| ENGR 1271 Fall 2009 Bonus Asst Grading Rubric (Writing a Recommendation Report) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Unacceptable. Incorrect or incomprehensible. Misunderstood what was wanted. |
Marginally Acceptable. Needs serious attention. |
Acceptable. Average. |
Good. Still room for improvement. |
Excellent. I would hire this person. |
| 0 points | 1 points | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | |
| Format A. Were the specifications followed (heading, body, font, spacing)? B. Were other formatting decisions reasonable? |
→A: none or almost none; ignored specifications →B: they detracted from the paper's readability |
→A: a few →B: they detracted from the paper's readability |
→A: some →B: some |
→A: most →B: mostly |
→A: all →B: looks professional |
| Overall Writing Quality A. Audience Is it appropriate and respectful? Does it use an authoritative tone without being bossy or preachy? B. Terminology Have the right words been used? C. Tables Are they clear, well formatted, appropriate? D. Citations Are they complete? |
→Overall: awkward, unprofessional →A: Wrong audience. Too casual. →B: miss-used; didn't explain; explained incorrectly; “dumbed-down” →C: missing or misleading →D: missing or just links |
→Overall: clumsy →A: miss-judged; not a good fit →B: major misconceptions or miss-use; missed 1 or 2 important ones →C: hard to read, hard to understand →D: only 1 or 2, omitted all for either images & tables or general content |
→Overall: OK. →A: OK. Reasonable tone. →B: Got many of them. Explained some. →C: formatting acceptable but not especially helpful →D: still missed some, formatting inconsistent |
→Overall: →A: Correct level of detail, tone and language. →B: Explained ones that needed it. No superfluous explanations. →C: they do the job →D: got most |
→Overall: Professional quality. →A:Appropriate for audience. Tone and language are right. →B is accurate, precise, and explained where appropriate. →C: clean, clear, professional →D: complete, properly formatted |
| A. Introduction Are we told right away that this is a recommendation report? Does it say who the audience is? Is there a brief list of the contents of the report? B. Conclusion Does it summarize the key findings? C. Requirements Are the requirements as given summarized? |
→A: Jumps right in. →B: Hangs. →C: missing or made up |
→A: Awkward. →B: Doesn't really conclude. →C: got one or two; got more than one wrong |
→A: OK. →B: OK. →C: forgot one or made one up |
→A: Tells me what I need to know. →B: Tells me what I need to know. →C: None missing or misleading. |
→A: Interesting. →B: Couldn't have done better myself. →C: Didn't just cut and paste. Got them all. Made none up. |
| A. Descriptions Neutral, brief B. Comparisons No conclusions; compares “apples to apples”; highlights differences that will help in the recommendation. Point-by-point |
→A&B: badly formatted or organized, missing, awkward |
→A&B includes things it shouldn't; missing things that are important |
→A&B: OK |
→A&B: As per descriptions on text pp.122 |
→A&B: professional looking; correct tone; well-formatted; easy to read and understand |
| Recommendations |
→A: missing or really missed the point |
→A: preachy or unprofessional; reads like an advertisement; makes assumptions or claims that can't be substantiated too long or short; too pushy or not clear |
→A: OK |
→A: mostly good - has some issues |
→A: I'm convinced; I would trust this report |
Criteria: