writing center

 

Rubrics for Assessing Writing

The Biology and Art History rubrics featured here represent the efforts of faculty in these majors to articulate the writing and thinking skills they believe are important for students to achieve by the time they complete their upper-division writing- intensive (WI) courses. We ask you to notice key differences in the ordering of the criteria and the characteristics used to describe each one. The rubrics were developed in departmental assessment workshops, in which faculty read and discuss four sample WI papers to develop context-based criteria for competent writing in their major; using the rubric they’ve developed, faculty go on to score a randomly selected, representative sample of student papers. Visit the WAC website for a range of departmental rubrics.

Jump to Art History rubric

Biology Rubric for Assessing Writing in WI Course(s)

(Workshop led by Larry Rockwood, Biology)

1. Demonstrates understanding of scientific writing:
  • abstract summarizes key points and sections;
  • understands what needs to be cited;
  • each section has content appropriate to the section;
  • graphics integrated into and integral to the paper;
  • discussion section synthesizes results with literature;
  • shows evidence of analytical thinking.
2. Content, comprehension, and development of ideas:
  • follows assignment;
  • has a title that fits paper;
  • has sufficient data and/or information;
  • has appropriate and challenging content;
  • evidence of original work;
  • defines technical terms, used appropriately, not gratuitously;
  • paraphrases correctly and accurately;
  • stays on topic;
  • conclusion captures main points.
3. Structure and organization:
  • clearly organized;
  • introduction sets up paper and points follow in order;
  • shows an understanding of paragraphs;
  • topic sentences focus paragraphs;
  • flows (has topic sentences, repetition of key words, other transitions).
    		•
    4. Documenting and Citing:
    • has adequate citing;
    • paraphrases without excessive quoting;
    • sources are introduced appropriately;
    • citations match references;
    • follows appropriate documentation style.
    5. Mechanics (any paper that receives an “unacceptable” in this section must receive an overall score of unsatisfactory):
    • correct labeling and referencing of tables and graphs;
    • correct word choice;
    • correct tenses;
    • subject/verb agreement (e.g., data are);
    • punctuation, esp. comma use;
    • correct use of italics;
    • correct sentence structure and syntax;
    • concise language appropriate to science.
    Overall Score (any paper that receives an “unacceptable” on one or more items must be assessed as unsatisfactory overall.)



    Art History Rubric for Assessing Writing in WI Course(s)

    (Workshop led by Rob DeCaroli, Art History)

    1. Engagement in the writing
    Demonstrates engagement with ideas and sources through a clearly stated thesis or focusing sentence, which is carried through to a logical conclusion. Engagement could be described as answering: “what do you, the student, bring to the topic?” and/or “what do you add to the conversation?” Similarly the conclusion does more than just restate the thesis and answers the “So what?” question.
    2. Analysis and discussion
    Demonstrates analysis by making points supported by evidence tells rather than just providing summaries of sources used. Includes a discussion and synthesis of sources. Defines relevant concepts but also shows an understanding of what and when to define. Applies, as relevant, course concepts and theories. Uses technical and disciplinary vocabulary correctly.
    3. Use of evidence
    Includes appropriate amount of description of artifacts/objects of analysis. Includes appropriate primary and/or secondary sources. Attention given to the quality of evidence and to how evidence is presented, including understanding when to quote and when to paraphrase from primary/secondary sources. Quotes are chosen carefully and use to support and/or highlight points.
    4. Structure
    Body paragraphs are clearly organized and show a logical progression of points, with topic sentences related to the thesis and with transitions between paragraphs, sections, and ideas. Uses “signposting” in the thesis to indicate the focus and shape of the paper and follows through with key words or synonyms repeated throughout the paper.
    5. Quality of writing
    Follows assignment directions; cites and documents sources correctly using appropriate style (usually MLA or Chicago); introduces sources appropriately, such as with signal phrases and other lead-ins; uses standard grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax; varies sentence structure; employs appropriate and correct word choices (affect/effect, simple/simplistic, aesthetics/ascetics).
    6. Style and complexity of writing
    Uses appropriate voice and tone for the assignment. Maintains appropriate academic distance, including an understanding of how to use “I” as called for in an analytical paper. Sentences are interestingly constructed. Uses active voice to avoid passive or “dead” prose; uses adjectives appropriately and not to excess.