One of the most engaging assignments a teacher can give after reading Cowan's The Nose is to ask students to tell part of the story from the nose's point of view. What did it see around town, and how did it feel about leaving the Deputy Inspector's face? The task is silly enough to be inviting and demanding enough to teach real skills. Grading it well requires a rubric that captures perspective, voice, and connection to the original.

Point of view writing tests something subtle: whether a student can shift their thinking to another vantage point and stay there. Many students start in first person as the nose and then slip back into describing the nose from outside. That slip is a useful teaching moment, but only if the rubric names it as something to watch. Without that, the inconsistency looks like a random error rather than a skill gap.

The assignment also checks comprehension. To write believably as the nose, a student must know what happens in the story, where the nose goes, and how the Deputy Inspector might react. A piece that gets the events wrong shows a comprehension gap even if the voice is charming. Score both aspects so the grade reflects the full picture.

What Point of View Writing Tests

There are three skills at work: maintaining a consistent perspective, giving that perspective a distinct voice, and staying faithful to the events of the source. Consistency means the narrator uses the same pronouns and knowledge throughout. Voice means the narrator sounds like a particular character with particular attitudes. Fidelity means the retelling fits the original story world.

• Perspective: the piece stays in the nose's point of view from beginning to end
• Voice: the narrator has a distinct personality, attitude, or way of speaking
• Knowledge: the narrator only knows and describes what the nose could plausibly see or feel
• Story fidelity: events match the original and any invented details fit the story
• Language: sentences and word choices support the voice and are easy to follow

Rubric Criteria for Voice and Perspective

Voice can feel impossible to score, but you can break it into visible features. Look for word choices that reflect the narrator's attitude, such as pride, annoyance, or curiosity. Look for sentence patterns that fit the personality, such as short, confident statements or rambling, excited ones. Describing these features in the rubric gives you language for feedback and helps students understand what voice means.

Perspective consistency is easier to score with a simple test: highlight every pronoun and check whether they align with the chosen narrator. Also check for knowledge slips, such as the nose describing the Deputy Inspector's private thoughts. These slips are common and worth teaching. A comment pointing to one specific example is more useful than a general note about perspective.

Common Problems Students Run Into

The most common problem is drifting between first and third person. A student might write "I ran down the street" in one sentence and "the nose ran down the street" in the next. Teach students to reread their draft aloud and listen for shifts. Peers can also catch these errors more easily than the writer.

Another frequent problem is a voice that is flat and reads like a summary. The narrator reports events without any attitude or reaction. Push students to add a feeling, an opinion, or a specific observation in each paragraph. That small addition often transforms a plain retelling into a voice-driven piece.

Feedback That Strengthens Voice

Point to a line where the voice really works and explain why. A comment like "I can hear the nose's pride when it says it was tired of being stuck in the middle of a face" shows the student what a strong voice sounds like. Then ask them to try to write another line with the same energy. Students respond well to concrete praise paired with a chance to repeat the success.

AI tools can help identify perspective inconsistencies across a large set of drafts by flagging shifts in pronouns and voice. Use those flags as a starting point for your own review rather than a final judgment. The tool may miss subtle voice choices that a human reader would appreciate. Combining the two gives students faster feedback without losing the personal touch.