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 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.
|
