Cultural Competence

WritingGuidelines.docx

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTER SCIENCE

EE 476C/486C GUIDELINES - Writing Standards

Effective Writing Outcomes

 Students will demonstrate competency in writing in multiple genres.

 Students will demonstrate thoughtful revision and an awareness of audience.

 Students will be able to thoughtfully reflect on and discuss their strengths and weaknesses as writers.

 Students will construct critical and interpretive arguments that illustrate their fluency in identifying and utilizing multiple research tools.

 Students will explore in writing their relationship to and impact upon issues vital to our emerging society.

Writing Rubric

Score of 5: Superior

A superior response goes beyond merely naming a topic or providing a simplistic answer to the assignment. A paper

in this category

 Makes ample use of specifics to support generalizations,

 Critically examines the subject at hand,

 Provides thoughtful and sophisticated commentary and

 Presents a rich and insightful approach that engages a range of readers.

A superior paper is

 Literate and orderly, though it may have an occasional minor error.

 Displays richness, variety and developmental sophistication.

 Addresses and/or defines the question fully and explores the issues thoughtfully.

 Shows substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.

 Demonstrates clear, focused, unified and coherent organization.

 Is fully developed with supporting detail and/or evidence.

 Evidences superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition.

Score of 4: Strong

The strong paper describes an issue or answer thoughtfully but without the sophistication or richness of a superior

paper. Critical examination of the subject occurs though it is limited in scope and breadth. While generalizations are

supported by specifics, the structure of the argument may be limited in depth and complexity.

A strong paper

 Literate and orderly, though it may have a few flaws.

 Thoughtful with some richness, variety and sophistication.

 Clearly addresses the question and explores the issues.

 Shows some depth and complexity of thought.

 Is effectively organized.

 Is well developed, with supporting detail and/or evidence.

 Demonstrates control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition.

Score of 3: Competent

A competent paper describes a topic generally or provides a simplistic response to the assignment. There is limited

critical examination of the subject, limited use of specifics to support generalizations and limited complexity of

thought and language usage. Minor writing errors are noticeable to but do not seriously distract the reader.

A competent paper

 Has a few flaws with one or two noticeable errors that don’t distract from the meaning.

 Limited richness, variety and developmental sophistication.

 Adequately addresses the question and explores the issues.

 Shows clarity of thought but lacks complexity and depth.

 Is organized, but not as effectively.

 Is adequately developed, with some detail.

 Demonstrates some control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition.

Score of 2: Weak

The weak paper may adequately handle all parts of the assignment but will contain too many writing errors to be

considered competent. Or, the paper may have one or more strong ideas or points but will fail to use them well in the

development of the whole essay. It may also be mechanically competent but fail to accomplish the task.

A weak paper

 Has flaws that distract the reader or fails to address the topic.

 Sporadic richness, variety and developmental sophistication.

 Addresses the question weakly or has so many flaws that the meaning is sometimes lost.

 May be simplistic or stereotyped in thought.

 May demonstrates problems in organization.

 Undeveloped; may have generalizations without supporting detail or detail without generalizations.

 May show patterns of flaws in language, syntax, or mechanics.

Score of 1: Inadequate or Incompetent

The inadequate paper is likely to show patterns of serious error, to misunderstand or confuse the question, to use

superficial and stereotyped language, to show consistent oral interference with the written language, or otherwise

demonstrate serious problems. The incompetent paper shows inability to handle the kind of assignment called for: it

may reflect failed attempts to begin the task, inability to produce written dialect, unwillingness to undertake the writing

assignment, or inability to confront the task.

A inadequate or incompetent paper

 Is wholly incompetent with errors that seriously distract the reader and distort the meaning.

 Completely lacks any richness, variety or developmental sophistication.

 Fails in its attempt to address the question or explore the issues.

 Shows no depth or complexity of thought.

 Lacks organization.

 So incompletely developed that it demonstrates incompetence.

 Lacks control of diction, syntactic variety and transition.

Writing Website

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/index2.html

Writing Analysis

Title of Paper ________________________ Name of Author ___________________ Name of Reviewer _______________

Circle the appropriate block for each writing ability or circle two blocks if both seem to apply.

Writing Ability 5: Superior 4: Strong 3: Competent 2: Weak 1: Inadequate

Flaws and errors

in spelling,

grammar and

punctuation.

Literate and

orderly, though it

may have an

occasional minor

error.

Literate and

orderly, though it

may have a few

flaws.

Has a few flaws

with one or two

noticeable errors

that don’t distract

from the meaning.

Has flaws that

distract the reader

or fails to address

the topic.

Is wholly

incompetent with

errors that

seriously distract

the reader and

distort the

meaning.

Richness, variety

and

developmental

sophistication

Displays richness,

variety and

developmental

sophistication.

Thoughtful with

some richness,

variety and

sophistication.

Limited richness,

variety and

developmental

sophistication.

Sporadic richness,

variety and

developmental

sophistication.

Completely lacks

any richness,

variety or

developmental

sophistication.

Addresses the

question and

explores the

issues

Addresses and/or

defines the

question fully and

explores the issues

thoughtfully.

Clearly addresses

the question and

explores the

issues.

Adequately

addresses the

question and

explores the

issues.

Addresses the

question weakly or

has so many flaws

that the meaning is

sometimes lost.

Fails in its attempt

to address the

question or

explore the issues.

Depth, fullness

and complexity of

thought

Shows substantial

depth, fullness,

and complexity of

thought.

Shows some depth

and complexity of

thought.

Shows clarity of

thought but lacks

complexity and

depth.

May be simplistic

or stereotyped in

thought.

Shows no depth or

complexity of

thought.

Organization

Demonstrates

clear, focused,

unified and

coherent

organization.

Is effectively

organized.

Is organized, but

not as effectively.

May demonstrate

problems in

organization.

Lacks

organization.

Argument

developed with

supporting detail

and evidence

Is fully developed

with supporting

detail and/or

evidence.

Is well developed

with supporting

detail and/or

evidence.

Is adequately

developed, with

some detail.

Undeveloped; may

have

generalizations

without supporting

detail or detail

without

generalizations.

So incompletely

developed that it

demonstrates

incompetence.

Diction, syntactic

variety and

transitions

Evidences superior

control of diction,

syntactic variety,

and transition.

Demonstrates

control of diction,

syntactic variety,

and transition.

Demonstrates

some control of

diction, syntactic

variety, and

transition.

May show patterns

of flaws in

language, syntax,

or mechanics.

Lacks control of

diction, syntactic

variety and

transition.

Other Comments that may be helpful to the writer: