark out-of-ten
for each assignment is multiplied by an appropriate factor and then totalled.
The total percentage mark is then converted into the letter grading system
in part
according to the above conversion scale.
However, the conversion scale is only "a rough mathematical guideline".
The assessment of course grades may include, in addition to raw scores
for written assignments, mid-term test, final exam, and other components
of the course, such other qualitative considerations as overall class performance,
individual improvement and class participation. Although individual grades
will not be determined on the basis of a preassigned distribution, historical
Grade Point Averages for courses in the Faculty of Arts may be used to adjust
the above scale with the effect of raising, rather than lowering, individual
grades.
Thus, it should be noted that overall Grade Point Averages for a course
in the Faculty of Arts could be expected to approximate the following:
a mean of 2.62 and median grade of B- for 1st year, 100-level
courses
a mean of 2.83 and median grade of B for 2nd year, 200-level
courses
a mean of 3.00 and median grade of B for 3nd year, 300-level
courses
a mean of 3.11 and median grade of B+ for 4th year, 400-level
courses
Here are two examples of sets of marks and their likely conversion into
a course grade for two different sets of course requirements.
STUDENT A
(Phil 339) |
Raw Score |
Course Weight |
Weighted Score & Grade |
|
Take home test #1 |
B (7/10) |
10% |
7 |
|
Take home test #2 |
B+ (7.5/10) |
10% |
7.5 |
|
Essay |
A- (8/10) |
40% |
32 |
|
Final Exam |
35 / 40 |
40% |
35 |
|
TOTAL |
100% |
81.5 = A- |
STUDENT B
(Phil 209/357) |
Raw Score |
Course Weight |
Weighted Score & Grade |
|
Assignment #1 |
C (5.5/10) |
10% |
5.5 |
|
Assignment # 2 |
B- (6.5/10) |
20% |
13 |
|
Assignment #3 |
B+ (7.5/10) |
30% |
22.5 |
|
Final Exam |
25 / 40 |
40% |
25 |
|
TOTAL |
100% |
66 = B- |
Requirements
|
Introduction
|
Conclusion
|
Presentation
|
Exposition
|
Development
|
Grade
|
Top of Page
Last updated November 28, 2010