Writing Rubric

Writing Rubric(adapted from: Barbara Walvoord, Winthrop Univ., Virginia Community College System, Univ. of Washington)CriteriaQuality1.Thesis/Focus:(a) OriginalityNo/Limited Proficiency Some Proficiency ProficiencyThesis is missingThesis may be obvious orunimaginativeThesis is somewhatoriginalHigh ProficiencyDevelops fresh insight thatchallenges the reader’sthinking;(Rating)2. Thesis/Focus:(b) Clarity3. Organization4. Support/Reasoning(a) Ideas(b) Details5. Use ofsources/DocumentationReader cannot determinethesis & purpose ORthesis has no relation tothe writing taskUnclear organization ORorganizational plan isinappropriate to thesis.No transitionsOffers simplistic,undeveloped, or crypticsupport for the ideas.Inappropriate or off-topicgeneralizations, faultyassumptions, errors offactNeglects importantsources. Overuse ofquotations or paraphraseto substitute writer’s ownideas. (Possibly usessource material withoutacknowledgement.)Thesis and purpose aresomewhat vague OR onlyloosely related to thewriting taskSome signs of logicalorganization. May haveabrupt or illogical shifts& ineffective flow ofideasOffers somewhat obvioussupport that may be toobroad. Details are toogeneral, not interpreted,irrelevant to thesis, orinappropriately repetitiveUses relevant sources butlacks in variety of sourcesand/or the skillfulcombination of sources.Quotations & paraphrasesmay be too long and/orinconsistently referencedThesis and purpose arefairly clear and match thewriting taskOrganization supportsthesis and purpose.Transitions are mostlyappropriate. Sequence ofideas could be improvedOffers solid but lessoriginal reasoning.Assumptions are notalways recognized or madeexplicit. Contains someappropriate details orexamplesUses sources to support,extend, and inform, but notsubstitute writer’s owndevelopment of idea.Doesn’t overuse quotes,but may not alwaysconform to required stylemanualThesis and purpose are clearto the reader; closely matchthe writing taskFully & imaginativelysupports thesis & purpose.Sequence of ideas iseffective. Transitions areeffectiveSubstantial, logical, &concrete development ofideas. Assumptions are madeexplicit. Details are germane,original, and convincinglyinterpretedUses sources to support,extend, and inform, but notsubstitute writer’s owndevelopment of idea.Combines material from avariety of sources, incl. pers.observation, scientific data,authoritative testimony.Doesn’t overuse quotes.

6. Audienceawareness7. Style(a) Sentences(b)Diction/Syntax(c) Tone/Voice8. WritingConventions:Grammar/Spelling/Usage/PunctuationLittle or no awareness ofaudience or form’srequirements. Egocentric.A written form of speechfor one’s self.Superficial andstereotypical language.Oral rather than writtenlanguage patternspredominateMechanical & usageerrors so severe thatwriter’s ideas are hiddenStance is that of a noviceattempting to please anexpert.Sentences show littlevariety, simplistic.Diction is somewhatimmature; relies onclichés. Tone may havesome inconsistencies intense and personRepeated weaknesses inmechanics and usage.Pattern of flawsStance is somewhattentative and meetsreader’s needs with someskill, but is not asconsistently successful.Sentences show somevariety & complexity.Uneven control. Diction isaccurate, generallyappropriate, less advanced.Tone is usually appropriateMechanical and usageerrors that do not interferewith meaningStance is that of an expertwho consistently andskillfully anticipates reader’sneeds. Rhetoricallysophisticated.Sentences are varied,complex, & employed foreffect. Diction is precise,appropriate, using advancedvocabulary. Tone is mature,consistent, suitable for topicand audienceEssentially error free.Evidence of superior controlof diction9. PresentationEssay looks untidy anddoes not follow does notfollow basic formattingrules (e.g., margins,headers & subheaders)Essay looks fairly neatbut violates someformatting rulesEssay looks neat butviolates one or twoformatting rulesEssay looks neat, crisp, andprofessional(Total Points)