Appendix 3 for Local History, Local Complexities: Initial Rubric for the UL Lafayette First-Year Writing Program

1 (poor)

2 (satisfactory)

3 (outstanding)

Content

• Topic is too broad and general for a paper of its length
• No clear main idea or sustained position in the paper (or argument is incredible to an academic audience)
• Treatment of the subject is superficial and facile
• Paper is overly reliant on cliches or culturally conditioned/ethnocentric assumptions and bias
• Argument, if present, is unsupported by evidence, or evidence is insufficient

• Topic is manageable for a paper of its length
• Amount of evidence is sufficient
• Demonstrates critical thinking (ability to recognize complexity, biases, and stereotypical representations; distinguishing fact from opinion)
• Sets forth a clear thesis/position on the issue
• Contains some acknowledgment of opposing/divergent views

• Topic is narrow enough to allow for a rigorous, nuanced treatment of the subject
• Evidence is ample to support position taken
• Evidence is evaluated/analyzed, not simply presented
• Opposing/divergent views are carefully considered and thoughtfully refuted
• Argument is fresh, not typical or predictable for a first-year student

Organization

• Introduction does not orient the reader to the concerns of the paper or contextualize the subject of the paper
• Arrangement of the paper is haphazard and random
• Paragraphs do not have transitions that guide the reader from one idea to the next
• Conclusion is absent or abrupt

• Paper contains a clear introduction, development, conclusion
• Divided into discrete sections, each supporting the thesis
• Logical, smooth transitions between sections
• Plan of development stated (forecasting statement, self-announcing structure to argument)

• Paper is not only well-organized but shows an unusually keen consideration of the audience: questions are anticipated and answered, arguments seem arranged artfully for the most persuasive effect

Research

• Information that clearly comes from sources is not cited 
• More quoted material is present than prose written by the student
• Information comes from sources that are not acceptable for an academic paper
• Works cited list not present

• Sources are integrated into student's argument (student is in control of the source material; no “data dump”)
• Sources are credible according to academic standards
• Works cited list is present even if documentation format is incorrect

• Source material is integrated seamlessly into the student's argument
• Bibliography is even-handed (sources both in support of and contra student's argument)
• Paper contains works cited page in correct documentation format

Language Issues

• Frequency of error (of any type) detracts from the content of the paper
• Paper contains faulty word choices or malapropisms

• Grammar and punctuation are mostly correct
• Syntax is clear
• Student shows command of language (word choice/vocabulary)
• Varied sentence structure
• Correct spelling

• Paper is virtually free of error
• Writer shows an unusual felicity with regard to word choice, turns of phrase (ex. uses obscure words, bon mots)
• Sentence structure is complex but not cumbersome