Daniel Paul O'Donnell

Forward to Navigation

Grading Rubric for Essays

Note: This is an archived policy.

Expectations for University level work can vary from discipline to discipline and instructor to instructor. At the same time, however, there are some cross-discipline standards. You can take it as a given that poorly executed, sloppy, or careless work will get you a poor grade in both sculpture and computer science. Likewise, it is hard to think of a discipline where highly original, well-thought-out, and carefully executed work would not be rewarded with a high grade.

The following list explains the criteria I use in grading essays and presentations in my classes. Although its primary focus is the literary essay, I have seen similar criteria in other disciplines and at other Universities. With appropriate adaptation to reflect the nature of the discipline, you should find that it is applicable to your work in most courses¹.

Few papers will match all or exclusively the criteria listed under each grade (a highly original, well argued, well written, well documented paper might have an unacceptable number of typos, for example). The weighting of the criteria is also not absolutely rigid: I tend to reward originality or mastery of subject more heavily than I penalise its absence. In one area, however, I am rigid: serious or frequent errors of fact, inadequate or non-existent documentation, and misrepresentations of your own or others research will result in a poor grade. In such cases, you can expect to be assigned specific penalties, starting at least 1/3 of a letter grade and ranging up to an F in course.

Rubric

• A (Excellent)
  • Originality
    • Paper looks at the assigned material from an unexpected but appropriate angle, explores a significant and appropriate original topic, and/or finds appropriate evidence in unusual or unexpected places.
    • Has an argument that goes significantly beyond material discussed in class or found in the course outline and textbook.
  • Mastery of the Subject Material
    • Paper matches its argument and evidence perfectly: finds exactly the evidence necessary to demonstrate its thesis; matches its thesis exactly to the limits of the available evidence.
    • Has exactly the right mix of secondary and primary sources: handles secondary sources critically when required; relies on them for support or background information when appropriate. Does not use tertiary sources like encyclopaedias or non-scholarly sources from the Internet when better sources exist and are more appropriate.
    • Goes far beyond description, using evidence analytically.
    • Integrates its evidence flawlessly into the argument.
  • Quality of Writing
    • Paper is clear and, within the limitations of its subject matter, interesting and easy to follow.
    • Matches styles and diction to the subject matter and argument.
    • Is well structured and appropriately and thoroughly documented.
  • Accuracy
    • Paper reports facts accurately and in a fashion appropriate to their original context.
    • Recognises and confronts (where appropriate) possible counter-arguments.
    • Maintains a clear distinction between demonstrable assertions and necessary but undemonstrable assumptions.
  • Presentation
    • Paper pays obvious attention to details of presentation: appropriate typeface, no typographical, grammatical, or spelling errors; matches standards of appropriate style guide.
    • Reproduces quotations and references to the work of others with absolute accuracy. Bibliography/documentation is complete.

• B (Good)
  • Originality
    • Paper successfully applies standard approaches to material, or reaches well-supported but obvious conclusions.
    • Successfully applies or tests pre-existing approach against new set of evidence.
    • Attempts an intelligently chosen and original approach or topic with only partial success.
    • Shows signs of adhering to a formula.
  • Mastery of the Subject Material
    • Paper demonstrates sound knowledge of primary and (where appropriate) secondary material.
    • Is able to use evidence analytically to support argument.
    • Has an appropriate mix of primary, secondary, and, when required, tertiary sources. Generally avoids tertiary and especially non-scholarly sources except when appropriate or necessary to subject matter.
    • Works evidence into the argument with little or no trouble.
  • Quality of Writing
    • Paper is mostly clear and, within the limitations of its subject matter, interesting and easy to follow.
    • Paper usually matches styles and diction to the subject matter and argument.
    • Paper is mostly well structured and appropriately documented.
  • Accuracy
    • Paper reports facts accurately and in a fashion appropriate to their original context.
    • Paper recognises and does not attempt to hide possible counter-arguments or disguise unproven or undemonstrable assumptions as facts.
  • Presentation:
    • Paper is mostly well-formatted and error-free. There are few or no typographical, grammatical, or spelling errors; standards of assigned style guide usually have been followed with care.
    • Quotations and references to the work of others show no more than exceptional inaccuracies. Bibliography/documentation is complete

• C (Satisfactory)
  • Originality
    • Paper correctly applies standard approaches to material or reaches obvious conclusions.
    • Is over-ambitious in its attempts to take a more original approach or subject—for example, by making obvious mistakes, or failing to avoid obvious limitations in the nature and availability of evidence.
    • Obviously following a formula.
  • Mastery of the Subject Material
    • Paper demonstrates basic knowledge of primary and assigned secondary material.
    • Evidence is usually presented analytically, rather than descriptively (i.e. argues position instead of supplying plot summary).
    • Evidence is usually appropriate to subject but may not always be well-integrated into argument.
    • Evidence is usually adequate for argument being made; some points may be poorly or insufficiently supported.
    • Care is not always taken to avoid inappropriate use of tertiary or non-scholarly resources as sources for essential facts or arguments.
  • Quality of Writing
    • Mostly observes the norms of University-level writing: few serious errors in essay, paragraph, or sentence structure; uses appropriate diction.
    • Documentation is mostly present and reasonably complete (Warning: Failure to document correctly carries with it significant penalties, beginning with an F on the assignment).
  • Accuracy
    • Paper reports facts more-or-less accurately and in a fashion appropriate to their original context.
    • Paper does not attempt to hide or ignore obvious counter-arguments or to disguise unproven or undemonstrable assumptions as facts.
  • Presentation:
    • Paper is mostly well-formatted and checked for errors. There are a number of minor typographical, grammatical, or spelling errors; standards of assigned style guide have been followed more often than not (Warning: Failure to check your work carefully or follow the assigned style guide carries with it an additional penalty of at least 1/3 letter grade; errors in bibliographic format will result in a grade of F for the assignment).
    • Quotations and references to the work of others are accurately presented. Complete bibliography can be recovered from the documentation or list of works cited.

• D (Poor)
  • Originality
    • Paper uncritically follows approaches suggested in assigned question, textbook, or class discussion.
    • Paper is more-or-less coherent, but takes an inappropriate approach or one that betrays an ignorance of the standards and expectations of subject.
    • Argument shows signs of incoherence.
    • Carelessly implements ‘original’ or ‘non-standard’ approach. Ignores obvious and foreseeable evidentiary or logical problems.
    • Carelessly follows formula.
  • Mastery of the Subject Material
    • Paper restricts self to extremely limited range of evidence.
    • Overlooks obviously superior evidence in favour of easily accessible material or examples from the textbook or class discussion.
    • Makes insufficient or too limited use of necessary secondary sources.
    • Commonly uses tertiary or non-scholarly resources to support key facts and arguments.
    • Evidence is usually presented descriptively rather than analytically (i.e. engages in plot summary rather than argument).
    • Evidence is usually present but often inappropriate or poorly sourced (Warning: failure to document specific intellectual debts is plagiarism; my usual penalty for plagiarism is a grade of F for the course with a letter to the Dean for inclusion in your student file).
    • Other obvious evidence of incomplete preparation or reading.
  • Quality of Writing
    • Requires improvement: frequent errors in basics of essay, paragraph, and sentence structure; inappropriate—too formal, too informal, or poorly chosen—diction.
    • Documentation is often missing or incomplete (Warning: Failure to document correctly carries with it significant penalties, beginning with an F on the assignment).
  • Accuracy
    • Paper is sometimes inaccurate either in fact or context.
    • Paper fails to recognise or occasionally appears to skirt around obvious counter-arguments; sometimes appears to mistake unproven or undemonstrable assumptions for facts.
  • Presentation
    • Paper has some serious formatting errors, or has not been adequately checked for errors. There are frequent typographical, grammatical, and/or spelling errors; standards of assigned style guide have been ignored more often than not.
    • Quotations and references to the work of others are carelessly presented. Bibliography is mostly recoverable from documentation or works cited (Warning: Failure to check your work carefully or follow the assigned style guide carries with it an additional penalty of at least 1/3 letter grade).

• F (Failing)
  • Originality
    • Paper is carelessly argued and pays no attention to approaches suggested in assigned question, textbook, or class discussion.
    • Paper takes completely inappropriate approach or ignores standards and expectations of subject.
    • Argument is non-existent or completely incoherent.
    • Recklessly implements ‘original’ or ‘non-standard’ approach as means of hiding lack of evidence or the poverty of its underlying argument.
    • Essay is far too short or shows other evidence of failing to adhere to the set instructions.
  • Mastery of the Subject Material
    • Paper shows basic unfamiliarity with one or more sources of evidence used in argument.
    • Ignores (or plagiarises from) even the most basic primary or secondary sources (Warning: my usual penalty for plagiarism is a grade of F in the course with a letter to the Dean for inclusion in your student record).
    • Evidence is non-existent, incoherently presented, completely inappropriate, or extremely poorly chosen.
    • Other obvious evidence of extremely poor or non-existent research.
  • Quality of Writing
    • Far below University-level standards: constant errors in the basics of essay, paragraph, and sentence structure; completely inappropriate—too formal, too informal, or poorly chosen—diction.
    • Documentation is missing or extremely incomplete (Warning: Failure to document correctly carries with it significant penalties, beginning with an F on the assignment).
  • Accuracy
    • Paper has serious or frequent inaccuracies in fact or context.
    • Paper fails to recognise and/or often skirts around obvious counter-arguments; assertion often mistaken for evidence.
  • Presentation
    • Paper is poorly formatted, and/or full of errors. Typographical, grammatical, and/or spelling errors are common; standards of assigned style guide have been ignored.
    • Quotations and references to the work of others are non-existent or badly and inaccurately presented. Bibliography is mostly or completely missing (Warning: Failure to check your work carefully or follow the assigned style guide carries with it an additional penalty of at least 1/3 letter grade; failure to cite sources is plagiarism: my usual penalty for plagiarism is a grade of F for the course and a letter to the Dean for inclusion in your student record).

Notes

¹ Most of this material has been developed through personal observation. I also have benefited greatly from the work of Robert Runté of the Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge.

 

Comment