CRITERIA FOR GRADING ESSAYS

EXCELLENT

Outstanding work

Structure: Clear focus on the question; clear indication of definitions and the direction of the argument; coherence within and between sections; clear conclusion arising from preceding material.

Style: Well written; good vocabulary; attention to spelling, punctuation, grammar; well presented.

Argument: Clear analysis of the key issues; fully developed and complex argument that shows synthesis of material and independent judgment; all statements supported by evidence; familiarity with and manipulation of theoretical perspectives; originality.

Sources: Selections of material wide and relevant; assimilation of class work; reading well beyond course outline; good use of collateral material; all sources properly referenced.

VERY GOOD

Good to very good work, in the upper range containing elements of excellent work.

Structure: Focus on the question; some indication of progress of argument; attention to definitions; generally clear and coherent; adequate conclusion.

Style: Well presented; attention to spelling, grammar punctuation; reasonable vocabulary.

Argument: Good level of analysis; indicates some complexity, though not always fully developed; theoretical perspectives handled with some competence; sound rather than original.

Sources: Fairly wide selection of material; assimilation of class work; some reading beyond outline and class discussion; collateral material not always fully integrated; adequate referencing.

GOOD

Reasonable to good work

Structure: Needs greater focus on the question; needs clearer direction to the reader; better organization would give more coherence; introduction and conclusion could be more developed; lacks clear definitions.

Style: Adequate presentation; spelling, grammar and punctuation could be improved; vocabulary could be wider.

Argument: Needs better balance of analysis and description; point of argument needs to be clearer; relies too heavily on unsupported assertions and generalizations; more theoretical consideration needed.

Sources: Rather limited range of material; mostly class texts and discussion; needs better use of collateral material; over-reliance on class materials; incomplete referencing.

FAIR

Poor or barely acceptable work.

Structure: Very limited reference to question; difficult to follow; very loose definitions; poorly organized; inadequate conclusion.

Style: Spelling, grammar, punctuation need much more attention; vocabulary not appropriate; poor presentation.

Argument: Very simplistic or badly constructed argument; tending to the descriptive; unsupported assertions; point of argument not at all clear; little use of theoretical perspectives.

Sources: Very limited range of material; too much irrelevant material; very little evidence of reading outside class outline and discussion; over-reliance on secondary sources; incomplete or incorrect referencing.

FAIL

Unacceptable Work

Structure: Ignores question; no sense of construction; no indication to reader of line of argument; no introduction or conclusion.

Style: Careless spelling, grammar, punctuation; poor presentation; inappropriate use of vocabulary.

Argument: No sense of argument; no analysis; over-descriptive; unsubstantiated assertions; generalizations; lack of theoretical perspective.

Sources: Extremely limited range of sources; over-reliance on unanalyzed course material; little or no referencing to collateral reading; no indication of assimilation of class discussion.