Paper Evaluation Rubric -- Jon Wagner, Division of education, UC Davis









References to reading are perfunctory; No detail, no complexity; Numerous inaccuracies

Provides relatively accurate review/summary of reading, but not much detail and little if any analysis

Accurate summary of reading; Reflects some detail & complexity of author’s thought

Accurate summary; Detail and complexity are recognized; Examines reading in terms of consistency, clarity, etc.

Accurate summary of reading; Internal and external critiques; Places reading in inter-textual context

Careful observation

Reliance on generalizations; Some specifics, but not much connection between concrete and abstract; Little detail; Unclear generalizations; Confusion between observation and judgment

Collection of generalizations and specific details, most of which are related to a central focus; Deliberate effort to distinguish observations from judgments

Ordered sequence of related specifics and generalizations; Low ratio of extraneous detail to focal detail; Detail itself is clear, as are concepts, categories, etc. Observations distinguished from judgments.

Presents a clear and vivid picture. Useful concepts and categories. Rich detail. Effective in representing and balancing complexity and coherence.

Instances shaped by concepts and categories; Concepts and categories illustrated by instances and evidence; Texture of detail supports argument;

Thoughtful analysis:

[Including concepts, questions, issues, etc.]

Questions face value of reading or observation; Not systematic; Focus not clear; Detail in reading/observation overlooked; Some evidence of thoughtfulness

Selective and deliberate -- but not necessarily systematic -- examination of reading/observations; Provides some evidence; Thoughtful comments, but not organized to full advantage.

Analysis questions/criteria are made explicit; Conclusions are suppported by evidence; Makes case for significance of analysis; Addresses larger contexts; Very thoughtful

Clear and relatively coherent framework for analysis; Enriched and reasonably systematic use of evidence; Points out inconsistencies; Sound interpolation and extrapolation; Draws implications across cases, selections;

Systematic, detailed, and well-informed critique; judicious and appropriate use of evidence; Reconsiders face value and underlying assumptions; Provides breadth and depth; Synthesizes critiques to suggest new frameworks, emphases, etc.

Clear and effective writing

A collection of paragraphs; Imprecise terms; Confusing paragraphs and sentences; Discrepancy between thought and writing

Ordered collection of paragraphs; Reasonable sequence; Clear sentences; Some sections of paper very well realized, but not paper as a whole

Logical sequence to paper as a whole; Statements and observations are linked clearly to prior statements and evidence; Terms and questions are relatively clear

Arguments supported by evidence; Clear and well-formed paragraphs, sentences; Very clear terms and questions.

Creative use of rhetoric to present new knowledge; Evidence and counter-evidence examined; Coherent and economical arguments, models, vision, theory, etc. Great precision in thought and writing