The post The Washington Post appeared first on Smart online Writing.
]]>| Criteria | Evaluation | % | CL | P | Z | A | B | C | D | F |
| O 4 |
L 5 |
U 3 |
1a. Conte nt and organi zation |
Does the paper respond to a clear and focused question, problem, or observation related to the topic? Does it demonstrate solid understanding of a particular subject? Is the paper organized |
10 | 9-10 An excellent paper overall, which responds to a clear and focused question or problem related to the topic. The essay shows strong understandin g of its |
8A strong paper overall, which responds to a clear and focused question. The essay shows good understandin g of its subject matter. All |
7A good paper overall. The paper responds to an adequate question or problem, if broadly defined. The essay shows a decent understanding of its subject matter. All requirements |
6 An adequate paper. Its question or problem is vague or unoriginal. The essay shows some understanding of its subject matter, but there are minor errors in understanding. |
0-5 The paper is not of an acceptable standard. Major errors in understanding. Requirements of the assignment are not met. |
| 1b. Understa nding and use of course ideas and material s |
Does the paper demonstrate an understanding of the topic as a theoretical, historical, and cultural concept? Does it integrate course ideas |
5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 The paper demonstrates a strong understandin g of the topic as a theoretical, historical, and cultural concept. |
4 The paper demonstrates a good understandin g of the topic. Course ideas and materials are integrated well. |
3.5 The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. Some course ideas and materials are integrated appropriately. |
2 The paper demonstrates a limited understandin g of the topic. Limited ideas and materials from the |
0-2 The paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of topic as a course conceptt. Course ideas and materials |
| and materials Does the student situate their project within a broader context, thus demonstrating a sophisticated grasp of particular challenges of the topic? |
Ideas and 5 The project is situated clearly within a broader context of debates, discussion, and current events. A sophisticat ed grasp of particular |
course are 3 The student attempts to place their project within a wider context. Links and relations to broader debates, discussions, and events are weak or ambiguous. |
are not 0-2 Ac ontext for the paper is missing or is limited. The student thus fails to demonst rate a |
1c. Frami ng and broad er releva nce |
5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 The project is situated within a broader context, demonstratin g a good grasp of particular challenges of the topic. |
3.5 The project is situated within a context of debates and/ or literatures, though the broader relevance or significance of the paper is |
| challenges 26-30 Strong, clear, and possibly original argument(s). Compelling and original evidence is given to support the argument. Analysis is consistently strong. |
underexplore 21-23 Basic argument, supported by relevant reasons and examples. Basic analysis of issues and ideas. |
sophistic 0-17 Flawed, weak, or missing argument. Analysis is missing or very weak. |
2. Analy sis |
Does the paper evaluate ideas, weigh alternate perspectives, develop coherent arguments, and advocate informed, persuasive conclusions? Is the paper led by an argument, rather than by |
30 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 24-25 A sound argument, supported by compelling evidence, sources, and examples. Analysis is good overall. |
18-20 A basic argument is made, but supporting evidence is sometimes lacking. Student often reverts to summarizing issues and readings. Analysis is weak. |
| 3. Infor matio n Litera cy |
Has the student retrieved, assessed, and synthesized information from multiple sources effectively? Are sources relevant and reliable? Are the paper’s claims supported by sufficient |
15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 14-15 Excellent use of sources and evidence. Sources are reliable. Sources are used and analyzed effectively. Evidence is abundant. Citations are consistently accurate. |
12-13 Good use of sources and evidence. Sources are mostly reliable and are used and analyzed well. Evidence is strong. Minor inaccuracies in citations. |
11 Good use of sources and evidence overall, though evidence is lacking in places. Most sources are reliable. Sources are used and analyzed somewhat effectively. |
9-10 Basic use of sources. Some sources are reliable, but others are not. Use and analysis of sources is limited. Evidence is limited. Frequent citation errors. |
0-8 Sources are missing, limited, or irrelevant. Sources are not particularly reliable. Little to no analysis of sources. Quotations are missing or are not relevant. No citations or seriously flawed |
coherently?
subject
requirement
of the
Most
opinions,
evidence? Are
Some
| 4. Lang uage |
Does the paper demonstrate proficiency in written English to a high academic standard? |
15 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 14-15 Language use is accurate, punctuation is controlled, and spelling is correct. Only occasional errors with complex prepositions and articles. |
12-13 Language use is mostly accurate. Punctuation is generally controlled. Some spelling errors in less common words. Some errors with prepositions and articles. |
11 Language proficiency is varied. Attempts at accurate punctuation, but some errors. Frequent spelling mistakes in less common words. Errors may be frequent, but |
9-10 Language proficiency is varied, punctuation is often inaccurate, and spelling mistakes in common words. Frequent errors with prepositions, articles, and verb forms. |
0-8 Little control of language. Inaccurate punctuation. Frequent spelling mistakes in common words. Accuracy errors are frequent and cause difficulty for the reader. |
| Errors 9-10 A basic presentation. Key elements were included, but others were missing. Poor delivery. Accompanyin g audiovisual materials were not entirely helpful or produced to a high standard. |
5a. Prese ntatio n – Conte nt and delive ry |
Did the student present their research clearly? Was necessary background information provided? Were key terms defined? Was the paper’s argument explained clearly in |
15 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 14-15 An excellent presentation – clearly structured, well prepared, and comprehensi ve. The presenter engaged the audience well. Accompanyi ng |
12-13 A strong presentation – well structured and mostly complete. The presenter engaged the audience well. Accompanyi ng audiovisual materials are |
11 A good presentation overall, though some elements are missing. The presenter did not consistently speak clearly and/or at an appropriate pace or volume. Audiovisual |
0-8 The presentation was weak. It was poorly structured and/ or poorly timed. Major parts were missing. Weak use of audiovisual materials. |
| audiovisual 5 Spoken and written language use is varied and accurate. Only occasional errors with complex terms. |
clear and 4 Language use is mostly accurate. Some errors in less common words. |
materials 3.5 Language proficiency is varied. Frequent mistakes in less common words. Errors may be frequent, but do not impede meaning. |
5b. Prese ntatio n – Spoke n and writte n langu age |
Did the student demonstrate proficiency in written and spoken English to a high academic standard? |
5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 Language proficiency is varied. Mistakes in common words. Language errors sometimes impede meaning. |
0-2 Little control of language. Frequent mistakes in common words and sentence formations. Accuracy errors are frequent and cause difficulty for the listener and reader. |
relation to the
The post The Washington Post appeared first on Smart online Writing.
]]>