`R 204:Western Religions, Fall 1998`

GRADING POLICY FOR PROFESSOR DALE CANNON

GRADE OPTIONS

The default option is Grade Option A. If you wish to be graded under Option B, you must indicate that preference in writing with your Journal and "Journal Summaries" when they are handed in Fri., Dec. 4. However, if no serious effort is made to complete the Journal and "Journal Summaries" assignment, the option will default to Grade Option A.

Assignment	Option A	Option B
Exam 1 or Paper	25%	33 1/3%
Exam 2 or Paper	25%	33 1/3%
Exam 3 or Paper	25%	33 1/3%
Journal + "Summaries"	25%	positive influence in borderline situations, depending on quality

NUMERICAL VALUE OF IN-CLASS GRADES

In class grades are figured and averaged on a 12 point scale: A+ = 12, A = 11, A- = 10, B+ = 9, . . . D = 2, D- = 1, F = 0.

EXTRA CREDIT

Extra credit may be earned in a variety of ways. For specifics as to how to earn extra credit and raise your grade, click here.

EFFECT OF ABSENCES NOT MADE UP

Absences which are not made up will have a direct bearing on your grade. 2 to 3 such absences for any one of the three sections of the course will lower the grade for the course 1/3 grade point; 4-5 by 2/3 grade point; 6 or more by 1 grade point. Only 6 absences for any one of the three sections of the course can be made up. Any more will have a direct effect on your grade which cannot be made up. For further specifics about Attendance and Make-up Policy and how to make up absences, click here. (In situations of genuine emergency over which the student has no control, petition for modification of this rule can be made.)

GRADING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PROJECT PAPERS

In my judgment, writing well and caring to write well is not a skill separable from thinking well and caring to think well. To get a grade of "C," you should have your writing meet the following criteria with a reasonable degree of success:

1. Does it address what the assignment and questions ask and expect? Is it to the point? (If you are at all in doubt what is expected asked, make sure that you check out your understanding of these matters with me.)

2. Does it meet the minimum requirements for written work in the course? Is it coherent? Is it a result of your own thinking? (Clear evidence of plagiarism is sufficient grounds for an "F.") Is it double-spaced? Is it free of minor and distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors? Is it neat and legible? Does it give full references to all sources relied upon in MLA format (including encyclopedia references listed by author and title of encyclopedia article)? Does it stand on its own, enabling a reader to understand it without presupposing special knowledge of course texts or the meaning of technical terms?

3. Is it reasonably accurate, complete, and fair in its representation of the views and experiences and practices of others being discussed?

A grade of "B" will require meeting these two additional criteria with a reasonable degree of success:

4. Does it give an accurate and clear, reasonably thorough account of the objective features of the topic under consideration? Does it make clear the historical and cultural context of the phenomenon being explained? Have appropriate qualifications been made and taken into account, avoiding sweeping generalizations that are unsupported and perhaps unsupportable? Have the best available sources on the topic been drawn upon? Are relevant matters from class sessions and assigned readings taken into account?

5. Has it developed and expressed an empathetically objective comprehension of the topic under consideration? Does it (or could it) pass the tests of empathy and neutrality? Has it reasonably overcome the effect of your own biases and crossed over to the insider's perspective and begun to experience the 'threshold effect'? Has it built a bridge of empathetic communication so as to allow the reader access to the perspective and understanding of insiders?

A grade of "A" will ordinarily require in addition meeting this criterion:

6. Does it bring the phenomenon to life, such that the meaning found in living participation is brought out and made clear to the reader's imagination? Does it bring out what motivates and inspires the participation of insiders? Does it help the reader begin to cross the threshold of empathetic understanding? Does it approach the topic freshly, thoughtfully, and originally? Are concrete examples used to sharpen and clarify any abstract points that might otherwise be unclear or ambiguous?

GRADING CRITERIA FOR BOOK REVIEW PAPERS (ON INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE)

3. Is it reasonably accurate, complete, and fair in its representation of the views and experiences and practices of others being discussed?

A grade of "B" will require meeting these two additional criteria with areasonable degree of success:

4. Does it give an accurate and clear, reasonably thorough evaluation of the objectives or goals for the interreligious dialogue (or trialogue) represented in the book? Have appropriate qualifications been made and taken into account, avoiding sweeping generalizations that are unsupported and perhaps unsupportable? Does it support its claims through discussion of specific relevant sections of the book? Are relevant matters from class sessions and assigned readings taken into account?

5. Has it developed and expressed an empathetically objective comprehension of the subject(s) under consideration and, as well, assessed the authors' and dialogue participants' achievement of empathetic objectivity? Does the paper (or could it) pass the tests of empathy and neutrality? Has it reasonably overcome the effect of your own biases and crossed over to the insider's perspective and begun to experience the 'threshold effect'? Has it built a bridge of empathetic communication so as to allow the reader access to the perspective and understanding of insiders?

A grade of "A" will ordinarily require in addition meeting this criterion:

6. Does it bring the interreligious dialogue (or trialogue) to life, such that the meaning found in living participation (and the achievement or failure to achieve an interreligious meeting of minds) is brought out and made clear to the reader's imagination? Does it bring out what motivates and inspires the participation of insiders? Does it help the reader begin to cross the threshold of empathetic understanding? Does it approach the topic freshly, thoughtfully, and originally? Are concrete examples used to sharpen and clarify any abstract points that might otherwise be unclear or ambiguous?

GRADING CRITERIA FOR JOURNALS

Grading of the Journal and "Journal Summaries" will be based on their thoughtfulness (creativity is encouraged), the seriousness with which you have honestly sought to come to terms for yourself with what we are covering, and the sincerity of your efforts in the course to develop empathetically objective understandings. While these are difficult factors to evaluate, every effort will be made not to have the specific content of feelings and opinions expressed influence the grade.

POLICY ON INCOMPLETES

Incompletes will not be awarded as a way of avoiding a low grade or failure in the course. They will only be awarded temporarily in the event of unusual extenuating circumstances and where a contract will have to be signed agreeing that the incomplete coursework will be completed by a date mutually agreed upon. At that date, if the coursework is not completed, the incomplete will be changed by default to a grade based upon grades for the work completed and zero credit or failure for work not completed.

Return to Syllabus.

Direct suggestions, comments, and questions about this page to Dale Cannon. Last Modified 9/20/98 Western Oregon University