History 4985 Grading Rubrics
Oral Presentations
not acceptable | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 | |
Organization | Audience cannot understand presentation because there is no sequence of information. | Audience has difficulty following presentation because student jumps around. | Student presents information in logical sequence which audience can follow. | Student presents information in logical, interesting sequence which audience can follow. |
Subject Knowledge | Student does not have grasp of information; student cannot answer questions about subject. | Student is uncomfortable with information and is able to answer only rudimentary questions. | Student is at ease with expected answers to all questions, but fails to elaborate. | Student demonstrates full knowledge (more than required) by answering all class questions with explanations and elaboration. |
Handout/Graphics | Student uses superfluous graphics or no graphics | Student occasionally uses graphics that rarely support text and presentation. | Student's graphics relate to text and presentation. | Student's graphics explain and reinforce presentation. |
Eye Contact | Student reads all of report with no eye contact. | Student occasionally uses eye contact, but still reads most of report. | Student maintains eye contact most of the time but frequently returns to notes. | Student maintains eye contact with audience, seldom returning to notes. |
Elocution | Student mumbles, incorrectly pronounces terms, and speaks too quietly for students in the back of class to hear. | Student's voice is low. Student incorrectly pronounces terms. Audience members have difficulty hearing presentation. | Student's voice is clear. Student pronounces most words correctly. Most audience members can hear presentation. | Student uses a clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms so that all audience members can hear presentation. |
Formal Papers
|
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6-0 |
STRUCTURE |
Evident, understandable, appropriate for
thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Paragraphs
support solid topic sentences. |
Generally clear and appropriate, though
may wander occasionally. May
have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic
sentences. |
Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps
around. Few or weak transitions, and there are many
paragraphs without topic sentences. |
Unclear, often because thesis is weak or
non-existent. Transitions confusing and unclear. Few
topic sentences. |
No evidence structure or organization. |
LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION |
All ideas flow logically; the argument is
identifiable, reasonable, and sound. Author
anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel
connections which illuminate thesis |
Argument is clear and usually flows
logically and makes sense. Some
evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not
addressed. Occasional
insightful connections to evidence are made. |
Logic may often fail, or the argument may
often be unclear. May
not address counter-arguments or make any connections with the thesis. May
also contain logical contradictions. |
Ideas do not flow at all, usually because
there is no argument to support. Simplistic
view of topic, and there is no effort to grasp possible alternative
views. Very
little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument. |
Too incoherent to determine. |
MECHANICS |
Language is clearly organized. Correct
word usage, punctuation, sentence structure, and grammar; correct
citation of sources; minimal to no spelling errors; absolutely no run-on
sentences or comma splices. |
Sentence structure and grammar strong
despite occasional lapses; punctuation and citation style often used
correctly. Some spelling errors and at least one run-on
sentence, sentence fragment, or comma splice. |
Minor problems in sentence structure and
grammar. Multiple errors in punctuation, citation style,
and spelling. May have several (two to five) run-on
sentences, sentence fragments, and comma splices. |
Huge problems in sentence structure and
grammar. Frequent major errors in citation style,
punctuation, and spelling. May
have many (more than five) run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and
comma splices. |
Very difficult to understand owing to
major problems in mechanics. |
Research Proposal
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
not acceptable |
THESIS |
Easily identifiable, plausible, novel,
sophisticated, insightful, crystal clear. |
Promising, but may be slightly unclear, or
lacking insight or originality. |
Unclear (contains vague terms), appears
unoriginal, or offers relatively little that is new; provides little
around which to structure the paper. |
Difficult to identify and may blend
restatement of obvious point. |
Has no identifiable thesis or an utterly incompetent thesis. Shows obviously minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the assignment. |
USE OF EVIDENCE |
Primary and secondary source information
incorporated to buttress every point. Examples
support thesis and fit within paragraph. Excellent
integration of quoted material into sentences. Factual
information is incorporated. |
Examples used to support most points. Some
evidence does not support point or may appear where inappropriate. Quotations
are integrated well into sentences. Some
factual information is incorporated. |
Examples support some points. Quotations
may be poorly integrated into sentences. There
may not be a clear point. Moderate
amount of factual information is incorporated. |
Very few or weak examples and factual
information. General failure to support statements, or
evidence seems to support no particular point. |
No attempt has been made to incorporate factual information or interpret primary and secondary sources. |