1+ = 100;1 = 93-96; 2+ = 90-92
2 = 86-89; 2- = 83-85; 3+ =
3 = 76-79; 3- = 73-75; 4+ =
||Needs Much Improvement
4 = 66-69; 4- =
63-65; 5+ = 60-62
= 50-59; 5- = 40-49; 6 = 20-39
||Significantly exceeds the
required minimum number of sources.
||Uses at least the minimum number
of required sources, with no more than 1/2 from the internet
||Uses several fewer sources than
required, and/or more than 1/2 are from the internet
||Uses only about 1/2 the number
of sources required, and/or most are from the internet
||Uses only 1 or 2 sources; uses only internet sources
||Every parenthetical citation
clearly matches to a works cited entry.
||Very few citations do not
clearly match to a works cited entry.
||Several citations do not clearly
match to a works cited entry (including multiple citation problems from 1-2
||There is a noticeable pattern of
citations which do not match to a works cited entry.
||It is difficult to match most
citations with their respective works cited entries.
||All quotes, paraphrases,
summaries from sources are clearly documented as borrowed information.
||1-2 pieces of borrowed
information are not clearly documented.
||Several pieces of borrowed
information are not clearly documented.
||Large parts of the paper contain
||Parts of the paper appear to
have been downloaded from the internet or copied from 1 or more sources, with
no attempt to identify the information as quotations.
||All of the following formats are
correct: 1st page heading; title of
paper; page numbering; heading on works cited; double spacing; margins
||One of the formats is incorrect.
||2-3 formats are incorrect.
||Paper shows numerous formatting
||Paper shows little or no attempt
to follow MLA style formatting.
||All parenthetical citations are
in correct format.
||Very few errors in formats of
||Several errors in formats of
||A noticeable pattern of errors
in formats of citations.
||Citations do not follow MLA
||All Works Cited entries contain
all required information and follow MLA rules for order of information,
punctuation, and formatting.
||1-2 Works Cited entries do not
contain all required information OR do not follow MLA rules.
||Several entries do not contain
all required information OR do not follow MLA rules
||Works Cited entries
do not proper indentation.
||Works Cited entries are not
listed in alphabetical order.
Effective hook; smooth connection between opening and thesis; effectively
incorporates excellent background information.
||Solid introduction: Clear hook
but not especially effective; connection between opening and thesis; provides
good background info.
||Functional introduction: hook does not communicate a clear idea or
image; unclear connection between opening and thesis; provides adequate
introduction: hook unrelated to paper
topic; no connection between opening and thesis' provides little background
introduction: no hook; no background
||Extremely clear thesis which
makes a strong critical judgement about a specific aspect of the topic and
gives paper strong structural direction.
||Clear thesis which makes a
critical judgement about a specific aspect of the topic and gives paper
general structural direction.
||Thesis is too general. Does not make a judgement. Does not
identify specific aspect of topic.
Does not give structure to the paper.
||Thesis does not communicate a
||Thesis is missing or
||Main points are stated extremely
clearly throughout the paper and directly relate to the thesis.
||Main points are stated clearly
and are related to the thesis.
||Some main points are not clearly
stated or not directly related to the thesis.
||Main points are not clear or not
clearly related to the thesis.
||Main points are missing or
||Each paragraph is a discreet and
unified unit of thought, reflected in extremely clear topic and concluding
sentences, with supporting details coherently integrated.
||Each paragraph is a discreet and
unified unit of thought, reflected in clear topic and concluding sentences,
with supporting details integrated.
||Paragraphs do not contain concluding sentences; supporting details
may not be coherently integrated.
||Paragraphs do not contain clear
||Information is not separated
into units of thoughts OR includes random integration of information (goes
||Argument shows sophisticated use
of transitions throughout the paper.
||Transitions are used effectively
to connect main points or to establish/connect ideas within main points; may
sometimes be awkward
||Transitions are occasionally
missing between ideas.
||Transitions are often missing.
||Little or no attempt to show
connection between ideas; no transitions between/within paragraphs.
||Info. is arranged strategically
so it addresses the issues of the paper with extremely clear logic.
||Info. is arranged clearly and
logically addresses the issues.
||The argument is sometimes
unclear or illogical.
||The argument is often unclear or
||Sequence of ideas is very
stays on topic but extends ideas.
||Conclusion begins to extend
ideas, but is underdeveloped.
summarizes the main points of the paper but does not extend ideas.
||Conclusion is an underdeveloped
summary or introduces info. Not presented in body of the paper.
||Conclusion is missing,
incoherent, or extremely brief.
||Plenty of evidence to support
thesis and main points.
||Enough evidence to prove thesis.
||Paper needs more evidence.
||Evidence is often often takes
the form of vague paraphrasing or overly-long quotations, or is repetitive.
||Plot summary or many overly-long
quotations; very few references; erroneous evidence.
||Extremely strong evidence which
illuminates the main points of thesis
||Good evidence which clearly
relates to thesis and main points.
||Examples occasionally do not
support thesis or main point.
||Some evidence unrelated to
thesis or main point.
||Evidence frequently does not
relate to thesis or main point.
||Ideas are original and
opinionated; demonstrates significant insight into the topic.
||Ideas are clear and express some
opinion/point of view; demonstrates insight into the topic.
||Ideas are mostly clear; fails to
develop the significance of insight into the topic.
||Ideas are functional but seem to
be only derived from source info; shows little of writer's original
||Ideas are unclear; little or no
connection between ideas and supporting evidence.
demonstrates insight and explores reasons behind surface-level ideas; makes
||Insightful commentary; could be
more fully developed.
||Uneven commentary: too general,
underdeveloped, lacking in connections or sense of purpose; occasionally not
supported by evidence.
||Commentary often based on
speculation rather than evidence.
Commentary is sometimes confusing or illogical.
||Little or no commentary; does
not analyze evidence; very confusing/illogical.
||Writer explores the topic
critically and reveals in-depth understanding of the topic. The paper is thought-provoking.
||Writer explores the topic
completely and substantively and reveals a solid understanding of the topic.
||Writer explores the topic, but
not thoroughly. Demonstrates only
basic understanding of the topic.
||Writer does not stay focused on
the topic; demonstrates a limited knowledge or understanding of the topic.
||Writer misinterprets/does not
seem to understand the evidence presented to support the topic.
||All main points blend info. from
several sources to effectively support ideas.
||Main points use info from
several sources to support ideas.
||Some main points use info from
too few sources to support ideas.
||Writer depends mainly on 2 or 3
sources throughout the paper, with occasional references used from other
||Writer consistently uses only 1
or 2 sources throughout the paper
||Significant, insightful use of
both primary and secondary sources.
||Good use of both primary and
||Writer's use of evidence from
primary sources is uneven: sometimes too general or insufficient.
||Writer uses little evidence from
primary sources; or little
evidence from secondary sources
||Writer uses only primary or
||Writer insightfully and
commandingly proves thesis.
||Writer clearly proves thesis.
||Thesis is more or less proven.
||Reader does not feel that the
evidence convincingly proves the truth of the thesis.
||Lack of logical connections
between pieces of evidence and/or lack of evidence leave thesis clearly
||Powerful, varied, specific
vocabulary. Diction thoroughly captures reader's interest through use of
precise and appropriate language.
||Strong vocabulary; clear and
appropriate diction; would benefit from more specificity, variety, and/or
||Functional vocabulary; language
is occasionally colloquial/informal; imprecise, simple, lacks variety; many
passive verbs; sometimes stilted or wordy.
||Inaccurate or inappropriate
diction; excessive use of passive voice; very simple or very stilted word
choice; often wordy or repetitive.
||Frequently misuses words;
limited vocabulary interferes with meaning; very repetitive.
||All quotes are integrated
seamlessly into the sentences, with effective lead-ins and transitions to
||Most quotes are integrated
smoothly into the sentenceswith lead-ins and transitions to commentary.
||Quotes are occasionally
awkwardly integrated into the sentences; lead-ins and/or transitions are
||Quotes are simply stuck into the
writing as separate sentences, without integration.
||Writer does not use quotes.
||Virtually no spelling or
||A few spelling/punctuation
errors which do not interfere with meaning.
||A number of spelling/punctuation
errors which occasionally interfere with meaning.
||Many spelling/punctuation errors
which frequently interfere with meaning.
||So many spelling/punctuation
errors that the paper is very difficult to read.
||Writer demonstrates command of
complex and varied sentence structure.
||Writer demonstrates clear
command of language, with some sentence variety.
||Communicates clearly, but
sentence structure lacks variety; occasional awkward sentence structure.
||Meaning is sometimes unclear;
frequently awkward sentence structure; choppy or rambling sentences; does not
||Meaning is often unclear; mostly
||No fragments, run-ons or comma
splices; sentence structure is correct.
||Very few fragments, run-ons, or
comma splices; occasional sentence structure errors.
||A few fragments, run-ons, or
comma splices; several syntax errors.
||A noticeable pattern of
fragments, run-ons, comma splices, or syntax errors.
||Constant fragments, run-ons,
comma splices, or syntax errors.