Assignment 4 Grading Rubric

ENGR 1271 Fall 2009 Asst 4 Grading Rubric (Writing an Abstract)
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, placement)?
B. Was the rest of the document left unchanged?
C. Were there changes or formatting decisions made that were not asked for?

A. Specs: none or almost none
B. Changes: almost entirely
C. Other alterations: they detracted from the paper's readability

A. Specs: a few
B. Changes: quite a few
C. Other alterations: they detracted from the paper's readability

A. Specs: some
B. Changes: some
C. Other alterations: some

A. Specs: most
B. Changes: 1 or 2 aspects
C. Other alterations: one or two

A. Specs: all
B. Changes: not at all
C. Other alterations: none
Grammar
A. Are the verb tenses in agreement with the paper?
B. Are the verb tenses consistent?
C. Is the passive voice used?
D. Has it been proofread sufficiently?

A. verbs agree: none or almost none
B. verbs consistent: none or almost none
C. passive voice none or almost none
D. proofreading no indication

A. verbs agree: a few
B. verbs consistent: a few
C. passive voice one or two
D. proofreading hard to tell

A. verbs agree: some
B. verbs consistent: some
C. passive voice some
D. proofreading some

A. verbs agree: most
B. verbs consistent: most
C. passive voice most
D. proofreading most

A. verbs agree: all
B. verbs consistent: all
C. passive voice all
D. proofreading clean
Overall Writing Quality
Audience
Terminology
Style matches the rest of the paper
Overall: awkward, unprofessional
→Wrong audience. Too casual.
Terminology: miss-used; didn't explain; explained incorrectly
Style does not fit
Overall: clumsy
Audience: miss-judged; casual
Terminology: major misconceptions or miss-use; missed important ones
Style not as bad as it could be
Overall: OK.
Audience: OK. Reasonable tone.
Terminology: Got many of them. Explained some.
Style OK
Overall:
Audience: Correct level of detail, tone and language.
Terminology: Explained ones that needed it. No superfluous explanations.
Style reasonable
Overall: Professional quality.
→Appropriate for audience. Tone and language are right.
Terminology is accurate, precise, and explained where appropriate.
Style looks like the original authors wrote it
Abstract Form
A. Has appropriate opening and closing sentence.
B. Word Count
Opening: Jumps right in.
Closing: Hangs.
Word Count: > 25 words off.
Opening: Awkward.
Closing: Doesn't really conclude.
Word Count: between 25 and 21 words over or under.
Opening: OK.
Closing: OK.
Word Count: between 21 and 11 words over or under.
Opening: Tells me what I need to know.
Closing: Tells me what I need to know.
Word Count: Up to 10 words over or under.
Opening: Interesting.
Closing: ends the abstract but encourages me to read the rest of the paper.
Word Count: In the range 150-175 words
Abstract Content
A. What is it about.?
B. What did they do?
C. What did they find out?
About: Confused. Didn't say.
Do: Incorrectly described.
Learned: Did not say what they did or has the wrong conclusion. Incorrectly described.
About: Hints at it.
Do: Explained part of it.
Learned: Minimal conclusion.
About: Mostly correct but not especially impressive.
Do: States the key elements of what was done.
Learned: Reasonable clear. Go it.
About: Competent.
Do: Listed all the important elements.
Learned: States conclusion clearly and simply.
About: Very good.
Do: Lists all the important ones.
Learned: Stated clearly, cleanly, and precisely.

Criteria:

  1. Format
  2. Grammar
  3. Overall: Writing Quality
  4. Abstract: Form
  5. Abstract: Content
  • tnl/engr/rubric-a4.txt
  • Last modified: 2012/03/29 10:09
  • by 127.0.0.1