-
Argumentation
- • Argument is clear, convincing, logically organized, and original
- • Argument is clear, convincing, logically organized, and somewhat original
- • Argument is clear, convincing, and logically organized
- • Argument is somewhat flawed
- • Argument is flawed
-
Quality of Writing
- • Research is extensive and sophisticated; paper demonstrates an appreciation of the
relevant historiography
• Primary evidence is used effectively
- • Research is extensive and sophisticated; paper demonstrates a thorough appreciation of the relevant historiography
• Primary evidence is used consistently, thoroughly, and effectively
- • Research moves noticeably beyond that of the annotated bibliography; paper
demonstrates signs of an understanding of the historiography
• Primary evidence is integrated, but only somewhat effectively
- • Research is only slightly better than that used for the annotated bibliography
• Primary evidence is not used effectively, if used much at all; textbooks are used
intermittently as reliable sources
- • Research is no better than it was for the annotated bibliography
• Primary evidence is not generally used; textbooks are used regularly as reliable
sources
-
Grammar Usage &
Format
- • Structural problems / typographical errors are few and far between
• Paper is the right length
- • Structural problems / typographical errors are insignificant
• Paper is the right length (or perhaps only slightly too long)
- • Structural problems / typographical errors are generally insignificant
• Paper is about the right length (or perhaps only slightly too long)
- • Structural problems / typographical errors at times prevent a clear understanding of
the argument
• Paper is too short / long
- • Structural problems / typographical errors generally prevent a clear understanding of
the argument
• Paper is far too short / long
- Adam Chapnick, History 311: Canadian External
Relations, University of Toronto, 2006.
url: https://teaching.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/LCT-Rubric-Essay-Grading.pdf