Need a question answered?

SC5950 ESSAY RUBRIC 5500 SERGEANTS SCHOOL SEMINAR PROGRAM

Page 1 of 3

Adjunct faculty will identify, as early as possible, students whose essay requires remediation and schedule remediation sessions along with directing students to the CDET ECDEP Editor for additional support and tutoring. Adjunct faculty will grade all essays and provide the graded essay with feedback to students no later than two weeks after the due date and post final grades in Moodle. Additionally, adjunct faculty may provide graded copies to the students in any format they choose whether hard copy, complete with handwritten feedback, or an electronic copy, with track changes and comments as the method of feedback and grading. Online adjunct faculty need to provide electronic copy feedback to students through the submitted assignment in the gradebook.

Grading Procedures for 5950 Essay The purpose of the essay is to assess students and institutional performance against stated course and lesson educational learning outcomes. Adjunct faculty need to determine whether the student is learning at a mastery level. The rubric is designed as a holistic scoring/grading tool. Once the total number of rubric points is tallied, simply apply those points to the total number of points for the course by placing them in the Moodle Gradebook. The essay is worth 75 points which is 7.5% of your total grade.

Content (40 points for the category, 10.0 points for each criterion)

Criteria Unacceptable

(0 – 79%; 0 – 7.9 pts) Satisfactory

(80 – 89%; 8.0 – 8.9 pts) Commendable

(90 – 100%; 9.0 – 10 pts) Score

Understanding of Concepts

The paper demonstrates limited or no understanding of few or any of the course issues, theories, principles, and concepts.

The paper demonstrates an understanding of most of the course issues, theories, principles, and concepts.

The paper demonstrates an in- depth understanding of all, or nearly all, of the course issues, theories, principles, and concepts.

Critical Thinking (grade subordinate entry as separate item)

Analysis

• The paper breaks the argument, issue, or problem into parts, however, the parts identified are not the correct and/or relevant ones; some parts may be missing or unclear.

• The links between the parts are completely inaccurate or only somewhat accurate.

• The paper successfully breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts.

• The links between the parts are fairly accurate.

• The paper successfully breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts.

• The links between the parts are clear and highly accurate.

Synthesis

• The parts of the argument, issue, or problem to be integrated are not clear and/or relevant or the paper integrates only some parts into a somewhat coherent whole.

• The links between the parts are unclear or are somewhat unclear.

• The paper integrates the most relevant parts of the argument, issue, or problem from various places into a mostly coherent whole.

• The links between the parts are generally clear.

• The paper successfully integrates all relevant parts of the argument, issue, or problem from various places into a coherent whole.

• The links between the parts are clear and insightful.

Evaluation

The paper does not evaluate, or poorly evaluates the argument, issue, or problem. It makes inaccurate or poor judgments based on bad or erroneous internal evidence or external criteria.

The paper evaluates the argument, issue, or problem and makes acceptable judgments based on internal evidence or external criteria.

The paper evaluates the argument, issue, or problem and makes insightful judgments based on internal evidence or external criteria.

Page 2 of 3

Organization and Structure (20 points for the category, 4.0 points for each criterion)

Criteria Unacceptable

(0 – 79%; 0 – 3.1pts) Satisfactory

(80 – 89%; 3.2 – 3.5 pts) Commendable

(90 – 100%; 3.6 – 4.0 pts) Score

Thesis

• There is no thesis or it must be uncovered or reconstructed from the text of the paper; if present, it is irrelevant or off-topic. • Any questions posed by the thesis (if available) are not answered by the end of the paper.

• The thesis is obvious, but it is not made in a single statement; it is interesting and relevant. • The thesis poses an idea or question that is partially answered by the end of the paper.

• The thesis is a single clear and eloquent statement of the central argument; it is original, interesting, and relevant. • The thesis poses an idea or ques- tion that is answered by the end of the paper.

Support

• There is poor or inappropriate use of information as evidence or support. • The evidence used does not clearly support the main argument.

• There is appropriate use of information as evidence or support. • The evidence used to support the central point is well chosen, though not particularly rich or detailed.

• There is outstanding use of appropriate information as evidence or support. • The evidence used to support the thesis is rich, detailed, and well chosen.

Structure

• The paper is poorly organized or fails to include an introduction, body, or conclusion. The introduction does not contain the thesis or does not describe the paper accurately. It is difficult or impossible to follow which claims are being used as evidence and how that evidence is supposed to support the thesis. The conclusion is missing or is merely a restatement of the introduction. • Overall, the response is confused by illogical organization, lack of focus, and wandering ideas.

• The paper is well organized and contains an introduction, body, and conclusion. • The thesis is contained in the introduction, and it is generally clear how the paper will get to this conclusion. It is generally easy to follow which claims are being used as evidence and how that evidence supports the thesis. • The paper uses the conclusion to tie up loose ends. • Overall, the response is focused on a central theme, and although the focus may stray occasionally, the author’s intentions are clear.

• The paper has excellent organization and contains a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. • The introduction highlights the thesis and makes it clear how the paper will get to this conclusion. • The body makes it explicit which claims are being used as evidence and how that evidence supports the thesis. The conclusion clearly sums up the paper and ties up loose ends. • Overall, the paper is tightly focused on the thesis and is easy to follow and understand.

Syntax and Construction

• Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. • The author does not acknowledge that key words have precise meanings. • In many paragraphs there is not a distinct or coherent point; topic sentences are missing or unclear in a number of paragraphs.

• Most sentences are complete and grammatical. • Most words are chosen for their precise meanings. • Most paragraphs have one distinct and coherent point; for the most part, the parts of each paragraph connect logically and effectively.

• Virtually all sentences are complete and grammatically correct. • Words are chosen for their precise meanings. • Every paragraph makes one distinct and coherent point, ex- pressed in a clear topic sentence; the parts of each paragraph connect logically and persuasively.

Connections and Transitions

• Connections and transitions between paragraphs are poor, hap-hazard, or missing. • It is unclear how each paragraph connects to the thesis.

• Connections and transitions are present between most paragraphs and are generally effective. • Most paragraphs clearly relate to the thesis.

• All paragraphs move naturally from one to the next. Connections among paragraphs are clearly articulated and the transitions are effective. • All paragraphs directly relate to the thesis.

Page 3 of 3

Style and Grammar (15 points for the category, 5.0 points for each criterion)

Criteria Unacceptable

(0 – 79%; 0 – 3.9 pts) Satisfactory

(80 – 89%; 4.0 – 4.4 pts) Commendable

(90 – 100%; 4.5 – 5.0 pts) Score

Originality

Original thought is limited or non- existent; if present, it is overshadowed by others’ conclusions and is redundant.

Original thought is present, but it relies heavily on others’ conclusions and is at times redundant.

Original thought is fresh and unique; it is the synthesis of the author’s experience and knowledge of the course materials and it is not redundant.

Tone

• The paper lacks academic diligence. • There are frequent informal and

inappropriate usage errors—slang is present.

• Does not provide a tone that is consistent and appropriate for the audience or purpose.

• The tone of the paper is mostly formal. There are some mistakes in usage—slang is not present.

• Provides a tone that is consistent and appropriate for the audience or purpose.

• The tone of the paper is appropriately formal—slang is not present.

• Provides a tone showing a strong understanding of audience or purpose.

Mechanics and Punctuation

The paper has frequent mistakes in capitalization, spelling, abbreviations, and italics; punctuation is often missing or incorrect.

The paper has some mistakes in capitalization, spelling, abbreviations, and italics; there are limited punctuation mistakes.

The paper has few or no mistakes in capitalization, spelling, abbreviations, and italics; there are virtually no punctuation mistakes.

Comments

Total