Assignment 2 Grading Rubric
ENGR 1271 Fall 2009 Asst 2 Grading Rubric (Supporting a Premise) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | |
Grammar, Style & Format (neatness, completeness, white space, consistency, balance, spelling & grammar) |
→Neatness: Sloppy. →Incomplete. →Too much or too little white space. →Inconsistent. →Lacks balance. →Grammar: Too many spelling or grammatical errors. |
→Neatness: Some problems. →Poor use of white space. →Inconsistent. →Lacks balance. →Grammar: Many spelling or grammar errors. |
→Neatness: Room for improvement. →Sufficient white space. →Consistent formatting. →Lacks adequate balance. →Grammar: Few spelling or grammatical errors. |
→Neatness: No serious problems. →Good use of white space. →Consistent formatting. →Reasonable balance. →Grammar: Only one or two spelling or grammatical errors. |
→Neatness: clean and appropriate. →White space compliments text and content well. →Consistent formatting. →Good balance. →No spelling or grammatical errors. |
Overall Impression | Unacceptable answer. Incorrect or incomprehensible. Misunderstood what was wanted. | Marginally acceptable. Unsupported claims. Weak explanation. Too vague. I remain unconvinced. | Acceptable. Provides an argument but logic or support is unclear or not quite correct. | Good. Arguments are logical & valid. Uses science and facts. Easy to read. | Excellent. Answers are correct. Provides brief but clear supporting explanations. Im convinced. |
Includes at least three reasons (facts, explanations, etc.) that support the premise. | Unacceptable answer. Incorrect or incomprehensible. Misunderstood what was wanted. | Marginally acceptable arguments. Not clearly written. Hard to follow. | Acceptable arguments. Proper length. Fairly clear. In own words. | Good arguments. Sentences are a good length (not too long or short). Expresses the essence of the rationales. Reasonably easy to read and follow. | Excellent arguments. Clean, clear sentences. Covers the key arguments of the rationale. Uses plain language as far as possible. |
Uses at least three different kinds of support (supporting arguments, evidence, authority, explanations, anecdotes) | Unacceptable answer. Incorrect or incomprehensible. Misunderstood what was wanted. | Marginally acceptable answer. Only one kind, or only one is valid. | Acceptable answer. Includes two that are different, and valid. | Good answer. Includes three that are different, and valid. | Excellent answer. Includes three that are different, and valid. They are distinct and well presented. |
Citations | Unacceptable answer. Did not provide what was asked for. No citations or references. | Marginally acceptable answer. Citations exist, but are badly formatted. Too few citations or references, or ones that are inappropriate. | Acceptable answer. Reasonable citations, both in type and number. Includes required information. Some inconsistencies or weak references. | Good answer. Reasonable citations, both in type and number. Citation style is consistent. | Excellent answer. Reasonable to strong citations, both in type and number. Correct and consistent format (APA, or IEEE, or ACM, …) |
Criteria:
- Grammar, Style & Format
- Overall Impression
- 3 Reasons
- 3 Forms
- Citations