| CATEGORY | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Topic | Topic was topic claimed and approved by 3 Sep. | Topic was claimed and approved by 10 Sep. | Topic was claimed, but not officialy approved. | Topic was not claimed or approved. | Topic was not claimed or approved and was only slighty related to the group's program. | Topic was not claimed or approved and was not related to the group's program in any way. | 4 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0 |
| Introduction | Your paper's introduction is brief but precise. It clearly tells the reader what your topic is and it does so interestingly. It has a strong thesis that establishes a clear organizational framework for your body paragraphs. | The introduction is effective and serves as a strong foundation for the thesis. The introduction very clearly explains the author's topic and purpose for writing. Your paper has a good thesis that governs the body paragraphs' organization. | The introduction is serviceable, but may be overlong, too short to set-up the thesis, or too far-ranging in purpose. The research paper has a relatively weak thesis. The thesis, however, clearly identifies the author's purpose. | The paper's introduction is too vague, too short, too full of errors (grammatical, factual, or stylistic) to be useful. Your paper's thesis is NEITHER arguable NOR supportable. The thesis cannot organize a paper of 3-5 pages. | The paper's introduction has just one sentence or is too vague, too short, too full of errors (grammatical, factual, or stylistic) to be useful. The paper's thesis is essentially unidentifiable and/or is very ineffective as an organizing principle for the paper. | Your research paper has no identifiable introduction. Your research paper's introduction has no identifiable thesis statement. | 14 | 11.2 | 8.4 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Research | Research was extensive and covered your topic from every angle conceivable. I believe you began researching early in the semester. | Research was good and covered multiple aspects of your topic. It appears you began reseraching early. | Research was decent. Not wonderful, but not bad. Kind of one note. | Research covered only a part of the topic. (Ex. Topic is energy and research only covered solar and nuclear power) | Research seems last minute and lacking, and/or from wikipedia. | There is clearly no research done. | 15 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Body Paragraphs | Each body paragraph clearly supports the thesis and follows logically from the one before it with good transition sentences. | The body paragraphs lack effective transitions. Or, the body paragraphs are strong supporters of the paper's thesis, but are not very effectively organized. | Some of your paper's body paragraphs support your thesis; others don't and are just a summary of information. | Your paper's body paragraphs follow a logical order, but are strictly summary of facts without offering support to the thesis. | Your paper's body paragraphs summarize factual information but do not support your thesis at all. These paragraphs are poorly organized. | Your paper has no paragraphing or paragraphs are begun with no discernable reason. | 14 | 11.2 | 8.4 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Conclusion | Your paper's conclusion restates the thesis and summarizes your supporting evidence in an effective, considered way. Your conclusion does not use the phrase "In conclusion…" or any variant thereof. | Though your conclusion is effective, it suffers from some stylistic flaw. Your conclusion does not use the phrase "In conclusion…" or any variant thereof. | Your paper's conclusion effectively summarizes your argument and support, but may be overlong or may lack focus. Your conclusion does not use the phrase "In conclusion…" or any variant thereof. | Your paper's conclusion is very weak, and makes no effort to effectively recapitulate the paper's thesis or support. | Your paper's conclusion seems to be an afterthought. It does not recapitulate any of your thesis or proof. | Your paper has no conclusion. | 14 | 11.2 | 8.4 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Style | The writer uses language and tone that is mature and focused. The paper reflects a considered use of language and demonstrates careful and intentional word choice. Sentence lengths are varied and structured to maintain reader interest. | The paper shows a considered attempt by the student to use stylistic tools to add to the paper's overall effect. The student tries with mixed success to vary sentence length and diction to make the paper more effective. | The paper's style and use of diction and tone reflects what would be expected from an average student at a level of high school writing. The paper is free from non-standard English throughout. | The research paper has a few errors in grammar and syntax, but these do not seriously affect the reader's ability to follow the paper's argument or organization. | The research paper has some errors in grammar and syntax that make it difficult to read, let alone appreciate the organization or style of. The paper lapses into non-standard English at times. | The research paper contains many errors in grammar and syntax that make it essentially illegible; there can be no discussion of writing style. | 4 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0 |
| Parenthetical Citation | All evidence is correctly cited according to MLA format with no errors at all. | Parenthetical citation is through and mostly correct and accurate with just a few minor errors on format. | Parenthetical citation is used, but is applied inconsistently or is incorrectly format in most/all instances. All information from other sources are appropriately cited. | The use of parenthetical citation is so inconsistent or incorrect that the student clearly made no effort to understand its correct use or application. Or, some parts of the paper - clearly taken from outside sources - are uncredited. | There is essentially no parenthetical citation. Or, large parts of the paper are obviously taken from other sources without adequate credit being given. | There is NO parenthetical citation either because there is no evidence of research or because information has been plagiarized*. | 8 | 6.4 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Mechanical Formatting | The paper is essentially free from any errors in mechanical formatting. | The paper has just one or two minor errors in its mechanical formatting. | There are few errors in mechanical formatting. | There are several errors in minor aspects of the paper's mechanical formatting, or one error in a rather important element of the paper's formatting. | There are several immediately noticeable errors in the paper's mechanical formatting. | The student has ignored essentially all guidelines for mechanical formatting. | 8 | 6.4 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Sources | The student refers to reliable and effective research sources. The paper refers to at least 3 online sources and at least one text (where one of these is about the paper's topic). | The student refers to sources correctly and effectively. The paper refers to at least 4 reliable sources. | The writer limits citation of supporting sources to only one or two, even though more are listed in the Works Cited. Or, one or more of the sources is of questionable academic quality. | The paper's sources are too limited, or are not of acceptable academic quality, or are not referred to at all in the paper. | Whatever outside research the student has done is either too general or vague to support his thesis or is not used in support of the thesis. | The student makes no use of sources. There is no evidence of any research having been done. | 15 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Works Cited | Each entry on your paper's Works Cited page is correctly formatted with no errors at all. | Your paper's Works Cited page is essentially correct with very few minor errors in formatting. | Your paper's Works Cited page has several errors in format. | The Works Cited page offers no evidence that the student understands the rules for formatting a Works Cited page. Formatting is incorrect or haphazard. | Your paper's Works Cited page does not follow formatting rules at all. Or, the Works Cited page is missing several entries. | Your research paper has no Works Cited page. | 15 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| "Unoriginal" (plagerism) | Paper was 3% or less unoriginal. | Paper was 4-6% unoriginal. | Paper was 7-9% unoriginal. | Paper was 10-12% unoriginal. | Paper was 13-15% unoriginal. | Paper was over 15% unoriginal. If paper was over 25% unoriginal the paper is given a zero. | 4 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0 |
| | | | | | | Total | 115 | 92 | 69 | 46 | 23 | 0 |
sametriawilson
PaperGradingRubric1.xlsx
