Grading Rubric - Assignment 4 (Paper 3) - UGS 302

Expectations - Students must demonstrate:

  1. An understanding of a paper’s structure
  2. Basic knowledge of grammar, syntax and vocabulary
  3. An ability to perform concise reasoning
  4. An ability to synthesize outside information into new ideas
  5. The ability to incorporate references and citations to support their arguments.

For assignment 4 the grading criteria are:

  1. Structure / Organization / Purpose (20 pts) - strong thesis statement, logical paragraph structuring
  2. Writing Quality / Mechanics (30 pts) - avoiding passive voice when possible, avoiding grammatical and syntactical problems, use easy-to-follow sentences (avoiding rhetorical questions, colloquialisms and wordiness)
  3. Insight / Audience (20 pts) - general cohesiveness of thought, clear logic and clear arguments. Paper written to specified audience.
  4. Answering the question / Content / Citations (30 points)

    How well did you meet that requirement with specific details?

Here is a table with the descriptions various criteria and attributes of papers and what attributes are required for a given letter grade. I will use this table as a guide to determine your grade.

  A level criteria   B level criteria   C level criteria  D-F level criteria

Purpose

 The paper has a well-developed thesis with an insightful set of criteria. The introduction establishes the experiences and the conclusion indicates the impact and importance of the events described. The paper has a workable (though perhaps formulaic) thesis that leads the reader into the paper and serves as a guide to its contents, but the introduction or conclusion fails to adequately communicate the consequences of the experiences. The paper has some components of a thesis (subject, position, hint at organization) but may be underdeveloped or missing a clearly articulated motive for writing. The paper lacks a thesis or the thesis does not accurately convey what the paper develops.

Content

 

 The paper demonstrates excellent development of each idea and focuses on relevant details. Clearly explained examples support the main points of the paper. Strong and relevant citations used to support argument. The paper contains adequate explanations to support its claims, but will benefit from more development, more thorough interpretation of the prompt, or from more specific development of relevant points. Citation used to support argument. The paper has some development but lacks sufficient evidence or contains irrelevant details that do not yet develop a clear sense of purpose. Citations used, but connection with argument is hard to see. The paper needs more details on every level (main ideas, related ideas, specific ideas). No or irrelevant citations.

Audience

 The author is clearly attentive to the values of the intended audience. The author defends beliefs not shared by the audience and handles counter-arguments with respect. The paper contains words and examples that are likely to appeal to a specific audience, but could benefit from acknowledging underlying assumptions or more effective handling of counter-arguments. The paper shows some awareness of an audience, but relies on beliefs that the audience may not share or fails to convincingly address counter-arguments the audience might propose. The paper does not appear to have a specific audience in mind or is disrespectful to its intended audience either by failing to seriously address counter-arguments or by engaging in an offensive tone.

Structure - Organization

 The paper contains strong topic sentences and builds upon the argument suggested in the thesis. Clear transitions connect ideas both on the paragraph level and the sentence level. The overall structure of the paper is clear, but some topic sentences are weak. Transitions that would clarify the relationships amongst main ideas are occasionally either missing or misleading. The paper has one main idea per paragraph, but some topic sentences fail to adequately present the paragraph's argument or the paper fails to follow the order suggested in the thesis. Transitions are either missing or misleading. Paragraphs are not organized around a central idea and the overall structure of the paper is difficult to follow.

Mechanics

 The paper demonstrates mastery over the basics in sentence completeness, structure, variety, word choice, and punctuation. It maintains a clear and efficient style. The paper displays good control over mechanics, although some areas may still need sentence level revision. Occasional wordiness, passive voice, punctuation errors, pronoun references or unclear modifiers may be problems. The paper shows that mechanics are an area of concern. There may be recurring sentence fragments, comma splices, word usage errors, or redundant clauses. Excessive wordiness or punctuation errors may also be a concern. The paper lacks basic control over mechanics and contains excessive proof-reading errors or has habitual problems with subject-verb errors, sentence fragments or punctuation errors.

Thanks to Dr. Joanna Migrock, the Writing Office at the UT School of Undergraduate Studies, and Elaine Rich of the UT Computer Science Department for providing the material in this rubric.