History Analytical Rubric Question Title * 1. COURSE NUMBER Question Title * 2. SECTION NUMBER Question Title * 3. YEAR/SEMESTER Question Title * 4. FOCUS (4) Exemplary: ▪ Assignment is completely & clearly addressed▪ Well-developed, interesting opening leads to central idea(s)▪ Clear thesis stated from the outset▪ Specific audience, occasion, or situation addressed with appropriate language (3) Accomplished ▪ Assignment is clearly addressed▪ Effective, though less detailed opening leads to central idea(s)▪ Clear thesis stated explicitly▪ Awareness of audience, situation, & occasion (2) Developing▪ Assignment is addressed▪ Adequate opening leads to a central idea▪ Thesis may not be immediately clear but is evident by the end of the piece▪ Occasional awareness of audience, situation, & occasion (1) Beginning ▪ Assignment is partially or unclearly addressed▪ Rudimentary opening to writing sample▪ Ambiguous or unclear thesis▪ Little or no awareness of audience, situation, or occasion (0) Unacceptable▪ Assignment is not addressed▪ No opening or intro▪ Thesis not stated▪ No awareness of audience, situation, or occasion Question Title * 5. ORGANIZATION & DEVELOPMENT (4) Exemplary▪ Consistently logical & effective ¶ing & structure▪ Smooth, sophisticated transitions between & within ¶s▪ Body ¶s provide convincing & detailed evidence/examples▪ Effective, thorough discussion & explanation of topic▪ Interesting, effective, insightful conclusion▪ Exceptional higher order critical thinking appropriate for History (3) Accomplished ▪ Usually logical & effective ¶ing & structure▪ Mostly smooth transitions between & within ¶s▪ Detailed evidence/examples in body ¶s with only occasional lapses▪ Mostly convincing, competent discussion of topic▪ Concludes paper effectively▪ Frequent higher order critical thinking appropriate for History (2) Developing ▪ Occasionally inconsistent logic or unclear ¶ing & structure▪ Occasional transitions between & within ¶s▪ Body ¶s contain adequate but inconsistent levels of detailed evidence▪ General, occasionally convincing discussion of topic▪ Concludes adequately▪ Adequate higher order critical thinking appropriate for History (1) Beginning▪ Rarely logical, mostly ineffective ¶ing▪ Awkward or missing transitions between & within ¶s▪ Inadequate evidence/ examples in body ¶s or confusing explanations▪ Rarely convincing discussion of topic▪ Weak/mechanical/incomplete conclusion▪ Infrequent higher order critical thinking appropriate for History (0) Unacceptable▪ No logic and no ¶ing▪ No transitions▪ Body ¶s provide random or no evidence, discussion, or explanation▪ Ineffective, unconvincing discussion of topic▪ Missing, ineffective, dull, incoherent, or irrelevant ending▪ Lacks higher order critical thinking appropriate for History Question Title * 6. STYLE & SENTENCE STRUCTURE (4) Exemplary▪ Sophisticated, effective, appropriate diction▪ Sophisticated, varied sentence length and structure▪ Consistent tone and appropriate voice▪ Consistently smooth, clear, readable syntax▪ Free of sentence faults and errors▪ No wordiness (3) Accomplished ▪ Usually sophisticated, mostly accurate diction▪ Frequently varied sentence length & structure▪ Usually consistent tone and voice▪ Frequently smooth, clear, readable syntax▪ Infrequent errors▪ Little wordiness (2) Developing▪ Unsophisticated but generally accurate diction▪ Some variety in sentence length and structure▪ Occasionally inconsistent tone and voice▪ Clear, occasionally tangled syntax▪ Occasional errors▪ Some wordiness (1) Beginning▪ Often limited, frequently imprecise diction▪ Mostly simple, rarely varied sentence length and structure▪ Frequently inconsistent toneinappropriate voice▪ Distracting, unidiomatic expressions & syntax▪ Frequent errors▪ Wordy (0) Unacceptable▪ Limited, imprecise diction prevents communication of complex ideas▪ Unsophisticated or no variation in sentence length & structure▪Inconsistent, inappropriate tone and voice▪ Unreadable▪ Widespread errors▪ Excessive wordiness Question Title * 7. GRAMMAR & MECHANICS (4) Exemplary▪ Free of grammatical errors▪ Free of usage and mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format▪ Consistently uses correct verb tense (3) Accomplished▪ Few grammatical errors▪ Infrequent usage and mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format▪ Usually uses correct verb tense (2) Developing▪ Some grammatical errors▪ Some usage or mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format▪ Frequently does not use correct verb tense (1) Beginning▪ Distracting number of grammatical errors▪ Distracting number of usage or mechanical errors▪ Incorrect format▪ Often does not use correct verb tense (0) Unacceptable▪ Excessive errors in grammar or mechanical conventions▪ Distorted, obscured, or incomprehensible meaning▪ Inappropriate/incorrect format▪ Little or no use of correct verb tense Question Title * 8. RESEARCH (4) Exemplary▪ Consistently uses reliable, relevant, appropriate primary and secondary sources▪ Consistently & correctly cites sources following Chicago Style Manual▪ Unfailingly uses appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Thoughtful, insightful, effective synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources (3) Accomplished▪ Frequently uses reliable, relevant, appropriate primary and secondary sources▪ Infrequent errors citing sources following Chicago Style Manual▪ Few lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Frequent insightful synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources (2) Developing ▪ Uses primary and secondary sources, most of which are reliable, relevant, and appropriate▪ Occasional errors citing sources following Chicago Style Manual▪ Occasional lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Some effective synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources (1) Beginning▪ Uses frequently unreliable or irrelevant primary and secondary sources▪ Frequent errors citing sources following Chicago Style Manual▪ Frequent lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Unsuccessfully attempts to synthesize writer’s ideas with info from sources (0) Unacceptable▪ Lacks sources or uses unreliable, irrelevant, inappropriate primary and secondary sources▪ Missing citations and has widespread errors citing sources following Chicago Style Manual▪ Little or no use of appropriate documentation▪ Evidence of plagiarism▪ No synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources Done