research paper

Argument

Makes a clear, specific, analytical argument about the source’s historical significance. Argument demonstrates analytical insight and some originality. Asserts argument in a thesis statement in the introduction. Develops argument over the course of the paper through a series of supporting points backed by evidence. Returns to argument in the conclusion and suggests some broader significance.

Makes a claim of historical significance, but it is not specific or clear. Arguments may lack originality or tend more towards description than analysis. Asserts argument in a thesis statement in the introduction. Develops argument over the course of the paper, but may lack sufficient supporting points and/or lose focus. Simply restates argument in the conclusion.

Lacks a claim of historical significance or makes a purely descriptive argument. Fails to develop the argument throughout the paper.

Lacks a claim of significance or makes an inaccurate claim. Does not develop the argument through the paper.

Lacks a claim of significance or makes an inaccurate claim. Does not develop the argument through the paper.

Organization

Is well-organized and clearly structured. Includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Paragraphs precede in a logical order. Each paragraph contains a complete, coherent idea. There are clear transitions between paragraphs/points.

Is mostly organized and logically structured. Includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Paragraphs mostly precede in a logical order, although there may be some awkward transitions. May include repetitions that could be removed through restructuring.

Demonstrates some organization and structure, but the logic is not clear. Includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. May suffer from awkward transitions, repetitions, and paragraphs in which multiple ideas are jumbled together.

Lacks organization and structure. Fails to include an introduction or conclusion. Repetitious and jumbled.

Does not hold together as a coherent piece of writing.

Evidence

Provides specific evidence drawn from the source to support most arguments. May also effectively incorporate evidence from secondary sources. All evidence from the source and all information and arguments drawn from outside sources are properly credited with a footnote citation in Chicago Manual of Style format.

Supports some points with specific evidence drawn from the source, but is uneven or needs to incorporate more specifics. Includes some sources and citations (at the very least of the primary source itself), but not all information and arguments drawn from outside sources are properly credited or the citations are not in Chicago Manual of Style format.

Provides only limited or unspecific evidence drawn from the source to support the argument. Makes some claims that are not supported by evidence. Lacks citations or includes some inaccurate information. May include some information that appears to be taken in part or whole from secondary sources without proper attribution. (If this did not occur on the first assignment, you can still use this as a teaching moment, but if this is a continuing problem, the grade should reflect that.)

Makes numerous claims that are not supported by evidence. Lacks specificity and/or includes a significant amount of or particularly egregious examples of inaccurate information. Lacks citation and appears to draw to a significant extent on secondary sources without proper attribution. (If this did not occur on the first assignment, you can still use this as a teaching moment, but if this is a continuing problem, the grade should reflect that.)

Fails to provide evidence to support assertions. May include egregious errors. Lacks citations and appears to draw to a significant extent on secondary sources without proper attribution. (If this did not occur on the first assignment, you can still use this as a teaching moment, but if this is a continuing problem, the grade should reflect that.)

Introduction of the source

Clearly and succinctly introduces the source and describes when, where, why, how, and by whom it was created (or as many of these questions as it is possible to answer).

Introduces the source, but fails to include all the relevant information or spends too much time just describing (rather than analyzing) the source.

Provides only a cursory introduction to the source.

Fails to introduce the source or includes inaccurate information.

Fails to introduce the source or includes inaccurate information.

Contextualization of source

Situates the source and/or its author in time and displays a clear sense of the relevant historical context (issues, themes, events, location)

Acknowledges something about the historical context, but is not particularly specific or misses particularly relevant issues.

Says very little about historical context or situates the source improperly.

Does not include historical context or improperly situates source. Includes inaccurate information.

No historical context or inaccurate contextualization.

Writing

Written in clear and complete sentences. There are no or only very minor grammatical or spelling errors. The writing style is appropriate to an academic assignment (not overly informal).

Mostly clearly written but there are lapses in clarity. There are notable grammatical or spelling errors. The writing style is overly informal or awkward.

Not clearly written. Grammatical or spelling errors are significant. The writing style is inappropriate.

Unclear. Grammatical or spelling errors are significant. The writing style is inappropriate.

Unclear. Grammatical or spelling errors are significant. The writing style is inappropriate.