Grading rubric for final paper, as developed by the UC Santa Barbara English Department<\/a><\/p>\n
| <\/th>\n | Content<\/th>\n | Organization<\/th>\n | \u00b6 Development<\/th>\n | Style<\/th>\n | Correctness<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A<\/strong><\/td>\n| Response to topic is insightful and original. Essay reflects depth of thought. Excellent analysis of reading is evident.<\/td>\n | Thesis is well-focused. Paragraph sequence is logical; transitions clarify relationships of ideas. Introduction is engaging; conclusion is substantive.<\/td>\n | Paragraphs are unified and coherent. Ideas are well-developed with significant and persuasive evidence. Relevant quotes are skillfully integrated.<\/td>\n | Sentences are skillfully constructed, varied, and distinctive. Diction is fresh and precise.<\/td>\n | Consistent use of standard grammar, punctuation, and spelling.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | B<\/strong><\/td>\n | Response to topic is thoughtful, and purpose is clear. Close reading is evident.<\/td>\n | Thesis is focused. Sequence of paragraphs is logical; transitions are generally smooth. Intro is informative; conclusion goes beyond summary.<\/td>\n | Paragraphs are unified and coherent. Ideas are developed with effective evidence and support. Quotes are generally relevant and well integrated.<\/td>\n | Sentences are generally concise, varied, and fluent.<\/td>\n | Few deviations from standard grammar, punctuation, and spelling.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | C<\/strong><\/td>\n | Response to topic is appropriate but needs more sustained thinking. Essay is not fully developed. Analysis of reading is superficial.<\/td>\n | Thesis is evident, but may need sharper focus. Organization is apparent but not consistent. Transitions are lacking. Intro and\/or conclusion may be weak.<\/td>\n | Paragraphs are generally developed but have occasional lapses in coherence or unity. Some ideas may be underdeveloped; some key points may need support. Adequate attempt is made to incorporate quotes.<\/td>\n | Sentences are appropriate but may show little complexity or variety and some awkwardness. Diction is generally clear and idiomatic with occasional vague or inappropriate wording.<\/td>\n | Occasional comma splices, fragments, misspellings, or other errors.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | D<\/strong><\/td>\n | Topic is addressed inadequately. Ideas lack development. Understanding of reading is not demonstrated.<\/td>\n | Thesis is weak. Organization is haphazard; paragraph breaks are illogical. Some paragraphs are repetitive or irrelevant. Intro and conclusion are weak.<\/td>\n | Paragraphs lack coherence and are often short. Ideas are overly generalized, ramble, and lack supporting details. Quotes are insufficient, excessive, or inaccurate.<\/td>\n | Awkward sentences obscure train of thought. Diction is vague, repetitive, incorrect, unidiomatic. Excessive slang.<\/td>\n | Repeated comma splices, fragments, and other serious errors.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | F<\/strong><\/td>\n | Inappropriate topic. Unacceptable length. Little thought evident.<\/td>\n | No thesis. No plan or organization evident.<\/td>\n | Short, undeveloped paragraphs. No transitions. Incoherence. Quotes are inappropriate, inaccurate, or absent.<\/td>\n | Awkward sentences obscure train of thought. Diction is vague, repetitive, incorrect, unidiomatic. Excessive slang.<\/td>\n | Serious deviations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" | Grading rubric for final paper, as developed by the UC Santa Barbara English Department Content Organization \u00b6 Development Style Correctness A Response to topic is insightful and original. Essay reflects depth of thought. Excellent analysis of reading is evident. Thesis is well-focused. Paragraph sequence is logical; transitions clarify relationships of ideas. Introduction is engaging; conclusion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":691,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-556","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/691"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=556"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":557,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556\/revisions\/557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/unevendevelopment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} |