Skip to content

Composition Forum 27, Spring 2013
http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/

Appendix 3 for Local History, Local Complexities: Initial Rubric for the UL Lafayette First-Year Writing Program

Clancy Ratliff

This is an appendix to Local History, Local Complexities: The First-Year Writing Curriculum at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

1 (poor)

2 (satisfactory)

3 (outstanding)

Content

  • Topic is too broad and general for a paper of its length
  • No clear main idea or sustained position in the paper (or argument is incredible to an academic audience)
  • Treatment of the subject is superficial and facile
  • Paper is overly reliant on cliches or culturally conditioned/ethnocentric assumptions and bias
  • Argument, if present, is unsupported by evidence, or evidence is insufficient
  • Topic is manageable for a paper of its length
  • Amount of evidence is sufficient
  • Demonstrates critical thinking (ability to recognize complexity, biases, and stereotypical representations; distinguishing fact from opinion)
  • Sets forth a clear thesis/position on the issue
  • Contains some acknowledgment of opposing/divergent views
  • Topic is narrow enough to allow for a rigorous, nuanced treatment of the subject
  • Evidence is ample to support position taken
  • Evidence is evaluated/analyzed, not simply presented
  • Opposing/divergent views are carefully considered and thoughtfully refuted
  • Argument is fresh, not typical or predictable for a first-year student

Organization

  • Introduction does not orient the reader to the concerns of the paper or contextualize the subject of the paper
  • Arrangement of the paper is haphazard and random
  • Paragraphs do not have transitions that guide the reader from one idea to the next
  • Conclusion is absent or abrupt
  • Paper contains a clear introduction, development, conclusion
  • Divided into discrete sections, each supporting the thesis
  • Logical, smooth transitions between sections
  • Plan of development stated (forecasting statement, self-announcing structure to argument)
  • Paper is not only well-organized but shows an unusually keen consideration of the audience: questions are anticipated and answered, arguments seem arranged artfully for the most persuasive effect

Research

  • Information that clearly comes from sources is not cited 
  • More quoted material is present than prose written by the student
  • Information comes from sources that are not acceptable for an academic paper
  • Works cited list not present
  • Sources are integrated into student's argument (student is in control of the source material; no “data dump”)
  • Sources are credible according to academic standards
  • Works cited list is present even if documentation format is incorrect
  • Source material is integrated seamlessly into the student's argument
  • Bibliography is even-handed (sources both in support of and contra student's argument)
  • Paper contains works cited page in correct documentation format

Language Issues

  • Frequency of error (of any type) detracts from the content of the paper
  • Paper contains faulty word choices or malapropisms
  • Grammar and punctuation are mostly correct
  • Syntax is clear
  • Student shows command of language (word choice/vocabulary)
  • Varied sentence structure
  • Correct spelling
  • Paper is virtually free of error
  • Writer shows an unusual felicity with regard to word choice, turns of phrase (ex. uses obscure words, bon mots)
  • Sentence structure is complex but not cumbersome

Clancy Ratliff First-Year Writing Assessment Rubric Fall 2008

Return to Composition Forum 27 table of contents.