All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

y cant they rite?: Integrating Writing Assessment Across the Undergraduate Political Science Major
Unformatted Document Text:  APPENDIX 2.A FHSU Department of Political Science Basic Departmental Grading Rubric for Written Assignments *Faculty may adapt, adding or removing characteristics and/or re-weighting components, as appropriate for individual assignments. Student’s Name:___________________________________________ Date:_______________ Assignment: ______________________________________________ Course: _________________________ 4=A 3=B 2=C 1=D 0=U WritingCharacteristic Points Possible Points Received Follows Directions 4= responds fully and appropriately to the assignment in timely fashion3= responds reasonably well to assignment in timely fashion2= responds acceptably to assignment in timely fashion1= some significant failure to respond to assignment, or untimely0= wholly fails to respond to assignment, and/or untimely Thesis 4= easily identifiable, clear and concise, insightful, and appropriate for assignment3= identifiable, clear, and appropriate2= somewhat difficult to identify, unclear, and/or slightly inappropriate for assignment1= very difficulty to identify, unclear, and/or inappropriate for assignment0= unidentifiably, unclear, and/or wholly inappropriate for assignment Use of Evidence 4= appropriate source information (typically primary) used to support thesis and buttress all arguments made in essay, excellent integration of quoted/paraphrased material into writing.3= appropriate source information used to support thesis and to buttress most arguments, good integration of sources into writing2= sometimes weak use of source information (excessively secondary), inadequately supports thesis and/or sub-arguments, weak integration of quoted/paraphrased material into writing1= very weak use of source information (excessively secondary), fails to support thesis and/or sub-arguments, very weak integration of material into writing0= wholly failures to use sources appropriately Analysis, Logic and Argumentation 4= all ideas progress logically from an identifiable thesis, compelling justifications are offered to support thesis, counter-arguments are anticipated and addressed, appropriate connections are made to outside material3= thesis is generally supported by logically compelling assertions and appropriate connections 2= insufficient support for some arguments, assertions are vague or lack focus, support offered is sometimes irrelevant, tangential or repetitive 1= lacks support for arguments, unfocused, uses irrelevant information to support thesis0= wholly fails to related evidence to thesis statement Organization 4= coherent and clear, all paragraphs support thesis statement, each paragraph supports its topic sentence, excellent transitions3= mostly coherent, generally supports thesis, good transitions2= often lacks coherence, mixed support for thesis, transitions often missing or weak1= incoherent, lacks support for thesis, transitions weak and often missing0= wholly incoherent, unsupportive of thesis and lacking in transitions Mechanics (Grammar, Spelling, Language Usage, Sentence Structure, Citation Format) 4= excellent command of language, proper use of grammar/writing conventions, few to no misspelled words, correct word choice, excellent variety and complexity of sentence structure, uses proper citation format3= good command of language, generally proper use of grammar/writing conventions, minimal misspelled words, largely good word choice, some variety and complexity in sentence structure, generally uses proper citation format2= generally proper use of grammar/writing conventions, but with simple sentences generally lacking variety/complexity in structure, acceptable citation format1= weak use of language, poor grammar, and numerous mechanical errors undermine coherence, weak citation format 0= extremely weak use of language/poor grammar, and pervasive errors seriously undermine coherence, improper citation format Total Points, Percentage or Overall GradeAdditional Comments: APPENDIX 2.B Mills and Bennett (FHSU) Page 20 February 2008

Authors: Mills, Shala.
first   previous   Page 20 of 25   next   last



background image
APPENDIX 2.A
FHSU Department of Political Science
Basic Departmental Grading Rubric for Written Assignments
*Faculty may adapt, adding or removing characteristics and/or re-weighting components, as appropriate for individual assignments.
Student’s Name:___________________________________________
Date:_______________
Assignment: ______________________________________________
Course: _________________________
4=A
3=B
2=C
1=D
0=U
Writing
Characteristic
Points Possible
Points
Received
Follows Directions
4= responds fully and appropriately to the assignment in timely fashion
3= responds reasonably well to assignment in timely fashion
2= responds acceptably to assignment in timely fashion
1= some significant failure to respond to assignment, or untimely
0= wholly fails to respond to assignment, and/or untimely
Thesis
4= easily identifiable, clear and concise, insightful, and appropriate for assignment
3= identifiable, clear, and appropriate
2= somewhat difficult to identify, unclear, and/or slightly inappropriate for
assignment
1= very difficulty to identify, unclear, and/or inappropriate for assignment
0= unidentifiably, unclear, and/or wholly inappropriate for assignment
Use of Evidence
4= appropriate source information (typically primary) used to support thesis and
buttress all arguments made in essay, excellent integration of quoted/paraphrased
material into writing.
3= appropriate source information used to support thesis and to buttress most
arguments, good integration of sources into writing
2= sometimes weak use of source information (excessively secondary), inadequately
supports thesis and/or sub-arguments, weak integration of quoted/paraphrased
material into writing
1= very weak use of source information (excessively secondary), fails to support
thesis and/or sub-arguments, very weak integration of material into writing
0= wholly failures to use sources appropriately
Analysis, Logic and Argumentation
4= all ideas progress logically from an identifiable thesis, compelling justifications are
offered to support thesis, counter-arguments are anticipated and addressed,
appropriate connections are made to outside material
3= thesis is generally supported by logically compelling assertions and appropriate
connections
2= insufficient support for some arguments, assertions are vague or lack focus,
support offered is sometimes irrelevant, tangential or repetitive
1= lacks support for arguments, unfocused, uses irrelevant information to support
thesis
0= wholly fails to related evidence to thesis statement
Organization
4= coherent and clear, all paragraphs support thesis statement, each paragraph
supports its topic sentence, excellent transitions
3= mostly coherent, generally supports thesis, good transitions
2= often lacks coherence, mixed support for thesis, transitions often missing or weak
1= incoherent, lacks support for thesis, transitions weak and often missing
0= wholly incoherent, unsupportive of thesis and lacking in transitions
Mechanics (Grammar, Spelling,
Language Usage, Sentence Structure,
Citation Format)
4= excellent command of language, proper use of grammar/writing conventions, few
to no misspelled words, correct word choice, excellent variety and complexity of
sentence structure, uses proper citation format
3= good command of language, generally proper use of grammar/writing conventions,
minimal misspelled words, largely good word choice, some variety and complexity in
sentence structure, generally uses proper citation format
2= generally proper use of grammar/writing conventions, but with simple sentences
generally lacking variety/complexity in structure, acceptable citation format
1= weak use of language, poor grammar, and numerous mechanical errors undermine
coherence, weak citation format
0= extremely weak use of language/poor grammar, and pervasive errors seriously
undermine coherence, improper citation format
Total Points, Percentage or Overall
Grade
Additional Comments:
APPENDIX 2.B
Mills and Bennett (FHSU)
Page 20
February 2008


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.