- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: SMCP Final paper S19 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
SMCP Final paper S19 SMCP Final paper S19 Rubric Code: FXC8WX4 By amische Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Social Sciences Type: Writing Grade Levels: (none)

ESSAY FORMAT Descriptions
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Introduction	Excellent A strong introduction has these elements: 1. An engaging lead-in to your case 2. A clear and compelling thesis statement 3. A preview of the structure of the paper	Good The introduction covers most of the required elements, but it is not well developed and/or missing one of those elements	Fair Intro is sketchy and confusing and/or missing two or more of these elements	Poor No introduction
Body	Excellent Body consists of well constructed paragraphs with topic sentences, supporting examples, and logical sequences between ideas. The ideas develop in a clear and progressive manner from paragraph to paragraph.	Good Paragraphs are reasonably coherent and organized, but the flow from point to point (within or between paragraphs) is is not always clear.	Fair Paragraph construction is unfocused, missing topic sentences, too long/short, awkward transitions, etc.	Poor Paragraph formatting is disorganized and confusing, making the essay hard to follow.
Conclusion	Excellent Conclusion contains: 1. A restatement of the main argument 2. Questions for further inquiry 3. An interesting leadout	Good The conclusion covers most of the required elements, but it is not well developed and/or missing one of those elements	Fair Missing two or more of these elements.	Poor No conclusion
DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Definition of contentious politics	Excellent 1. Clear and detailed explanation of the concept using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts. AND 2. Clear and careful application of this definition	Good 1. Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts AND/OR 2. Application to the case is somewhat but sketchy and vague;	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points; AND/OR weak application to the case	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, inadequate application to csae, and/or or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Background on the case	Excellent Lively, clear and engaging background presentation of the case that covers the basics: WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHAT.	Good Basic background on the case is presented, but it is sketchy or undeveloped	Fair The case is not well presented, or presented in a confusing and partial way.	Poor No background on the case is presented.
CLAIMS
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Actor constitution	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the concept using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Collective action frames	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the concept using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Application to case	Excellent Concepts are applied to the case in a lively and nuanced way which engages the details of the case while shedding light on on questions of WHY and HOW; links back to opening argument.	Good Concepts are applied to the case but without much detail or nuance; not clearly linked to the opening argument.	Fair Concepts are applied to the case in a confusing or misleading way, or in ways that contradict the opening argument.	Poor Little or no application of the concepts to the case.
PERFORMANCES
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Contained, confrontational, violent	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the concepts using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Additional concept 1	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the concept using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Additional concept 2	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the concept using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Application to case	Excellent Concepts are applied to the case in a lively and nuanced way which engages the details of the case while shedding light on on questions of WHY and HOW; links back to opening argument.	Good Concepts are applied to the case but without much detail or nuance; not clearly linked to the opening argument.	Fair Concepts are applied to the case in a confusing or misleading way, or in ways that contradict the opening argument.	Poor Little or no application of the concepts to the case.
DYNAMICS
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Mechanisms/framework	Excellent Clear and detailed explanation of the framework using associated terminology from the readings and class notes, including all important subconcepts	Good Less fully fleshed out definition that incorporates some associated terminology but leaves out important elements and/or subconcepts	Fair Quite vague and sketchy definition that may be confusing or misleading on some points.	Poor Little or no explanation of concept, or explanation that is substantially wrong in its understanding or presentation of the ideas.
Dynamic analysis of case	Excellent Concepts are applied to the case in a lively and nuanced way which engages the details of the case while shedding light on on questions of WHY and HOW; links back to opening argument.	Good Concepts are applied to the case but without much detail or nuance; not clearly linked to the opening argument.	Fair Concepts are applied to the case in a confusing or misleading way, or in ways that contradict the opening argument.	Poor Little or no application of the concepts to the case.
SYNTHESIS
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Integration of concepts across pape	Excellent The synthesis pulls together concepts from ALL of the previous sections of the course, integrating them in a way that makes crystal clear the connections between them and demonstrates their explanatory power.	Good The synthesis pulls together some of the previous elements but not all of them, AND/OR the connections between the concepts are not always clearly spelled out.	Fair The synthesis leaves out key concepts from the previous discussion AND/OR the connections between concepts are confusing or poorly explained.	Poor There is little or no attempt to integrate concepts from earlier in the paper.
Persuasive argument about case	Excellent The synthesis links back to the opening statement in the introduction, using the conceptual integration to make a persuasive argument that explains he movement's degree of success (or failure) in mobilizing and achieving its goals.	Good The synthesis makes an argument about the movement, but this is is not presented in a compelling manner AND/OR not clearly linked to the concepts and thesis statement presented earlier.	Fair The argument about the movement is confusing, weakly connected to the concepts, and/or unpersuasive.	Poor There little or no argument developed about the success or failure of the movement.
WRITING AND REFERENCES
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0 pts
Grammar and usage	Excellent Sentences are consistently grammatical, with hardly any errors throughout.	Good Mostly good, with occasional grammatical errors. COULD USE BETTER PROOFREADING AND POLISHING	Fair Frequent grammatical errors, such as run-ons, fragment sentences, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, verb tense, commas, punctuation, spelling. DISTRACTS FROM CONCENTRATING ON YOUR IDEAS.	Poor Serious and consistent problems in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. DIFFICULT AND FRUSTRATING TO READ
Clarity and fluency	Excellent Sentences are clear, graceful and fluid. A pleasure to read!	Good Mostly good, with occasional awkward spots, rough writing or confusing word choice.	Fair Frequent awkward, disjointed, or confusing phrasing.	Poor Consistently rough, tangled and choppy writing.
Use of quotations	Excellent Quotations are: 1. relevant to context 2. well-placed in sentence 3. of appropriate length 4. correctly formatted and punctuated 5. include author reference and page number	Good Quotes are missing one or two of these elements; AND/OR one quote is missing	Fair Quotes are missing several of these elements; AND/OR: two quotes are missing	Poor Quotes are consistently misused or are missing correct citations; AND/OR: no quotes are used
Use of references	Excellent Reference list contains 1. all sources used and/or referred to in the text 2. full citation information	Good Sources are inconsistently cited and referenced, or citations are incomplete.	Fair Extremely sketchy or incomplete references; bibliography is missing references that are cited in the text.	Poor No reference list.

Subjects:

Social Sciences

Types:

Writing

Discuss this rubric