Though these aren't in a fully-developed rubric, I like the following criteria (areas of emphasis) with accompanying questions to help guide formation of said rubric:
1. Focus. Does the paper stay on topic? Does it stay to the given prompt? Is the paper mired with tangents?
2. Development. Are all presented ideas fully developed, or are ideas presented and then dropped?
3. Language and style. Are the language(s) and style(s) used consistent? Are changes made to language and style that aren't substantiated (i.e. switching between dialectical spellings and "academic" language for no intended effect)?
4. Detail. Is sufficient detail provided, or are the ideas broad and generalized, creating in the reader a sense of boredom or a desire to scratch out one's own eyes?
5. Variety. Does the writer use a variety of words and sentence structure? In other words, does the paper sound like the writer is repeating him/herself?
While these are generalized categories and questions, I think they provide a decent foundation for a rubric.
No comments:
Post a Comment