Scribd
Upload
59 views1 page

Grading Rubric for Academic Writing

This document provides a rubric for evaluating academic papers on various criteria from excellent to unacceptable. Papers that earn an excellent rating demonstrate thorough and complete analysis with strong evidence and citation of high-quality sources. Papers rated as good provide logical sequencing and support for claims, but may have some minor errors or omissions. Papers needing improvement contain multiple issues such as unclear writing, poor evidence, or missing citations. Unacceptable papers feature very poor writing, lack of logic, and inadequate or missing research and citation.

Uploaded by

Ma Ai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views1 page

Grading Rubric for Academic Writing

This document provides a rubric for evaluating academic papers on various criteria from excellent to unacceptable. Papers that earn an excellent rating demonstrate thorough and complete analysis with strong evidence and citation of high-quality sources. Papers rated as good provide logical sequencing and support for claims, but may have some minor errors or omissions. Papers needing improvement contain multiple issues such as unclear writing, poor evidence, or missing citations. Unacceptable papers feature very poor writing, lack of logic, and inadequate or missing research and citation.

Uploaded by

Ma Ai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Clear, varied logical sequence insightful clearly stated, discusses Thorough & claims good blend of Thorough &

claims good blend of Thorough & complete

No errors in expression: high level of makes a valid well supported seriously serious strongly quality primary documentation of

Excellent (5) grammar or vigorous,active source analysis alternative identification of supported & scholarly sources (works cited

Punctuation voice prose integration interpretations key sources by evidence sources & notes)

Mostly logical Some insights Discusses briefly Serious, but claims Mostly high- Missing information

Very readable sequencing; not but some simple stated and at least one partially array mostly quality primary (works cited & or

Good (4) Few errors for the most all paragraphs description or Supported alternative of sources supported by & scholarly notes provided,

Part well integrated narration interpretation evidence sources but incomplete)

Awkward or Difficult to follow; Largely “telling a Unclear statement Mentions the Left out important Claims seldom Too many A great deal missing

Needs Many errors unclear little integration of story” without or poorly possibility of resources or poor supported by popular & or (works cited & or

Improvement sentencing & or different sources explaining WHY supported alternative range of sources evidence unscholarly references missing)

(3) too many passive things happened interpretations sources

Constructions

Unacceptable Unreadable; poor No overall logic; No insights; no No identifiable Ignores alternative Inadequate or no Claims never Poorly selected Poor or nonexistent

Unacceptable level of errors writing obscures very poor synthesis meaningful attempt thesis statement interpretations substantial supported by & low-level (no works cited, or

(2) the work’s meaning of evidence at explanation research evidence sources references)

You might also like