ENG 102
G R A D I N G   R U B R I C



INVENTION
 Rating Standards
5  ·   Purpose is clear and appropriate to the assignment.
 ·   Research question is thoughtful and engages in an ongoing debate or demonstrates course-appropriate originality.
 ·   Introduction masterfully engages the reader and creates interest.
 ·   Essay sparkles with creative content choices and is thought-provoking.
 ·   Conclusion is elegant, taking advantage of its rhetorical position in the essay

4  ·   Purpose is clear and appropriate to the assignment.
 ·   Research question is thoughtful.
 ·   Introduction engages the reader and creates interest.
 ·   Essay maintains interest by creative choices made in content selection.
 ·   Concludes smoothly and powerfully.

3  ·   Purpose is appropriate to the assignment.
 ·   Research question is appropriate to the assignment.
 ·   Introduction provides adequate information to set the stage for the essay.
 ·   Essay maintains reader's interest.
 ·   Concludes effectively.

2  ·   Purpose is unclear or not well developed.
 ·   Research question is shallow or does not lead to a debatable claim.
 ·   Introduction fails to create reader interest.
 ·   Essay fails to maintain reader's attention.
 ·   Essay concludes weakly.

1  ·   Purpose is not clear or is not related to the assignment.
 ·   Research question does not respond appropriately to the assignment.
 ·   Introduction is inadequate.
 ·   Essay does not interest the reader.
 ·   Essay lacks closure.



ARRANGEMENT  
 Rating Standards
5  ·   Essay includes an explicit or implied plan for development and a thesis
 ·   Organization strengthens the argument and engages the reader.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs demonstrate a nuanced and creative use of elements of formal argumentation.
 ·   Paragraphs show a sophisticated level of unity and coherence.

4  ·   Essay includes plan for development and a debatable claim.
 ·   Organization strengthens the argument and considers the reader.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs use elements of formal argumentation to establish persuasive momentum.
 ·   Paragraphs are unified and cohesive.

3  ·   Essay includes a discernable plan for development and a debatable claim.
 ·   Organization is appropriate for the assignment.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs employ elements of formal argumentation
 ·   Paragraphs hold together adequately.

2  ·   Essay shows minimal plan for development.
 ·   Essay lacks a clear organizational strategy.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs lack elements of formal argumentation
 ·   OR paragraphs lack unity and cohesion.

1  ·   Essay demonstrates no apparent plan for development and lacks unity and cohesiveness.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs lack appropriate persuasive strategies.



DEVELOPMENT  
 Rating Standards
5  ·   Presents a highly coherent, clearly logical case in support of the claim with powerful use of strategies, examples, definition, explanation, and other credible evidence from outside sources.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs critically respond to, analyze, and synthesize outside sources in sophisticated ways.

4  ·   Presents a coherent, logical case in support of the claim with effective use of strategies, examples, definition, explanation, and other credible evidence from outside sources.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs critically respond to, analyze, and synthesize outside sources.

3  ·   Presents an adequate case in support of the claim with some use of strategies, examples, definition, explanation, and other credible evidence from outside sources.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs respond to, analyze, and synthesize outside sources.

2  ·   Lacks either a coherent, logical case OR adequate use of strategies, examples, definition, explanation, and other credible evidence from outside sources.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs incorporate outside sources without analysis or synthesis.

1  ·   Exhibits little or no support for the claim.
 ·   Discussion paragraphs fail to respond to, analyze, and synthesize outside sources.



RESEARCH METHODS  
 Rating Standards
5  ·   A carefully selected variety of outside source material is quoted, paraphrased, and/or summarized accurately, with close attention to original context.
 ·   Essay uses the assigned documentation style consistently and appropriately.
 ·   Outside source material is interwoven seamlessly and purposefully into the essay according to standard conventions.
 ·   Outside source material is used ethically.

4  ·   A variety of outside source material is quoted, paraphrased, and/or summarized accurately, with attention to original context.
 ·   Essay uses the assigned documentation style consistently and appropriately with only minor errors
 ·   Outside source material is integrated into the essay according to standard conventions.
 ·   Outside source material is used ethically.

3  ·   Outside source material is quoted, paraphrased, and/or summarized without major errors or accuracy or context.
 ·   Essay uses a documentation style consistently and appropriately but with more significant errors.
 ·   Outside source material is integrated into the essay according to standard conventions.
 ·   Outside source material is used ethically.

2  ·   Outside source material is quoted, paraphrased, and/or summarized with major errors of accuracy and context.
 ·   OR essay uses documentation inconsistently or inappropriately.
 ·   However, outside source material is used accurately.

1 Any one of the following may merit a score of 1:
 ·   Outside source material is quoted, paraphrased, and/or summarized inaccurately or taken out of context.
 ·   Essay fails to use any recognizable documentation style.
 ·   Outside source material is not integrated into the essay according to standard conventions.
 ·   Essay fails to include assigned Works Cited and/or Bibliography
 ·   Outside source material is used unethically.



EDITING  
 Rating Standards
5  ·   Contains no more than three major editing errors.
 ·   Contains no distracting editing errors in the Works Cited and/or Bibliography.

4  ·   Contains somewhat more errors (typically no more than two or three per page).
 ·   Contains few distracting editing errors in the Works Cited and/or Bibliography.

3  ·   Contains editing errors that slightly impede meaning and somewhat distract the reader.
 ·   Contains noticeable editing errors in the Works Cited and/or Bibliography.

2  ·   Contains multiple errors that substantially distract the reader.
 ·   Contains multiple editing errors in the Works Cited and/or Bibliography.

1  ·   Contains multiple errors that seriously impede meaning.
 ·   Contains fatal flaws in the Works Cited and/or Bibliography.



STYLE  
 Rating Standards
5  ·   Demonstrates mastery of all elements of style.

4  ·   Shows appropriate language, content, and persona and reveals some sophistication of language usage and syntax.

3  ·   Exhibits appropriate language, content, and persona, but lacks sophistication of language usage and syntax.

2  ·   Uses either language, content, or persona inappropriately and lacks sophistication of language usage and syntax.

1  ·   Lacks minimal control of the elements of style




ENG 101 rubric   |   grading rubrics index

portfolio index   |   composition courses @ siue

contact   |   faculty view home