Purpose/Thesis

Conceptualization

Development

Organization

Language

Voice/tone

Conventions

Paper

Original, clear, expresses significant topic, and controls the entire paper

Employs fresh, complex ideas that fully and logically support thesis. Demonstrates accurate grasp of all relevant theoretical & contextual issues.

Explores ideas thoroughly and clearly. Good evidence cited from textual and/or other materials. Examines assumptions of sources where appropriate.

Structure is effective and clear to reader. Supports purpose. Logically ordered and smooth connections of parts lead reader through entire paper.

Vivid, vigorous, wide range of language choices. Uses specialized terms well, without pretension. Fine choice of words & varied sentences throughout.

Consistent; appropriate to text, audience and purpose. Strong individual voice that shows astute engagement.

Shows near flawless editing for grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling. Cites references correctly; biblio-graphy uses standard form. Meticulous, creative display.

Adequate Paper

Clear, but lacks originality, or purpose is ambiguous. Thesis evident but doesn't always control paper.

Attempts to explore significant issues, but analysis may be predictable or not sustained. Provides adequate context

Development consistent but cursory; may be slightly at odds with thesis. Examples sometimes unclear or unconnected; assumptions not always examined.

Orderly and mostly well-connected. Structure generally apparent with occasional lapses. Visual elements integrated.

Simple, clear. May slip into jargon, but shows generally appropriate word choice and varied sentences.

Generally good engagement, appropriate to topic.

Sources may be incorrect or inadequately referenced. Some signs of careful crafting.

Inadequate Paper

No purpose, or only emerging thesis; lacks focus; topic not appropriate in terms of assignment

Ideas that don't support the thesis. Questions the obvious or affirms the familiar. No application of theory. Depth, complexity, and validity of reasoning poor

Minimal development. Lack of support, or no connection with thesis. Only summarizes reading. Excessive quoting. Subject matter not mastered.

Lack of coherence and transitions. Logical lapses with inadequate connections in many places. A series of unrelated paragraphs.

Lapses in clarity. Inappropriate or incorrect usage. Dull, mechanical writing.

May be inopportune to purpose, audience, text. Little sense of engagement.

Mechanical errors distract reader and impede reading. Shows carelessness, lack of editing & proofreading.