iRubric: Writing Assignments rubric

Addresses topic and excels in responding to assignment, interesting; demonstrates thoughtful sophistication. Central ideas/thesis is clearly communicated, worth developing; limited enough to be manageable. Paper recognizes some complexity of its thesis: may acknowledge its contradictions, logical implications; (if a research paper) it understands and critically evaluates sources, appropriately limits and defines terms

A solid paper, responding appropriately to assignment. Clearly states a thesis/central idea, by may have minor lapses in development. Begins to acknowledge the complexity of ideas and the possibility of other points of view. (if a research paper) it shows careful reading of sources, but may not evaluate them critically. Attempts to define terms, not always successfully.

Adequate but weaker and less effective, possibly responding less well to assignment. Presents central idea in general terms, often depending on platitudes or clichés. Usually does not acknowledge other views. Shows basic comprehension of sources, perhaps with lapses in understanding. If it defines terms, often depends on dictionary definitions.

Does not have a clear central idea or does not respond appropriately to the assignment. Thesis may be too vague or obvious to be developed effectively. Paper may misunderstand sources.

Does nor respond to the assignment, lacks a thesis or central idea, and may neglect to use sources where necessary.

Uses evidence appropriately and effectively, providing sufficient evidence and explanation to convince.

Begins to offer reasons to support its points, perhaps using varied kinds of evidence. Begins to interpret the evidence and explain connections between evidence and main ideas. Its examples bear some relevance.

Often uses generalizations to support its points. May use examples, but they may be obvious or irrelevant. Often depends on supported opinion or personal experience, or assumes that evidence speaks for itself and needs no application to point being discussed. Often has lapses in logic.

Depends on clichés or overgeneralizations for support, or offers little evidence of any kind. May be personal narrative rather than essay, or summary rather than analysis.

Use irrelevant details or lacks supporting evidence entirely. May be unduly brief. Little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics

Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.

May contain a few errors, which may annoy reader, but not impede understanding.

Usually contains several mechanical errors, (spelling, subject-word agreement, etc.) which may temporarily confuse the reader but not impede the overall understanding

Usually contains either many mechanical errors or a few important errors that block the reader’s understanding and ability to see the connections between thoughts.

Usually contains so many mechanical errors that it is impossible for the reader to follow the thinking from sentence to sentence.