Grading Rubric for Final Exam Research Paper
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Ideas
Does not respond to the assignment, lacks defensible argument. / Does not have a clear argument or does not respond appropriately to the assignment. Argument may be too vague or obvious to be developed effectively. / Adequate but weaker and less
Effective argument, possibly responding less well to assignment. Presents central argument in general terms, often depending on platitudes or cliches. Usually does not acknowledge other views. Shows basic comprehension of sources, perhaps with lapses in understanding. If it defines terms, often depends on dictionary definitions. / A solid paper, responding
appropriately to assignment. Clearly has a defensible argument, but may have minor lapses in development. Begins to acknowledge the complexity of central idea and the possibility of other points of view. Shows careful reading of sources, but may not evaluate them critically. Attempts to define terms, not always successfully. / Excels in responding to assignment. Interesting, demonstrates sophistication of thought. The argument is worth developing and limited enough to be manageable. Paper recognizes some complexity of its thesis: may acknowledge its contradictions, qualifications, or limits and follow out their logical implications. Understands and critically evaluates its sources, appropriately limits and defines terms.
Thesis
Fails to establish purpose for writing.
No clear point, or purpose; no central argument to the paper. / Paper drifts substantially from initial purpose or central argument. / Purpose or central argument is established initially, but inconsistently attended to. Paper shows some unity of purpose, though some material may not be well aligned. / Establishes strong sense of purpose, either explicitly or implicitly. Most supporting ideas help develop the central argument. / Clear and concise, well developed.
The central argument governs the development and organization of the paper.
Organization & Coherence
Little evidence of organization, many elements lacking connection to thesis and each other. No transitions used. / Limited evidence of organization, several elements lacking connection to thesis and each other. Transitions used sparsely. / Shows some organization, most ideas related to thesis, some parts of the argument muddled or contradictory. Transitions are often unclear. / Mostly well organized with each paragraph containing one idea, each idea related to the thesis, but with some elements vague, or minor links missing. / Well organized, with a logical structure that develops the ideas one paragraph at the time, with appropriate transitions between segments.
Evidence & Support
No evidence or support provided for argument. Sources are not used for support. Student relies on personal experience and individual ideas as main substance of argument. / 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 source texts and does not critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner. / 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 source texts and only occasionally critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner. / Examples used to support most points. Some evidence does not support points, or may appear where inappropriate. Quotes well integrated into sentences. Demonstrates a solid understanding of the ideas in the sources and critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner. / Source information used to buttress every point. Examples support arguments and fit within designated paragraphs. 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 & Argumentation
Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support. Simplistic view of topic; no effort to grasp possible alternative views. Does not create appropriate college level, academic tone, and has informal language or inappropriate slang. / Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. May not address counter-arguments or make any outside connections. Occasionally creates appropriate college level, academic tone, but has some informal language or inappropriate slang. / Argument of the paper is clear, but it does not flow logically. Evidence is used, but not in meaningful, insightful ways that inform the argument. / Argument of paper is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Some evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not addressed. Occasional insightful connections to outside material made. Mostly creates appropriate college level, academic tone. / All ideas in the paper flow logically; the argument is identifiable, reasonable, and sound. Student anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel connections to outside material (from other parts of the class, or other classes), which illuminate thesis. Creates appropriate college level, academic tone.
Use of Sociological Theory
Paper omits connections to sociological theory. / Paper makes reference to sociological theory, but does not develop its connection to the argument. / Paper makes limited or inaccurate use of sociological theory. / Paper makes appropriate use of sociological theory, but may not be accurate. / Paper makes appropriate and accurate use of sociological theory
Use of Course Material
Paper makes not use of course material or course readings. / Paper makes reference to course material, including course readings; however, the connections between the material and the argument are not developed. / Paper makes limited or inaccurate use of course material, including course readings. / Paper makes appropriate use of course material, including course readings; however, their use may not be accurate or thorough. / Paper makes appropriate and accurate use of course material, including course readings.
Quality &Thoroughness of Research
Paper evidences little research effort, drawing conclusions from few and/or weak sources. / Paper evidences average research effort in number, strength, and quality of sources. Sources may be misapplied. / Paper evidences average research effort in number, strength, and quality of sources. / Paper evidences a solid research effort, drawing from several strong, academic sources; however, paper could benefit from more thorough research. / Paper evidences solid research effort, drawing from many strong, academic sources.
References & Citations
References are poorly documented or nonexistent, both in the text and on the reference list. / References are inconsistently documented on the reference list. Most in-text citations are missing or incorrectly documented. / References are inconsistently documented both in the text and on the reference list. Some in-text citations may be missing in places. / References are well documented in a consistent form, but references and in-text citations may be missing. / References are well documented in a consistent form both in the text and on a reference list.
Mechanics & Style
Lacks control over sentence structure, difficult to follow, does not use appropriate transitions. Many mechanical errors (spelling, punctuation, verb tense, capitalization, punctuation, etc.). / Requires the reader to backtrack to make sense of the organization. Uses awkward, though not necessarily incorrect phrasing. Overly reliant on passive voice. / Style is competent, though not engaging or inventive. Shows reasonable command over phrasing and word choice. Some useful transitions and patterns of reference provide connections in the paper. Some typical mechanical errors and predictable use of passive voice. / Student uses variation in word choices, sentence lengths, and sentence transitions, but sentences are often wordy and cluttered. Economy in writing has not yet been developed. Student refrains from making typical mechanical errors, but errors arise as complexities in writing increase. Passive voice is used, but not noticeably. / Student clearly controls the pace, rhythm, and variety of sentences. Sentence style is smooth and efficient. Words are well chosen and phrasing is precise. Sentences move smoothly from one to the next. No mechanical errors and no passive voice.