Rubric for Research/Public Rhetoric

The following document includes three grades for three different ENG108 assignments, a research paper with a rebuttal. The first is a B paper; the second is a C paper; the final is an F paper.

Rubric for Project I: Research Argument with Rebuttal

“B” paper (weaker claim, weaker explanations)

Project Criteria / 0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The thesis is clearly established. / The thesis/claim is not clear and the reader has to read a few paragraphs into the project to determine the main point. / The thesis/claim is clearly stated, but some of the supports seem to wander from the claim. / The thesis/claim is clear and all supports are clearly tied back to the thesis/claim.
X Needs to sharpen claim a bit
0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The supports are clear and there is one support per paragraph / There is often more than one support per paragraph and supports are not clearly articulated (detailed examples are missing or explanation of examples). / There is generally one support per paragraph and each supporting paragraph includes an example (in the form of a citation, personal experience, or other example), and the writer explains how the example relates back to the problem.
Work on explaining what you see in the examples more thoroughly / The writer consistently offers dynamic and convincing examples with each support and the evidence used with supports has credibility with the audience (the sources and examples used with bear weight with the audience).
Quotes are integrated and explained (not plopped) / Quotes and citations are only occasionally introduced using MLA style, giving ethos to the person who is being quoted. / The writer does a good job integrating quotes and explaining why they are important to the argument, but occasionally the explanations are thin. / The author consistently introduces quotes using MLA style and then explains how and why the quote is essential to his/her argument.
Don’t forget the ethos of the source!
Details / Supports/examples are thin and general / Supports/examples have solid details, but there could be more
X / The student does an excellent job describing and using details to SHOW
There is evidence of careful editing / I have had to stop and circle more than four editing issues per page. / There are about 2-3 editing issues per page, but not enough to distract from the argument. / The text is extremely clean.X
Ethos, pathos, logos / There is not a balance of e/p/l or the e/p/l will not appeal to the audience. / There is evidence of e/p/l and it is appropriate for the intended audience.
X / The use of e/p/l shows awareness of audience and there is a balance to appeal to that audience.
Title/Intro/Conclusion / Mashed potatoes (too general) intro and summary conclusion. / Attempt to try new ways of introducing and concluding
X / Engaging intro and smart conclusion that isn’t a summary.
Rebuttals / There are no counter-arguments or rebuttals presented. / The rebuttals are thin, but present.
X / The counter-arguments and rebuttals and addressed in complex ways.
MLA style / MLA style is not used (in-text or bib). / MLA style is attempted, but there are a few errors. / This person could get a job in the CAS, their MLA is so good.
X: you didn’t change anything that I marked on your annotated bib! Shame on you!
Writer’s Notes / Thin or vague or non-existent. / Writer’s notes speak of strengths and weaknesses, but not how the paper was revised.X / The writer’s notes not only provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, but details of how the writer revised from peer feedback.
Sources / Sources are not related to topic or there are not enough credible sources. / Sources are good, but are not used effectively or correctly (misrepresented source material). / Sources are pertinent to the argument and are used in a way that supports the claim.
X

100 possible points: 85

Giving Feedback (30 points possible):

Using Feedback (how well you revised from peer comments; 50 points possible): 10 (no revisions beyond proofreading)

Rubric for Project I: Research Argument with Rebuttal

“C” paper = weak supports

Project Criteria / 0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The thesis is clearly established. / The thesis/claim is not clear and the reader has to read a few paragraphs into the project to determine the main point. / The thesis/claim is clearly stated, but some of the supports seem to wander from the claim. / The thesis/claim is clear and all supports are clearly tied back to the thesis/claim.
0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The supports are clear and there is one support per paragraph / There is often more than one support per paragraph and supports are not clearly articulated (detailed examples are missing or explanation of examples). / There is generally one support per paragraph and each supporting paragraph includes an example (in the form of a citation, personal experience, or other example), and the writer explains how the example relates back to the problem. YOU NEED TO WORK ON THIS. / The writer consistently offers dynamic and convincing examples with each support and the evidence used with supports has credibility with the audience (the sources and examples used with bear weight with the audience).
Quotes are integrated and explained (not plopped) / Quotes and citations are only occasionally introduced using MLA style, giving ethos to the person who is being quoted. / The writer does a good job integrating quotes and explaining why they are important to the argument, but occasionally the explanations are thin. / The author consistently introduces quotes using MLA style and then explains how and why the quote is essential to his/her argument.
Details / Supports/examples are thin and general / Supports/examples have solid details, but there could be more / The student does an excellent job describing and using details to SHOW
There is evidence of careful editing / I have had to stop and circle more than four editing issues per page. / There are about 2-3 editing issues per page, but not enough to distract from the argument. / The text is extremely clean.
Ethos, pathos, logos / There is not a balance of e/p/l or the e/p/l will not appeal to the audience. / There is evidence of e/p/l and it is appropriate for the intended audience. / The use of e/p/l shows awareness of audience and there is a balance to appeal to that audience.
Title/Intro/Conclusion / Mashed potatoes (too general) intro and summary conclusion. / Attempt to try new ways of introducing and concluding / Engaging intro and smart conclusion that isn’t a summary.
Rebuttals / There are no counter-arguments or rebuttals presented. I can’t find any. / The rebuttals are thin, but present. / The counter-arguments and rebuttals and addressed in complex ways.
MLA style / MLA style is not used (in-text or bib). / MLA style is attempted, but there are a few errors. / This person could get a job in the CAS, their MLA is so good.
Writer’s Notes / Thin or vague or non-existent. / Writer’s notes speak of strengths and weaknesses, but not how the paper was revised. / The writer’s notes not only provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, but details of how the writer revised from peer feedback.
Sources / Sources are not related to topic or there are not enough credible sources. / Sources are good, but are not used effectively or correctly (misrepresented source material). / Sources are pertinent to the argument and are used in a way that supports the claim.

100 possible points: 72

Giving Feedback (30 points possible): 0

Using Feedback (how well you revised from peer comments; 50 points possible): 0

Rubric for Project I: Research Argument with Rebuttal

“F” Paper: wobbly thesis/claim; no support paragraph structure; no rebuttals or counter arguments

Project Criteria / 0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The thesis is clearly established. / The thesis/claim is not clear and the reader has to read a few paragraphs into the project to determine the main point. / The thesis/claim is clearly stated, but some of the supports seem to wander from the claim. / The thesis/claim is clear and all supports are clearly tied back to the thesis/claim.
0 points / 5 points / 9 points
The supports are clear and there is one support per paragraph / There is often more than one support per paragraph and supports are not clearly articulated (detailed examples are missing or explanation of examples). / There is generally one support per paragraph and each supporting paragraph includes an example (in the form of a citation, personal experience, or other example), and the writer explains how the example relates back to the problem. / The writer consistently offers dynamic and convincing examples with each support and the evidence used with supports has credibility with the audience (the sources and examples used with bear weight with the audience).
Quotes are integrated and explained (not plopped) / Quotes and citations are only occasionally introduced using MLA style, giving ethos to the person who is being quoted. / The writer does a good job integrating quotes and explaining why they are important to the argument, but occasionally the explanations are thin. / The author consistently introduces quotes using MLA style and then explains how and why the quote is essential to his/her argument.
Details / Supports/examples are thin and general / Supports/examples have solid details, but there could be more / The student does an excellent job describing and using details to SHOW
There is evidence of careful editing / I have had to stop and circle more than four editing issues per page. / There are about 2-3 editing issues per page, but not enough to distract from the argument. / The text is extremely clean.
Ethos, pathos, logos / There is not a balance of e/p/l or the e/p/l will not appeal to the audience. / There is evidence of e/p/l and it is appropriate for the intended audience. / The use of e/p/l shows awareness of audience and there is a balance to appeal to that audience.
Title/Intro/Conclusion / Mashed potatoes (too general) intro and summary conclusion. / Attempt to try new ways of introducing and concluding / Engaging intro and smart conclusion that isn’t a summary.
Rebuttals / There are no counter-arguments or rebuttals presented. / The rebuttals are thin, but present. / The counter-arguments and rebuttals and addressed in complex ways.
MLA style / MLA style is not used (in-text or bib). / MLA style is attempted, but there are a few errors. / This person could get a job in the CAS, their MLA is so good.
Writer’s Notes / Thin or vague or non-existent. You need to explain what the problem areas are and how you revised from peer comments (read p. 5 of your syllabus) / Writer’s notes speak of strengths and weaknesses, but not how the paper was revised. / The writer’s notes not only provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, but details of how the writer revised from peer feedback.
Sources / Sources are not related to topic or there are not enough credible sources. / Sources are good, but are not used effectively or correctly (misrepresented source material). / Sources are pertinent to the argument and are used in a way that supports the claim.

100 possible points: 55

Giving Feedback (30 points possible):

Using Feedback (how well you revised from peer comments; 50 points possible):