US12A Paper #1 DRAFT - Grading Rubric
Paper by:                                                Graded by:                                                Discussion section #:

Letter Grades Thesis Conceptual Development and Support Structuring Language
A
essay controlled by clear, precise, well-defined thesis: is sophisticated in both statement and insight		 has cogent analysis, shows command of interpretive and conceptual tasks required by assignment and course materials: ideas original, often insightful, going beyond ideas discussed in lecture and class well-chosen examples; persuasive reasoning used to develop and support thesis consistently: uses quotations and citations effectively; causal connections between ideas are evident appropriate, clear and smooth transitions; arrangement of paragraphs seems particularly apt uses sophisticated sentences effectively; usually chooses words aptly; observes conventions of written English and manuscript format; makes few minor or technical errors
B clear, specific, argumentative thesis central to the essay; may have left minor terms undefined shows a good understanding of the texts, ideas and methods of the assignment; goes beyond the obvious; may have one minor factual or conceptual inconsistency pursues thesis consistently: develops a main argument with clear major points and appropriate textual evidence and supporting detail; makes an effort to organize paragraphs topically distinct units of thought in paragraphs controlled by specific and detailed topic sentences; clear transitions between developed, cohering, and logically arranged paragraphs that are internally cohesive some mechanical difficulties or stylistic problems; may make occasional problematic word choices or awkward syntax errors; a few spelling or punctuation errors or clichˇ; usually presents quotations effectively
C general thesis or controlling idea; may not define several central terms shows an understanding of the basic ideas and information involved in the assignment; may have some factual, interpretive, or conceptual errors only partially develops the argument; shallow analysis; some ideas and generalizations undeveloped or unsupported; makes limited use of textual evidence; fails to integrate quotations appropriately some awkward transitions; some brief, weakly unified or undeveloped paragraphs; arrangement may not appear entirely natural; contains extraneous information more frequent wordiness; several unclear or awkward sentences; imprecise use of words or over-reliance on passive voice; one or two major grammatical errors (subject-verb agreement, comma splice, etc.); effort to present quotations accurately
D thesis vague or not central to argument; central terms not defined shows inadequate command of course materials or has significant factual and conceptual errors; does not respond directly to the demands of the assignment; confuses some significant ideas frequently only narrates; digresses from one topic to another without developing ideas or terms; makes insufficient or awkward use of textual evidence simplistic, tends to narrate or merely summarize; wanders from one topic to another; illogical arrangement of ideas some major grammatical or proofreading errors (subject-verb agreement; sentence fragments); language marred by clichˇs, colloquialisms, repeated inexact word choices; inappropriate quotations or citations format
F no discernible thesis writer has not understood lectures, readings, discussion, or assignment little or no development; may list facts or misinformation; uses no quotations or fails to cite sources or plagiarizes no transitions; incoherent paragraphs; suggests poor planning or no serious revision numerous grammatical errors and stylistic problems seriously distract from the argument
Grade for category          




Peer Editing the first paper draft - US12A 2007-2008

Work in pairs, with someone you haven't worked with yet this quarter. As you read and comment on each other's papers, keep in mind the purpose of the paper: to investigate some aspect of the history of computer games, emphasizing theoretical models or typologies from the literature.

The editor can mark-up the paper, and will also write comments on the back of this page. Editors, make sure to write "Edited by" and your name at the top of both. Each author must turn in the editor's written comments and the draft along with the final version of the paper.

Procedure for Editors:

  1. Read the paper through once, trying to understand the paper's overall structure and purpose.
    1. Are you able to easily follow the flow of the argument? Does the paper have an introductory paragraph or two which tell the reader what lies ahead, and a conclusion which wraps everything up and restates the major points?
    2. Does the author's topic seem to be the right size for a 1,000 to 1,200 word paper? Is it narrow enough to be fully developed, but broad enough to be interesting?
  2. Now carefully reread the full paper and write answers to these questions:
    1. Is the paper's tone formal, business-like, rational, and convincing?
    2. Is the paper a carefully researched investigation into the connections between some aspect of the history of computer games and contemporary culture?
    3. Look at the paragraphs as individual units. Do they have unity, coherence, and generally support and develop a single idea each?
    4. Are there any mechanical errors (spelling, punctuation, grammar) that interfered with your reading of the paper?
    5. Are the references and citations adequate? Does the paper's references section follow the correct format?
    6. Has the author succeeded in "digging deeply enough to find underlying truths?" If not, where do you suggest further spadework?
  3. Review your comments with the author (and vice versa)