Throughout the course we’ll be creating rubrics to determine the grading criteria for each assignment. However, for most assignments, the following rubric is a good “rule of thumb” for creating successful responses to the assignments:

Outstanding (A): outstanding responses have strong introductions that provide meaningful context for the issue being discussed; they lead into a thesis with a clearly articulated, persuasive argument (that may even be original); their conclusions don’t merely restate the argument, but leave the reader with meaningful insight into the significance of the argument within the context of the assignment.  They demonstrate a clear evolution of their original thesis throughout body paragraphs that is well organized and uses well-chosen textual evidence that is sophisticatedly interpreted (reflecting a critical analytical understanding of the issue that goes beyond merely relating information about the topic or pointing out obvious features (similarities/differences/observations) of the text) for the reader. Outstanding responses transition easily within and between ideas using mature vocabulary, interesting sentence variations and with all quotations smoothly blended within the writer’s own prose. And finally, they have few, if any, errors in syntax, grammar, formatting, or in-text and bibliographic citations.

Exceeds Expectations (B): above average responses have introductions that effectively provide a context for the work or works to be discussed; they lead into a thesis with a well articulated, persuasive argument; their conclusions don’t restate the argument and they leave the reader with some thoughtful insight into the significance of the argument within the context of the issue at large, or possibly the significance of the theme to their audiences. They demonstrate an evolution of the original thesis throughout body paragraphs that is organized and uses appropriate textual evidence that is interpreted (reflecting a critical analytical understanding of the text that goes beyond merely relating information about the topic or pointing out obvious features (similarities/differences/observations) of the text) for the reader. Above average responses have transitions within and between ideas using pointed vocabulary, some sentence variations and with all quotations blended within the writer’s own prose. And finally, they have only a few errors in syntax, grammar, formatting, or in-text and bibliographic citations.

Meets Expectations (C): average responses have introductions that provide some context for the work or works to be discussed; they lead into a thesis with a persuasive argument; their conclusions may restate the argument but there is some attempt at thoughtful insight into the significance of the argument within the context of the issue at large, or possibly the significance of the theme to their audiences. They may have some evolution of their original thesis throughout body paragraphs, but it is organized around a 5-paragraph theme that is mostly static.  They use some textual evidence, but the evidence may not be the best or it may not be completely interpreted (reflecting some analytical understanding of the text, but largely relying on relating information about the topic or pointing out obvious features (similarities/differences/observations) of the text) for the reader.  Average responses have transitions within and between ideas, but these transitions are generic (Then, Next, In conclusion, etc.); average responses have some sentence variations but may rely on simple sentences; quotations may be introduced, but introduced with tried phrases; some may not be introduced.  And finally, they have only some errors in syntax, grammar, formatting, or in-text and bibliographic citations (there may be missing information).

Approaches Expectations (D): below average responses have introductions that provide little context for the work or works to be discussed; they may lead into a thesis with an argument; but the argument may be partial or stating the obvious (plot summary over analysis; their conclusions often restate the argument and don’t provide much insight into the issue at large. They have little evolution of the thesis throughout body paragraphs and the essay is largely organized around a 5-paragraph theme that is mostly static.  They use little textual evidence and the evidence may not be the best or it may insufficiently interpreted (reflecting little critical understanding of the text and largely relying on relating plot summary or pointing out obvious features (similarities/differences/observations) of the text) for the reader.  Below responses have few transitions within and between ideas and these transitions are generic (Then, Next, In conclusion, etc.); below responses have almost no sentence variations and may rely on simple sentences; quotations may be introduced with tried phrases; many are not be introduced.  And finally, they have only several errors in syntax, grammar, formatting, or in-text and bibliographic citations (often with important missing information).

Unacceptable (F): Failing papers are poorly organized, have little to no argument and poor choice in textual evidence that is often not interpreted critically (relying on relating information without critical analysis).  Failing papers have severe errors in grammar, syntax, formatting, or incomplete or absent citations.  Plagiarized papers are failing papers.

Detailed Rubrics:

Unit 1
PSA Rubric
Grant Proposal Rubric

Unit 2
Annotated Bibliography Rubric

Unit 3
Popular Science Blog Rubric