|Criteria – Area of Competence
||No stated thesis or thesis may not relate to the assignment.
||Thesis is vague, may indulge in the trite, the obvious, the redundant, but provides a plausible response to the assignment.
||Thesis is clear, but has a tendency toward the obvious and may lack substance. Provides a coherent response to the assignment.
||Provides a clear thesis, a coherent response with substance, and reflects confidence and careful thought.
||General statements lack support, detail, and development. Student uses repetition instead of supporting detail.
||A few general statements are supported. Some details are irrelevant, and some inappropriate repetition present. Paper is short and somewhat underdeveloped.
||Most general statements are supported. May be uneven support among paragraphs.
||General statements are fully supported, developed, and illustrated by relevant detail.
||Paper has little or no apparent sense of organization.
||The organization of the paper is excessively formulaic, “Now I am going to tell you about….” And contains lapses in organization.
||The organization of the paper may be somewhat simplistic, but contains no lapses in organization.
||The organization of the paper is well defined and consistent with a sense of purpose.
||The paper has serious problems with mechanics (punctuation, spelling, usage, agreement, sentence structure and inflection), making it difficult to comprehend.
||Common mechanical errors in may hinder or interfere with reader comprehension.
||Errors in mechanics may exist, but are not a hindrance to comprehension.
||Minimal errors or no errors in mechanics. Sentence structure is complex and varied.