| Letter to the Editor/Hot Button Issue Paper Rubric | ||||||||
| Historical Analysis (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Shows a lack of awareness or implications of the historical part of the issue presented. | Indicates historical research of the issue presented but needs more support and evidence of the ideas in writing. Needs to provide further evidence of research on topic. | Thoroughly investigates and represents the historical tenets of the issue and supports these ideas with examples, direct quotations of relevant materials. The historical review of the issue is complete and clearly presented. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Philosophical Analysis (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Shows a lack of awareness or implications of the philosophical part of the issue presented. | Indicates philosophical ramifications of the issue presented but needs more support and evidence of the ideas in writing. Needs to provide further evidence of research on topic. | Thoroughly investigates and represents the philosophical tenets of the issue and supports these ideas with examples, direct quotations of relevant materials. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Sociocultural and/or Political Analysis (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Shows a lack of awareness or implications of the Sociocultural and political part of the issue presented. | Indicates Sociocultural and political ramifications of the issue presented but needs more support and evidence of the ideas in writing. Needs to provide further evidence of research on topic. | Thoroughly investigates and represents the Sociocultural and political ramification of the issue and supports these ideas with examples, direct quotations of relevant materials. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Persuasiveness (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Evidences a lack of argumentation or persuasiveness about selected issue and does not take a stand about how they see the issue. | Acknowledges a general argument or side to the issue, but does not provide evidence or depth of understanding to persuade the audience. | Clearly shows a deep understanding of the issue and is able to persuade the audience by providing details and support of claims of the particular issue presented. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Critical Thinking (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Shows lack of understanding, or lack of commitment to critical think about the chosen topic. | Expresses a general understanding of the value of critical thinking on chosen topic. | Evidences of critical thinking throughout, shoiwng a clear and specific commitment to deeply investigating the topic and is evident in argument. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Writing quality: Integration (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| The quality of this paper is seriously deficient and does not reflect the writing or communication skills of a professional teacher. | This paper meets the standards of sound professional communication with neither major writing deficiencies or any significant accumulation of minor problems. Expresses information clearly. | A well developed piece of writing that is professional, informative, and interesting. This paper reflects a clear understanding of the needs of the audience and expresses information with vigor and clarity. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Writing quality: Focus (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Lacks a clear focus or position. Includes extraneous information not clearly connected to the position or to the major ideas of this paper. | States a clear position and several major points. Most statements emphasize or elaborate on this position and the major point. | Position is clearly stated and focus is maintained throughout the paper. All major ideas are expressed directly and logically developed. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Writing quality: Elaboration (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Author either expresses major thoughts with little support or elaboration or provides an abundance of details without making larger points. | Major points are adequately developed for making the writer's case. Some examples, explanation, and evidence are used. | Support is abundant and show original thought. Uses examples, explanation, and evidence to support all major ideas and even some supporting ideas. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Writing quality: Organization (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Weak organizational structure. It is difficult to follow the writer's plan or to see what the connection is among the major points. | Paper as a clear plan that is followed throughout the paper. | Paper has a strong and clear organizational plan which is maintained successfully throughout the entire paper. The ideas are skillfully and logically connected. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
| Writing quality: Conventions (10%) | ||||||||
| 1 BEGINNING | 2 DEVELOPING | 3 PROFICIENT | ||||||
| Serious errors are evident in mechanics, usage, grammar, and/or spelling. Paper suggests lack of understanding or poor control of basic conventions of writing. | Few errors are evident in mechanics, usage, grammar, and spelling, and these errors do not significantly detract from the message. | There are no errors or extremely minor errors in mechanics, usage, grammar, and spelling. | ||||||
| COMMENT | ||||||||
This rubric was derived from The Council on Teacher Education, University of Illinois at Chicago.