Rubric 3: Analytic Grading
| Poor | Needs Improvement | Good | Excellent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis | No overarching argument can be discerned. | Is confusing, contradictory or underdeveloped. Does not fit well with the scope of the assignment. Significance is unclear. | Exists and is comprehensible, if underdeveloped in places. May be overly broad or unoriginal. Significance is discussed. | Is original, creative, provocative and insightful. Is appropriate to the assignment's scale. Significance is clearly explained. |
| Evidence | Either no evidence is provided, or there are numerous factual mistakes, omissions or oversimplifications. Author vastly overstates significance of evidence. | Relies on few sources. Not enough evidence is provided to support author's argument, or evidence is incomplete, incorrect or oversimplified. Limitations of evidence are not well understood. | A number of different types of sources is used to support arguments. Provides necessary evidence to convince reader of most aspects of the main argument. Importance of evidence sometimes assumed. | A wide range of sources is used in creative ways to support arguments. Smoothly integrates broader knowledge to explain evidence. Student demonstrates the limitations of different types of evidence. |
| Organization | Essay has no clear organizational pattern. | Exists at the sentence level. Paragraphs lack clear direction, and the logic of the paper as a whole is obscure. Argument does not build. Introduction and conclusion are boring, banal or repetitive. | Exists at the paragraph level. The argument may not build as the paper moves. Fails to eclipse the high school five-paragraph essay. Introduction and conclusion are heavy-handed. | Supports the argument, which builds throughout the paper. Paragraphs and subsections of the paper are linked. Paper proceeds with a logic. Introduction draws the reader in; conclusion does not simply summarize. |
| Analysis | Fails to analyze. Issues of counter-evidence or alternative interpretations are not addressed. | Efforts at analysis are largely not fruitful. Author acknowledges some of the most obvious counter-evidence and alternative explanations. There is little or no attempt made to respond to them. | Does not add much new insight into the subject. Author fully acknowledges counter-evidence or alternative interpretations but does not effectively neutralize them. | Is persuasively argued. Identifies and explains counter-arguments or alternative theories. Demonstrates an understanding of the limitations of the evidence. Ties into broad themes and ideas |
| Knowledge | Demonstrates little knowledge of the subject matter. | Demonstrates some knowledge of the subject matter but has trouble integrating it into the paper. | Demonstrates basic knowledge of the field and the key questions, events and themes that shape on the paper. | Demonstrates knowledge of the field and relates paper to broader events, themes and arguments. |
| Mechanics and Style | Mechanics and style are an obstacle to understanding. Writing is full of grammatical errors. Words are misused. Rhetoric replaces argumentation, and not very well. | Writing is confusing, in part because of errors in spelling, grammar, diction and usage. Employs hackneyed rhetoric and shopworn metaphors. | Writing is generally clear and comprehensible, although it may contain minor errors of grammar, spelling, diction or usage. Lacks original voice and draws on commonly used metaphors. | Writing is clear and concise. Good grammar, spelling, diction and usage all contribute to the paper's success. Stylistic innovations, rhetoric and use of metaphors all further conceptual understanding. |
Analytic Grading Rubric (created by Peter Pihos, University of Pennsylvania)
