revise my essay.
English 200: Rubric for Essays Shannon Toll
Please note that this rubric is designed to provide you with a general idea of how papers will be graded in this course. Few papers will fit neatly into one category, and grades will be issued by my holistic evaluation of the paper.
A/A-
Thesis: Easily identifiable, plausible, novel, sophisticated, insightful, crystal clear. Connects well with paper title.
Structure: Evident, understandable, appropriate for thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Paragraphs support solid topic sentences. Work coheres to further an overall argument.
Analysis: Author clearly relates evidence to topic sentences; analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think of the material. Work displays critical thinking and avoids simplistic description or summary of information.
Use of evidence: Primary source information used to buttress every point. Examples support mini-thesis and fit within paragraph. Excellent integration of quoted material into sentences. Demonstrates an in depth understanding of the ideas in the assigned reading and critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner.
Logic and argumentation: All ideas in the paper flow logically; the argument is identifiable, reasonable, and sound. Author appropriately addresses their audience (in academia, a “critically thinking audience who is aware of alternative viewpoints”), and anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel connections to outside material (from other parts of the class, or other classes), which illuminate the thesis. Creates appropriate college level, academic tone.
Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction excellent; correct use of punctuation and citation style; minimal to no spelling errors; absolutely no run-on sentences or comma splices. Conforms in every way to MLA formatting conventions.
B+/B
Thesis: Promising, but may be slightly unclear, or lacking in insight or
English 200: Rubric for Essays Shannon Toll
originality. Paper title does not connect as well with thesis or is not as interesting.
Structure: Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander occasionally. May have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic sentences. Work generally coheres to further an overall argument.
Analysis: Evidence often related to mini-thesis, though links perhaps not very clear. There is some description, but more critical thinking.
Use of evidence: Examples used to support most points. Some evidence does not support point, or may appear where inappropriate. Quotes well integrated into sentences. Demonstrates a solid understanding of the ideas in the assigned reading and critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner.
Logic and argumentation: Argument of paper is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Author demonstrates awareness of their audience (in academia, a “critically thinking audience who is aware of alternative viewpoints”). There is some acknowledgement of counter-arguments, though they are perhaps not
addressed. Occasional insightful connections to outside material made. Mostly creates appropriate college level, academic tone.
Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction strong despite occasional lapses; punctuation and citation style often used correctly. Some (minor) spelling errors; may have one run-on sentence or comma splice. Conforms in every way to MLA formatting conventions.
B-/C+
Thesis: May be unclear (contain many vague terms), appear unoriginal, or offer relatively little that is new; provides little around which to structure the paper. Paper title and thesis do not connect well or title is unimaginative.
Structure: Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around. There are few or weak transitions, many paragraphs without topic sentences. Paragraphs may not cohere to further an overall argument.
Analysis: Quotes appear often without analysis relating them to mini-thesis (or there is a
English 200: Rubric for Essays Shannon Toll
weak mini-thesis to support), or analysis offers nothing beyond the quote. There is an even balance between critical thinking and description.
Use of evidence: Examples used to support some points. Points often lack supporting evidence, or evidence used where inappropriate (often because there may be no clear point). Quotes may be poorly integrated into sentences. Demonstrates a general understanding of the ideas in the assigned reading and only occasionally critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner.
Logic and argumentation: Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. May not demonstrate appropriate awareness of audience (in academia, a
“critically thinking audience who is aware of alternative viewpoints”), address counter-arguments, or make any outside connections. Occasionally creates appropriate college level, academic tone, but has some informal language or inappropriate slang.
Mechanics: Problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction (usually not major). There are some errors in punctuation, citation style, and spelling. May have some run-on sentences or comma splices. Conforms in almost every way to MLA formatting conventions.
C/C-
Thesis: Difficult to identify at all, may be bland restatement of obvious point.
Structure: Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent. Transitions are confusing and unclear. There are few topic sentences. Paragraphs may be disconnected or unclear in supporting an overall argument.
Analysis: Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument; may be no identifiable argument, or no evidence to relate it to. There is more description than critical thinking.
Use of evidence: Very few or very weak examples. General failure to support statements, or evidence seems to support no statement. Quotes not integrated into sentences; "plopped in" in improper manner. Demonstrates a little understanding of (or occasionally misreads) the ideas in the assigned reading and does not critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner.
English 200: Rubric for Essays Shannon Toll
Logic and argumentation: Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support. The paper represents a simplistic view of the topic; no effort to grasp possible alternative views. Does not appropriately address audience (in academia, a “critically thinking audience who is aware of alternative viewpoints”), create appropriate college level, academic tone, and has informal language or inappropriate slang.
Mechanics: Big problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction. There are frequent major errors in citation style, punctuation, and spelling. May have many run-on sentences and comma splices. Does not conform to MLA formatting conventions.
D+/D
Is like C+/C- paper, but the problems are more serious or more frequent.
D-/F
Shows minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the assignment. Very difficult to understand owing to major problems with mechanics, structure, and analysis. Has no identifiable thesis, or incompetent thesis. Does not follow paper guidelines for length and MLA formatting. Plagiarizes.
