iRubric: Article Summary rubric

Incomprehensible; poor application of literary skill; disregards basic conventions of educated English usage; inappropriate use of language; disjointed; careless.

OK, but not well presented in a scholarly manner; violates basic grammatical or stylistic conventions; excessive nominalization inhibits clarity.

Readable and clear transmission of message. Easy to understand, with precise communication of meaning. May have some minor grammatical or stylistic errors.

Well written; unambiguous meanings; vivid imagery; polished. Adept and sophisticated use of language without being strained and seeming more designed to impress than to communicate.

There is no source cited for the article or for references to other sources.

Sources are cited, but validity is questionable. Information provided is inadequate to verify source.

Sources are cited with adequate information. However, the format does not conform to course guidelines and/or there are minor errors.

Sources are cited with complete information and in the format specified in Course Style Guidelines.

Article is not relevant to topic.

One must stretch considerably to connect the article to student's topic.

Article is relevant to student's topic.

Article is very relevant to student's topic and is a significant work on the topic.

Does not summarize the article in any meaningful way. Summary almost completely misunderstands the article, is extremely inaccurate, or reveals considerable misunderstanding of course material.

Summarizes the article but leaves major gaps in reader's understanding. Summary may have major inaccuracies or misunderstandings of subject.

Summarizes the article fully, although the summary may be too detailed and pedantic, or understanding the summary may require excessive effort on the reader's part. Summary may have minor inaccuracies or misunderstandings of subject matter. Summary may betray lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of important material related to the student's topic, although not covered in this class.

Summary is comprehensive and insightful, yet concise.
Summary has no inaccuracies, misunderstandings, or glaring omissions..

Does not use knowledge of the subject or general scholarly knowledge to evaluate the article critically. Evaluation of the article reveals major misunderstandings of course material or elementary errors of logic and knowledge. Substitutes personal reaction for critical thought. Avoids commonly debated issues or ones otherwise calling for critical evaluation, thereby giving the impression that the author either does not know has weak understanding of the subject.

Critically evaluates the article but does not apply appropriate understanding of orthodox and/or heterodox paradigms in critical evaluation of the article. Does not apply general scholarly knowledge appropriate for a course at this level. Does apply knowledge of the subject and/or general scholarly knowledge, but inappropriately or with important misunderstandings.

Uses knowledge of the subject, including orthodox and heterodox paradigms to evaluate the article critically. May use scholarly knowledge from this and other courses for critical evaluation.

Makes exceptionally good use of knowledge of the subject, including orthodox and heterodox paradigms, to evaluate the article critically. May use scholarly knowledge from this and other courses with unusual incisiveness for critical evaluation.

Has no relation to other appropriate material, even when obvious. Inappropriately relates article to other material.

Partial or incomplete relationships to other material.

Relates article to appropriate material covered in the course and to other relevant material within the student's topic area.

Relates article to all appropriate material covered in the course and to other relevant material within the student's topic area with exceptional insight.