PP

Element Evaluated

Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Standards

Meets Standards

Below Standards

Unsatisfactory

Content of paper, quality of analysis, and support of thesis/argument     (40%)

Critical thinking relevant to the issues, substance, and arguments is evident.  Thesis is sound and very well supported.  (36-40)

Critical thinking and valid argument are sufficiently demonstrated; there is some support for thesis.   (30-35)

Some critical thinking is shown; but thesis is not well supported. (21-29)

Critical thinking and valid argument are not well demonstrated or evident. (0-20)

Application of materials, external readings, and ability to synthesize facts into original ideas (30%)

Comprehensive understanding and application of relevant materials and ability to synthesize into original thought is exemplary. (27-30)

Adequate understanding of relevant materials and ability to  integrate facts from sources in original work is evident.  (24-26)

Some understanding of materials and ability to integrate information into original work. (21-23)

Little or no evidence of understanding  course and external materials, and little discernible ability to produce original work.  (0 -20)

Organization / Style; Grammar and Mechanics (30%)

Assignment is coherent, logical, and well expressed; paper is very readable. There are no, or very few, mechanical errors. (27–30)

Assignment is largely clear, logical, and well expressed; readability is good. There are some mechanical errors in usage, grammar, or citations. (24-26)

Assignment is unclear, has lapses in logic, and/or fails to address major points; readability is poor. Work has many errors in grammar and mechanics.  (21-23)

Assignment is disorganized, confusing, and lacks logical coherence. There are so many mechanical errors that work is seriously flawed.  (0-20)