Finding Common Ground essay

Quality Criteria

No/Limited Proficiency (1)

Minimal Proficiency (2)

Proficiency (3)

High Proficiency (4)

An informative introduction to the issue and opposing positions

The issue(s) at hand are not explained. Thesis is missing. Reader cannot determine thesis and purpose or thesis has no relation to the writing task.

The issue(s) and opposing positions are not well-developed. Thesis may be obvious or unimaginative. Thesis and topic are somewhat vague or only loosely related to the writing task.

The issue(s) and opposing positions are competently developed, but still has some weaknesses. Thesis is somewhat original. Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task.

Develops fresh insight. Substantial, logical, and concrete developments of issue and opposing positions. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted. Thesis is clear and specific.

A well-developed, probing analysis of the two articles

Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic analysis. Inappropriate or off topic generalizations. Analysis is irrelevant to thesis. There are faulty assumptions and errors of fact.

Offers somewhat obvious analysis that may be too broad. Details are too general, not interpreted, or inappropriately repetitive.

Offers solid but less original analysis. Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains mostly appropriate details or examples.

Develops fresh insight. Substantial, logical, and concrete analysis. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

A fair and impartial presentation

Uses judgmental words, inaccurately and unfairly represents information. Doesn’t give equal space to both arguments.

Relies on both judgmental and neutral words. Information could be presented in a biased, selective, or incomplete manner.

Mostly uses clear, neutral and accurate words. Mostly represents information accurately and fairly. Might not give equal space to both arguments.

Uses clear, neutral, and accurate words. Represents the information accurately and fairly. Gives equal space to both arguments.

A clear, logical organization

Unclear organization. No or very few transitions. No or very few topic sentences.

Some signs of logical organization. May have abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow or ideas. Weak topic sentences. Paragraph structure could be improved.

Organization supports thesis and purpose. Transitions are mostly appropriate. But sequence of ideas or paragraph structure could still be improved.

Fully and imaginatively supports thesis and purpose. Sequence of ideas is effective. Transitions, topic sentences, and paragraph structure are effective.

Use of sources/APA format and English grammar and vocabulary

Neglects important sources. Overuse of quotations or paraphrase to substitute writer’s own ideas. Possibly uses source material without acknowledgement. Sources are not integrated. Does not demonstrate proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. No or little understanding of APA.

Doesn’t always cite and synthesize the sources properly. Some connections between the two sources. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced. Demonstrates limited proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Inconsistent understanding of APA.

Mostly cites and synthesizes sources properly. Competently makes connections between the two sources. Doesn’t overuse quotes, but may not always conform to required APA style. Demonstrates proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Demonstrates a good understanding of APA.

Fully and imaginatively synthesizes and properly cites. Makes strong connections between the two sources. Doesn’t overuse quotes. Demonstrates high proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. A complete or near complete understanding of APA.