Introduction

Myths and Realties

When Not to Respond

Designing Writing Assignments

Commenting: Margins and End

Commenting on Drafts

Rubrics

Helping Students Learn Editing

Helping Students Learn to Fix Errors

Overview of Rhetorical Context

Discipline Specific Resources


Print-Friendly Page Print Page
Authors & Contributors

Grading Rubric for Metamorphosis Paper

From Stevens, D.D., & Levi, A.J. (2005). Introcution to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time and Convey Effective Feedback and Promote Student Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing; pp. 70-71.

Task description: Write a research paper about a person, institution, or movement that has created or sought to create significant change.

High mastery
Average mastery
Low mastery
Communication    
  • An inviting introduction draws the reader in, a satisfying conclusion leaves the reader with a sense of closure and resolution.
  • The paper has a recognizable introduction and conclusion, but the introduction may not create a strong sense of anticipation or the conclusion may not tie the paper into a coherent whole.
  • There is no real lead-in to set up what follows and no real conclusion to wrap things up.
  • There is a clear thesis.
  • There is a thesis, but it is ambiguous or unfocused.
  • There is no clear thesis.
  • Transitions are thoughtful and clearly show how ideas connect.
  • Transitions often work well, but some leave connections between ideas fuzzy.
  • Connections between ideas are often confusing or missing.
  • Uses an appropriate variety of sources, which are well integrated and support the author’s points.
  • Sources generally support the author’s points, but more or a greater variety need to be cited.
  • Citations are infrequent or often seem to fail to support the author’s points.
  • Quotations, paraphrases and summaries are used and cited appropriately.
  • Quotations, paraphrases, and summaries generally work but occasionally interfere with the flow of the writing, seem irrelevant, or are incorrectly cited.
  • Quotations, paraphrases, and summaries tend to break the flow of the piece, become monotonous, don’t seem to fit or are not cited.
  • Uses the proper format (APA, MLA, etc.)
  • Uses the proper format but there are occasional errors.
  • Frequent errors in format or incorrect format used.
  • Sequencing is logical and effective.
  • Sequencing shows some logic, but it is not under complete control and may be so predictable that the reader finds it distracting.
  • Sequencing seems illogical, disjointed, or forced.
  • Punctuation is accurate, even creative, and guides the reader effectively through the text.
  • End punctuation is correct, but internal punctuation is sometimes missing or wrong.
  • Punctuation is often missing or incorrect, including terminal punctuation.
  • Grammar and usage contribute to the clarity; conventions, if manipulated for stylistic effect, work.
  • There are problems with grammar or usage, but they are not serious enough to distort meaning.
  • Errors in grammar or usage are frequent enough to become distracting and interfere with meaning.
  • Voice and style are appropriate for the type of paper assigned.
  • Voice and style don’t quite fit with the type of paper assigned.
  • Voice and style are not appropriate for the type of paper assigned.
  • Paragraphs are well-focused and coherent.
  • Paragraphs occasionally lack focus or coherence.
  • Paragraphs generally lack focus or coherence.
Critical Thinking    
  • The paper displays insight and originality of thought.
  • There are some original ideas, but many seem obvious or elementary.
  • There are few original ideas; most seem obvious or elementary.
  • There is sound and logical analysis that reveals clear understanding of the relevant issues.
  • Analysis is generally sound, but there are lapses in logic or understanding.
  • Analysis is superficial or illogical; the author seems to struggle to understand the relevant issues.
  • There is an appropriate balance of factual reporting, interpretation and analysis, and personal opinion.
  • The balance between factual reporting, interpretation and analysis, and personal opinion seems skewed.
  • There is a clear imbalance between factual reporting, interpretation and analysis, and personal opinion.
  • The author goes beyond the obvious in constructing interpretation of the facts.
  • Paper shows understanding of relevant issues but lacks depth.
  • Author appears to misunderstand or omit key issues.
  • Telling and accurate details are used to reinforce the author’s arguments.
  • Generally accurate details are included but the reader is left with questions—more information is needed to fill in the blanks.
  • There are few details or most details seem irrelevant.
  • The paper is convincing and satisfying.
  • The paper leaves the reader vaguely skeptical and unsatisfied.
  • The paper leaves the reader unconvinced.
Content    
  • The paper addresses a topic within the context of promoting personal, social/cultural/political, or paradigmatic change.
  • The paper addresses a topic within the context of promoting personal, social/cultural/political, or paradigmatic change.
  • The paper needs to be substantially more closely related to promoting personal, social/cultural/political, or paradigmatic change.
  • The paper is complete and leaves no important aspect of the topic not addressed.
  • The paper is substantially complete, but more than one important aspect of the topic is not addressed.
  • The paper is clearly incomplete with many important aspects of the topic left out.
  • The author has a good grasp of what is known, what is generally accepted, and what is yet to be discovered.
  • The author has a good grasp of the relevant information but fails to distinguish between what is known, what is generally accepted, and what is yet to be discovered.
  • The author has a poor grasp of the relevant information.
  • Appropriate significance is assigned to the information presented and irrelevant information is rarely included.
  • The paper often uses information in a way inappropriate to its significance or includes much irrelevant information.
  • The paper frequently uses information inappropriately or uses irrelevant information.
  • Connections between the topic of the paper and related topics are made that enhance understanding.
  • Few connections are made to related topics.
  • No connections are made to related topics to help clarify the information presented.
  • Specialized terminology, if used, is used correctly and precisely.
  • Specialized terminology is sometimes incorrectly or imprecisely used.
  • Specialized terminology is frequently misused.
  • The author seems to be writing from personal knowledge or experience.
  • The author seems to be writing from knowledge or experience but has difficulty going from general observations to specifics.
  • The work seems to be a simple restatement of the assignment or a simple, overly broad answer to a question with little evidence of expertise on the part of the author.