Speculating about Causes essay

Quality Criteria

No/Limited Proficiency (1)

Minimal Proficiency (2)

Proficiency (3)

High Proficiency (4)

A focused, well-defined phenomenon and thesis

Phenomenon is not explained. Thesis is missing.

Reader cannot determine phenomenon/thesis and purpose or thesis has no relation to the writing task.

Phenomenon is not well-developed. Phenomenon/Thesis and topic are somewhat vague or only loosely related to the writing task.

Phenomenon is competently developed, but still has some weaknesses. Phenomenon/Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task.

Substantially, logically, and concretely defined phenomenon. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

Phenomenon/Thesis is clear and specific. Develops fresh insight.

Well-argued causes

Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic causes. Inappropriate or off topic generalizations. Causes are irrelevant to thesis. There are faulty assumptions and errors of fact.

Offers a cause(s) that are too underdeveloped. Details are too general, not interpreted, or inappropriately repetitive.

Offers a solid cause(s). Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains mostly appropriate details or examples.

Develops fresh insight.

Substantial, logical, and concrete development of causes. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

An effective response to objections

Fails to include a response to readers’ objections.

Responses to readers’ objections are underdeveloped or vague. Perhaps only offers an objection but no response to that objection.

Offers solid objections and responses to objections. Contains mostly appropriate responses but some might not be germane or original.

Effectively anticipates and appropriately responds to readers' likely objections in a detailed manner.

A clear, logical organization

Unclear organization. No or very few transitions. No or very few topic sentences. Paragraphs aren’t focused. Flow between topics and paragraphs is confusing.

Some signs of logical organization. May have abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow or ideas. Weak topic sentences. Paragraph structure could be improved.

Organization supports thesis and purpose. Transitions are mostly appropriate. But sequence of ideas or paragraph structure could still be improved.

Fully and imaginatively supports thesis and purpose. Sequence of ideas is effective. Transitions, topic sentences, and paragraph structure are effective.

Use of sources/APA format and English grammar and vocabulary

Neglects important sources. Uses 0 sources. Possibly uses source material without acknowledgement. Does not demonstrate proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. No or little understanding of APA.

Uses a somewhat relevant source. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced. Demonstrates limited proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Inconsistent understanding of APA.

Uses 2 sources to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas, but source might not be the most germane. Doesn’t overuse quotes, but may not always conform to required APA style. Demonstrates proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Demonstrates a good understanding of APA.

Uses 2 sources (scientific data, authoritative testimony, statistics, etc.) to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of idea. Doesn’t overuse quotes. Demonstrates high proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. A complete or near complete understanding of APA.