[DO NOT USE this rubric. Use the Generic rubric (document 9)]

Dialectical Essay Assessment Rubric

Essay Title: ______

Instructions: Check one box (A, B, C or LC) for each of the following 8 items. Add a comment under each section. Remember the goal of the exercise is to help your peers improve their writing: be as honest as possible while making specific recommendations for improvement.

A. General Essay Requirements

1. Literacy (spelling, punctuation, grammar) / A. Excellent: Few or no mistakes in spelling punctuation and grammar. / B. Good: Few mistakes in spelling, punctuation and grammar. / C. Needs serious attention: some mistakes in spelling, punctuation and grammar. / LC. Major Overhaul: Spelling, punctuation or grammar seriously detracts from the comprehensibility of the paper.
General comment on improving spelling punctuation and grammar: Spelling and punctuation are generally good, though you have some errors. See for example the period in between, “what the x-ray tube is” and “The baby needs” at the bottom of page three. I think you want a comma here. In addition, the next sentence needs a comma after “In this example”.
Grammar needs improvement. Some sentences read in a very confusing manner and it is not clear to the reader what exactly is being referenced. I would suggest reading the essay out loud to yourself as you could quickly see that some key sentences are very difficult to decipher. This lack of clarity is also sometimes attributable to the run-on structure of some sentence. See for example sentences such as, “Even though they are each viewing the same object the manner in which they are aware of what the object is completely different”. Sentences like this are difficult to understand and need revision.
2. Bibliographic form / Excellent: no errors in citing materials, either in in-text citations or reference list. Contains at least one reference to course readings / Good: Minor errors in some
references, either in in-text or reference list. Contains at least one reference to course readings. / Needs serious attention: Consistent errors either in in-text or reference list. Contains at least one reference to course readings. / Major Overhaul: Lacks understanding of proper citing procedures or lacks references altogether.
General comment on improving bibliographic form: This work does not cite its sources. You have no quotes in the text and do not cite any of the philosophers you discuss.
3. Organization / Excellent: logical structure of argument is very clear. Main arguments, objections and replies very clearly indicated. / Good: logical structure of argument is clear. Main arguments, objections and replies clearly indicated. / Needs serious attention: logical structure of argument is not clear, or main arguments, objections and replies not clearly indicated / Major Overall: structure of argument cannot be made out, or missing entirely.
General comment on improving organization: I’m not entirely clear on your structure. You should ask yourself what the major point each paragraph aims to make and then organize accordingly. It wasn’t clear when you switched from one area of the essay to the next, especially your transition (on pg. 3) from support, to objection, to rebuttal, to objection. Also note that the concept you are discussing is normally called, “Theory-Ladenness of Observation” or “Theory Laden Observation” not “Theory-Laden of Obesrvation” which sounds ungrammatical.
4. Accuracy / Excellent: concepts and argument from readings clearly and accurately explained / Good: concepts and argument from readings mostly clearly and accurately explained / Needs serious attention: concepts and argument from readings not clearly and accurately explained / Major overall: concepts and argument from readings not included or misrepresented
General comment on improving accuracy: I don’t think you present Hanson’s argument entirely accurately. For example when you infer, “Therefore, theories are constructed by our observations” you don’t explain how this follows from Hanson’s example or how it relates to your central claim. You also say that “According to the theory, observations are theory-laden beliefs because they shape a theory of paradigm” and attribute this to Hanson but this doesn’t reflect his argument. Instead you seem to be discussing Kuhn here.

*LC = Less than a ‘C’, i.e., D or F.

B. Argument Evaluation

5. Statement of Thesis / A. Very Clear / B. Clear / C. Somewhat clear / LC. Not clear
General comments for improvement of thesis statement: I’m not clear on what your thesis is. You don’t specify what you are going to argue in relation to the ideas you introduce in your first paragraph. Moreover, your first paragraph seems confused and your rarely use the M.C. Escher analogy throughout the rest of your paper. Thus, this section feels unnecessary.
6. Arguments in support of Thesis / A. Very persuasive / B. Persuasive / C. Somewhat persuasive / LC. Not very persuasive
General comments for improvement of arguments in support of main thesis: Your overall strategy, using Hanson’s analogy of Kepler and Brahe, is a good one. However its execution needs improvement. It is not always clear what you are discussing. You sometime seem to close one point only to open it up again shortly thereafter. Consider isolating your argument for your thesis from your objections, as this makes it unclear when you are trying to support or refute some point.
7. Objections / A. Very strong objection / B. Strong Objection / C. Somewhat strong objection / LC. Not very strong objection
General comments for improvement to objections: You do not provide any real objections in this paper. You state that, “Such conjecture could be refuted stating that observations can be separated from interpretations”. You don’t, however, provide any motivation for this position. Simply stating that some individuals say not P does not really serve as an objection to some theory, P, without explaining the motivation behind not P.
You present other objections in the paper that are also unclear. You speak much of paradigms on page 3 (numbered page 4) and try to draw some connection between this and the theory/observation demarcation. I’m confused as to what this link is. Hanson certainly doesn’t discuss paradigms in his article and you never give us any reason to believe that these have an interesting effect on this demarcation debate.
To rectify this, I think you should isolate your section in which you consider objections. Then write your objections out in their most basic form to yourself and then include this in your paper. You might also consider presenting only one objection but focusing on making it clear and providing good motivation for why the critic might endorse this position.
8. Reply to objections / A. Very strong reply / B. Strong reply / C. Somewhat strong reply / LC. Not very strong
General comments for improvement to reply to objections: Again, I do not think you really give a clear response to the objections you do provide. You often simply say that the critic of Hanson does not understand the Hanson example, which would not be an adequate response to a serious objection. However, I think once you reformulate your objections, you should begin again, starting a new paragraph dedicated only to more robust response(s) to these new objections.