Program / Course 26: Comprehensive Assessment / Lesson 5.4
What you will learn
- Rate each written defense as strong, adequate or weak against a set of criteria.
- Support each rating with evidence from the text of the paper.
- Name one concrete improvement for each weak or adequate defense.
- Set a personal standard, such as 80 percent, and a date to revise.
The big idea
A written defense should be rated against criteria set in advance. The course suggests rating each paper strong, adequate or weak, and writing one sentence on how to improve each weak one. Useful criteria are clarity of the claim, definition of terms, quality of evidence, accuracy of sources, strength and fairness in treating objections, and honesty about limits. The suggested personal standard of 80 percent is an option for the student. Nothing is submitted, and no certificate or credit follows.
Key terms
- Criteria
- The standards by which work is judged, fixed before the judging begins.
- Rubric
- A grid of criteria with descriptions of what strong, adequate and weak work looks like.
- Strong, adequate, weak
- The three ratings suggested for each written piece.
- Revision
- Rewriting a piece in response to weaknesses found in evaluation.
- Outside reader
- A person who reads the paper and gives an opinion. Useful but optional.
- Personal standard
- A target set by the student. The suggested figure is 80 percent for written work, which the student may change.
Background
The course plan states that each written piece, the three defenses, the statement of faith, the rule of life and the reflection, should be rated strong, adequate or weak against the evaluation criteria, with one sentence on how to improve each weak one. It also states four overall criteria, such as the ability to state opposing positions fairly, to evaluate arguments honestly and to defend your own with evidence.
A rubric helps. For each criterion, write what strong, adequate and weak would look like before reading your own paper. For clarity of the claim: strong means a single clear sentence with scope; adequate means clear but loose; weak means vague or multiple claims. For objections: strong means the strongest objections stated fairly and answered, or admitted open; adequate means real objections but not the best; weak means only easy objections. Doing this in advance prevents you from bending the standards to suit the work.
The best check is time. Put the paper away for several days and then read it as if written by someone else. If a trusted person is willing to read it, ask them to say what they think each argument claims, and compare that with what you meant. This is optional, and the program does not require sharing any work with anyone.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Write the rubric
List six criteria: claim, definitions, evidence and sources, objections, fairness, honesty about limits. For each, write one line each for strong, adequate and weak. Fix these before reading the papers.
Step 2: Read each paper as a stranger
After a pause of several days, read each defense from start to finish. Mark where the argument is clear and where you had to guess. Underline any claim that lacks support and any source you cannot check.
Step 3: Rate and give evidence
For each criterion give a rating, and write a short note quoting or pointing to the place in the paper that justifies it. A rating without a note is not useful. Convert ratings to numbers if you like, for example strong as 3, adequate as 2 and weak as 1, and compute a percentage.
Step 4: Name one improvement
For each weak or adequate rating, write one sentence saying what you will do to improve it: add a source, define a term, state a stronger objection or remove an overstatement. Then set a date to revise.
Step 5: Revise and re-rate
Revise at least one paper and rate it again. Record both ratings, so that you can see whether the revision helped. Return to the papers after the suggested review dates of 1, 7, 30 and 90 days, if you choose to use them.
- Which criterion is my weakest across all three papers?
- Did I rate the paper I like best more kindly?
- Would a stranger be able to state my claim after one reading?
- Which source did I fail to check?
- Are my objections the strongest ones or the easiest?
- What is the one change that would improve each paper most?
Examples
A rating with evidence
Objections: adequate. Two real objections are stated and answered, but the strongest one, the variation in the resurrection accounts, is only mentioned. Improvement: state it in full and give a fuller reply. (A constructed example.)
A clarity rating
Claim: weak. The paper says that Christianity makes sense and mixes historical, moral and philosophical claims. Improvement: choose one claim and state its scope. (A constructed example.)
A fairness rating
Fairness: strong. The opposing position is stated in terms its holders use and the paper concedes a valid point. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
In the Catholic tradition, examination of conscience and the counsel of a confessor or director model a habit of honest review. A Catholic student may find a similar candor helpful in rating written work.
Orthodox
Orthodox spiritual practice values humility and guidance from an elder. An Orthodox student may value the opinion of a spiritual guide as an outside reader, though this is a choice.
Protestant
Many Protestants value the accountability of a church group or friend, and the example of the Bereans, who examined the Scriptures daily, can serve as a model for testing what is said.
Academic
In academic practice, work is rated against published criteria and by readers other than the writer. A student working alone cannot fully reproduce this, but a rubric and a delay between writing and rating come close.
Why it matters
Rating is not an end in itself. It is the means of seeing what the writing shows about the thinking behind it. A student who rates honestly learns which skills are strong, which are not yet, and how to practice.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: A high rating means the claim is true.
Correction: A rating measures the quality of the defense, not the truth of the claim. A weak defense may support a true claim, and a strong one may be mistaken.
Misunderstanding: An outside reader is required.
Correction: It is optional. The program does not collect work. If you share a paper, you choose whom to ask.
Misunderstanding: A low rating is a failure.
Correction: It is information. The standard is a suggestion, and the next step is a specific improvement.
Knowledge check
What ratings does the course suggest for written work?
Strong, adequate or weak, against criteria such as clarity of the claim, definition of terms, evidence and sources, treatment of objections, fairness and honesty about limits. Each weak rating is paired with one sentence on how to improve. The student may convert these to percentages and set a standard of 80 percent if desired.
Why write the rubric before reading the papers?
To prevent bending the standards to suit the work. A rubric fixed in advance describes what strong, adequate and weak look like, so the rating is based on the text and not on how pleased the writer is with it.
Does a strong rating show that the claim is true?
No. The rating assesses the quality of the defense: its clarity, evidence, fairness and honesty. A true claim may be poorly defended, and a false one may be defended well. Truth is a further question that the student continues to weigh.
What is the purpose of waiting before rating?
Distance. After a few days a writer reads more like a stranger and sees gaps that were invisible while writing. Rating immediately tends to credit what the writer intended and not what the page says.
Think it through
- Which of your three defenses do you expect to rate lowest?
- How do you feel when your own work is rated honestly by you?
- Who might read your papers helpfully, if you chose to share them?
- What skill would you most like to improve in the next three months?
Independent assignment
Rate and revise
In your own notebook, write about 400 words. Write your rubric, rate each of the three defenses with a note of evidence, name one improvement for each, and then revise one paper and re-rate it. Record the date for the next review. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies A checklist of reasoning errors to look for in your own papers.
- Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction For checking how doctrines are stated.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity A model of clear, plain defense.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief A model of careful philosophical writing, to read critically.
- Acts 17:11 The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to test what they heard.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything and hold fast to what is good.