WRITING RUBRIC

Score

Possible Score / Description of Skills

ORGANIZATION/COHEREN
CE

IDEAS

(15-13) Excellent response. Interesting, sophisticated analysis. Central thesis is a unique interpretive assertion that is
clearly communicated, and limited enough to be manageable. Understands and critically evaluates sources;
appropriately defines terms.
(12-10) Solid response. Clearly stated thesis, but may have minor lapses in development. Begins to acknowledge the
complexity of central idea and the possibility of other points of view. Shows careful reading of sources but may not
evaluate them critically. May not fully define terms, though not always successfully.
(9-7) Adequate response. Presents central idea in general terms; analysis primarily descriptive. Shows basic
comprehension of sources, perhaps with some lapses in understanding.
(6-4) Inadequate response. No dear central idea or does not respond appropriately to the assignment. Thesis may be
too vague or obvious to be developed effectively. May misunderstand sources.
(3-1) Inappropriate response. Does not respond appropriately to assignment, lacks a thesis or central idea, and may
neglect to use sources where necessary.
(15-13) Excellent. Uses a logical structure appropriate to paper's subject, purpose, audience, and thesis. Sophisticated
transitional sentences often develop one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations. Paper guides the
reader through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.
(12-10) Good. Shows a logical progression of ideas and uses fairly sophisticated transitional devices. Some logical
links may be faulty, but each paragraph clearly related to paper's central idea.
(9-7) Less effective. May list ideas randomly rather than use any evident logical structure. While each paragraph may
relate to central idea, logic is not always clear. Paragraphs have topic sentences, but may be overly general and
arrangement of sentences within paragraphs may lack coherence.
(6-4) Weak. May have random organization, lacking internal paragraph coherence and using few or inappropriate
transitions. Paragraphs may lack topic sentences or main ideas; may be too general or too specific to be effective.
Paragraphs may not all relate to paper's thesis.
(3-1) No appreciable organization; lacks transitions and coherence.

STYLE

SUPPORT &
DEVELOPMENT

(10-9) Fully supported. Uses evidence appropriately and effectively, providing sufficient evidence and explanation to
convince. Logic is dear and defensible.
(8-7) Solid support. Begins to offer reasons to support its points, but support may be less convincing or awkwardly
presented. Good reasoning, but may have slight lapses in logic.
(6-5) Adequate support Often uses generalizations to support its points. May depend on unsupported opinion, or
assume that evidence speaks for itself and needs no application to point being discussed; frequent lapses in logic.
(4-3) Inadequate support. Depends on clichs or overgeneralizations for support or offers little evidence of any kind.
May be summary rather than analysis.
(2-1) Unsupported. Offers little or no textual evidence. May use irrelevant details; may be personal narrative or
summary rather than analysis. May be unduly brief.
(5) Fluent narrative voice. Chooses words for their precise meanings and uses an appropriate level of specificity.
Sentence style fits paper's audience and purpose. Sentences are varied, yet dearly structured and carefully focused.
(4) Clear narrative voice. Generally uses words accurately and effectively, but may sometimes be too general Sentences
generally clear, well-structured and focused, though some may be awkward or ineffective.
(3) Less-effective narrative voice. Uses relatively vague and general words; may use some inappropriate language.
Sentence structure generally correct, but sentences may be wordy, unfocused, repetitive, or confusing.
(2) Problemat1c narrative voice. May be vague and abstract or very personal and specific. Usually contains several
awkward or ungrammatical sentences.
(1) Weak narrative voice. Contains many awkward sentences, misuses words, or employs inappropriate language.

MECHANICS

(5) Precise presentation. Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors.
(4) Good presentation. May contain a few errors, which may bother the reader but not impede understanding.
+

(3) Adequate presentation. Contains several mechanical errors, which may temporarily confuse the reader but not
impede overall understanding.
(2) Ineffective presentation. Contains either many mechanical errors or a few important errors that block the reader's
understanding and ability to see connections between thoughts.
(1) Incorrect presentation. Contains too many errors for the reader to follow the thinking from sentence to sentence.

GRADE