Theological Thinking paper

Theological Thinking Grading Rubric

Criteria Levels of Achievement Below Expectations Basic Proficient Outstanding

Summary of Exegetical

Work

25%

0 to 69 %

The discussion does not cover the features of

the exegetical analysis, or is incomplete, or

does not properly contribute to an

understanding of the passage.

70 to 79 %

The discussion covers features of

the exegetical analysis but is not

sufficiently clear and

comprehensive.

80 to 89 %

The discussion adequately covers

the features of the exegetical

analysis.

90 to 100 %

The discussion displays depth of

understanding and clearly articulates

all of the features of the exegetical

analysis.

Summary of Schools of

Thought

20%

0 to 69 % Consensus or opposing schools of

thought about the theological meaning of

this passage are not adequately

explained or contrasted. Sources are

poor and not well used in the

explanation.

70 to 79 % Consensus or opposing schools

of thought about the theological

meaning of this passage are

adequately explained or

contrasted. Sources are adequate

to poor and are used adequately

in the explanation.

80 to 89 % Consensus or opposing schools

of thought about the theological

meaning of this passage are well

explained or contrasted. Sources

are good and used adequately to

well in the explanation.

90 to 100 % Consensus or opposing schools

of thought about the theological

meaning of this passage are

insightfully explained or

contrasted. Sources are excellent

and used well in the explanation.

Personal Analysis

25%

0 to 69 % The theological meaning of the passage

is not adequately developed. The

reasoning used is poor, and sources are

not adequately used or not used at all.

70 to 79 % The theological meaning of the

passage is adequately developed.

Adequate reasoning is

employed, and sources

adequately used in support.

80 to 89 % The theological meaning of the

passage is clearly developed.

Good reasoning is employed,

and sources are used well in

support.

90 to 100 % The theological meaning of the

passage is clearly and

persuasively developed.

Excellent reasoning is employed,

and sources are used very well in

support.

Contemporary

Application

20%

0 to 69 %

The application is not directly related to the

analysis of the text and/or is not applied to a

contemporary situation which clearly

correlates to the text, and/or is poorly

explained.

70 to 79 %

The application relates to the

analysis of the text and is applied in

to a contemporary situation.

However, the correlation between

the text and its application is not

clear and/or not clearly explained.

80 to 89 %

The application is true to the

analysis of the text and is

appropriately applied in a

contemporary situation.

90 to 100 %

The application is consistent with

the analysis of the intended meaning

of the text and is thoughtfully and

appropriately applied in a

meaningful contemporary situation.

Writing Style

10%

0 to 69 %

Obvious grammatical stylistic errors that

make understanding difficult are present.

70 to 79 %

There are obvious

grammatical/stylistic errors; and/or

there are numerous typos, and/or

sources are not cited.

80 to 89 %

Errors are limited to a “typo” or two,

Turabian style is followed

adequately, and sources are cited.

90 to 100 %

There are no obvious grammatical

or stylistic errors, and content is

well constructed and easy to follow

and Turabian style is carefully

followed.