Criteria/Expectations for Developed Writing Project #2
| Criteria/Expectations for Developed Writing Project #2 | Strong—Meets and even exceeds expectations | Good—Meets expectations most of the time | Competent—Demonstrates understanding of, and/or attempts to meet expectations | Not yet competent— | Points possible |
| The paper has a solid main idea with a clear sense of purpose (the “so what” of the paper)
| · The paper is clearly a rhetorical analysis · The writer (you!) establishes a meaningful purpose for the paper | · The paper is clearly a rhetorical analysis. · There is a solid main idea and a sense of purpose for the paper. | The essay is more summary than analysis or more about the issue of the texts than an analysis of the texts. | An overly general paper, either in terms of considering rhetorical appeals or the significance of the texts | 10% |
| Analysis and Critical Thinking—Exploration of Boyd’s argument and the values/assumptions her logic is based on | · Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of how writers build and support their arguments. · Insightful observations about Boyd’s claims and reasoning. · The writer’s (your) argument is based on solid thinking and support. · Meaningful and well-supported discussion of assumptions/values (There is a reason for including the information.) | · Demonstrates understanding of how writers build and support their arguments. · The writer’s (your) argument is based on solid thinking and support. · Some accurate consideration of assumptions/values. | · The writer’s (your) argument is based on solid thinking and support. · Important ideas from the readings seem misunderstood · Minimal discussion of assumptions/values. · The commentary surrounding quotes doesn’t fit the meaning of the quote. (Or the quote is taken out of context.) | · Mostly summary or personal response in the commentary.
· No discussion of assumptions/values. | 30% |
| Development
Full explanation of the writer’s thinking and an abundance of direct textual support | · Ample use of direct quotes from the text which support the major ideas presented in the essay. · Enough information that readers not as familiar with the essay can fully see your thinking on the page. | · Most ideas are supported by quotes from the outside texts. · Enough information is given that readers can understand the information being presented, although not everything may be explained. | · Ideas from the outside readings are paraphrased generally, with little use of direct textual support. · The essays may be discussed more generally than specifically. | · Few specific points from the readings are mentioned or developed. | 15% |
| Organization | · Introduction introduces the subject, and clearly signals to the reader what the paper will about. · Meaningful and logical ordering of ideas within and between paragraphs · Concludes the paper to emphasize the significance of your project. | · Introduction introduces the subject, and generally informs the reader of what the paper will about. · Effective and logical ordering of ideas within and between paragraphs · The conclusion may be mainly summary | · Overly general and/or overly short introduction · Most paragraphs are limited to a single idea and link effectively to each other · The paper seems to stop more than conclude | · Little or no introduction. It may be difficult to follow the ideas being presented. The essay stops rather than concludes | 15% |
| Mechanics: Overall Readability including—especially concise expression. | · Concise, active expression · Effective word choices · Minimal grammatical or mechanical errors which impede understanding
| · Mostly concise expression · Few, if any, inaccurate words · Some grammatical and mechanical errors which don’t impede understanding. | · Overly wordy expression · More than one or two ineffective word choices · Many unclear sentences due to grammatical errors | · Lack of parenthetical citations when using outside text, and/or significant varying of styles for citations. | 20% |
| Use of Sources: quoted passages, paraphrase — always “quotation sandwiches” | · The reason for the outside text is always clearly explained through introductory and concluding commentary and thoughtfully integrated into the paper. | · Passages from the outside text are clearly introduced and effectively integrated into the paper through framing. | · Passages from outside text may not be framed. It may not be clear why the outside text has been inserted or discussed. There may be an over-reliance on paraphrasing. | · Little to no use of the outside text for support, or unclear significance for use of the outside text. | 10% |