Paper Rubric

	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Almost Meets Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations
Thesis	- Easily identifiable, sophisticated, insightful, clear - Connects well with the paper title	- Promising, but may be slightly unclear - Paper title does not connect as well with thesis or is bland	- May be unclear, or offer relatively little that is new - Paper title and thesis do not connect well	- Difficult to identify at all, may be a restatement of obvious point - No title
Structure	- Evident, understandable, appropriate for thesis - Excellent transitions from point to point - Paragraphs support solid topic sentences	- Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander occasionally - May have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic sentences	- Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around - Few or weak transitions and/or many paragraphs without topic sentences	- Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent - Transitions are confusing and unclear - Few topic sentences
Use of Evidence	- Information supports every point - Examples support topic sentences - Excellent integration of quoted material into sentences - Demonstrates an in depth understanding of the ideas - Critically evaluates/responds to those ideas in an analytical, persuasive manner	- Examples used to support most points - Some evidence does not support point, or may appear where inappropriate - Quotes well integrated into sentences - Demonstrates a solid understanding	- Points often lack supporting evidence, or evidence used where inappropriate - Quotes may be poorly integrated into sentences - Demonstrates a general understanding - Only occasionally critically evaluates ideas	- Few or very weak examples - General failure to support statements, or evidence - No quotes, or quotes not integrated into sentences - Demonstrates little understanding of the ideas - Does not critically evaluate ideas
Analysis	- Analysis is fresh and exciting - Work displays critical thinking and avoids simplistic description or summary	- Evidence often related though links perhaps not very clear - Some description, but more critical thinking	- Quotes often appear without analysis or analysis offers nothing beyond the quote - Even balance between critical thinking and description	- Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument - More description than critical thinking
Logic	- All ideas in the paper flow logically - The argument is identifiable, reasonable and sound - Anticipates and successfully addresses counter-arguments - Makes original connections	- Argument of paper is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense - Some evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not addressed - Some insightful connections made	- Logic may often fail, or argument is often unclear - May not address counter-arguments or make any connections - Some informal language or inappropriate slang	- Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support - No effort to grasp possible alternative views - Has informal language or inappropriate slang
Mechanics	- Sentence structure, grammar, and diction are excellent - Correct use of punctuation and citation - No spelling errors	- Sentence structure, grammar, and diction strong despite occasional lapses - Punctuation and citation style often used correctly - Some minor spelling errors	- Problems in sentence structure, grammar and diction - Some errors in punctuation, citation style, and spelling	- Major errors in sentence structure, grammar and diction - Frequent major errors in citation, punctuation, and/or spelling