SCORING RUBRIC FOR WRITTEN ESSAYS IN UPPER-LEVEL FL COURSES
|Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough development of the thesis, including appropriate examples; quotations are well chosen to support the argument; quotations are well integrated and presented correctly, good analysis and synthesis of the material; literary devices noted and analyzed, good use of comparison and contrast, critical inquiry and interpretation. Interpretation is imaginative and nuanced.|
|Good to average: some knowledge of the subject; adequate range of analysis and synthesis; limited thematic development and use of examples; mostly relevant to the topic, but lacks detail in critical interpretation of the material; quotations support the argument somewhat; quotations are adequately integrated, but may be too long or short. Interpretation shows some originality.|
|Fair to poor: limited knowledge of the subject; minimal substance, analysis and synthesis; poor thematic development, use of examples and critical interpretation of the material; inadequate use of quotations. Interpretation is predictable and/or unfocused.|
|Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of the subject; lacking analysis or synthesis of the material and lacking good examples; inadequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate. Interpretation is overly predictable.|
ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT:
|Excellent to very good: clear statement of ideas; title that orients the reader to the thesis; clear organization (beginning, middle, and end) and smooth transitions; introduction leads reader into topic; conclusion effectively summarizes main findings and follows logically from the analysis presented, logical and cohesive sequencing both between and within paragraphs; quotations/footnotes properly cited; length, spacing, fonts, margins, numbered pages all carefully adhered to.|
|Good to average: main ideas clear but loosely organized or connected; title pertinent to the thesis; sequencing logical but incomplete; bibliographical material and formatting adequate.|
|Fair to poor: ideas not well connected; title too general; poor organization and transitions; logical sequencing and development lacking; formatting inadequate.|
|Very poor: ideas not communicated; no title; organization, sequencing and transitions lacking, or not enough to rate, formatting lacking.|
GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, AND FLUENCY:
|Excellent to very good: fluent expression; accurate use of relatively complex structures; very few grammatical errors. Complex range of vocabulary; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms and expressions; appropriate level of usage.|
|Good to average: adequate fluency; simple constructions used effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; some grammar and spelling errors.|
|Fair to poor: low fluency; significant mistakes in the use of complex constructions; frequent grammar and spelling errors, lack of accuracy interferes with meaning.|
|Very poor: lacks fluency; no mastery of simple sentence construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate meaning, or not enough to rate.|
|Excellent to very good: all supporting documents required are attached and appropriately labeled: 1) a typed first draft; 2) peer review and evidence that you have addressed these comments , 3) the checklist/reflective statement, and 4) final draft reflecting all previous work.|
|Good to average: checklist/reflective statement missing.|
|Fair to poor: Two of the supporting documents missing.|
|Very poor: Three of the supporting documents missing.|
Late submissions will be penalized by 10 points/day, if an extension is not suggested or approved ahead of time by professor.
REMINDER TO STUDENTS:
ALL WORK SUBMITTED MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SIGNED NC STATE ACADEMIC CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT HONOR PLEDGE. ANY VIOLATION OF THE PLEDGE WILL RESULT IN A FAILING GRADE FOR THE PAPER.
Adapted from: Hedgcock and Lefkowitz,Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign Language Writing Instruction, Journal of Second Language Writing 1(3):255-76, 1992, cited in Scott, Rethinking Foreign LanguageWriting, 1995, p. 116.
Return to Home
- Может, пройдем, чтобы я смог вам это доказать. - Не стану вас затруднять, - ухмыльнулась она, - благодарю за предложение. Но все же кто. Беккер держался своей легенды: - Я из севильской полиции. Росио угрожающе приблизилась.