| CONTENT |
strong |
accep |
weak |
not
accep |
- How appropriate is the topic in terms of the assignment?
- How evident is the purpose for writing?
- To what extent is the evidence/information:
Relevant?
Accurate?
Necessary?
Complete?
|
|
|
|
|
| REASONING |
strong |
accept |
weak |
not
accep |
- How significant are the claims/ideas/purpose?
- what is the quality of the evidence?
- How sufficient is the context provided?
- What what extent are assumptions recognized and made explicit?
- To what extent does the interpretation and analysis of evidence/information/visuals
show:
Depth of thinking?
Logical reasoning?
Complex reasoning?
Accurate conclusions?
Informed recommendations?
|
|
|
|
|
| ORGANIZATION |
strong |
accep |
weak |
not
accep |
- How well does the overall organization capture the designated
purpose?
- To what extent does the ordering of information/evidence lead
the reader through the text? (e.g., signposts, transitions, headings,
bullets)
- How well do the parts connect with each other and the governing
ideas?
- How well integrated are the visual and verbal elements?
|
|
|
|
|
| RHETORIC OF THE DISCIPLINE |
strong |
accep |
weak |
not
accep |
- To what extent is there sufficient knowledge of the subject
demsonstrated?
- To what extent does the use of specialized concepts demonstrate
understanding?
- How appropriate to the discipline is the:
Genre?
Format?
Language?
Tone?
- To what extent is there evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking
and an appropriate sense of audience?
|
|
|
|
|
| CONVENTIONS/PRESENTATION |
strong |
accep |
weak |
not
accep |
- To what extent does the reveal evidence:
Crafting?
Editing?
Proofreading?
- How accurately and complete is the information cited?
- How appropriate is the documentation style?
- How effective is the format used, including visuals and diagrams?
|
|
|
|
|
| OVERALL EVALUATION |
strong |
accep |
weak |
not
accep |