Sample 1: (source)
| SCORE | CLARITY | CONTENT | ORGANIZATION | STYLE | VISUALS | SPELLING & GRAMMAR |
| 4 EXCELLENT | Writing flows smoothly from one idea to another. The writer has taken pains to assist the reader in following the logic of the ideas expressed. Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the writer’s points easy to follow. |
Demonstration of full knowledge of the subject with explanations and elaboration. |
Extremely well organized; Sections are used to organize information; all information is located in the appropriate section. |
Report format is clean and consistent throughout – including heading styles, fonts, margins, white space, etc. It is professional in appearance. |
Visual aids are clear and compelling evidence to support your rguments. They are references clearly in your text. OR no visuals required. |
Negligible errors. |
| 3 VERY GOOD | Sentences are structured and words are chosen to communicate ideas clearly. Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the writer’s points easy to follow. |
The writer is at ease with content and able to elaborate and explain to some degree. |
Well organized; Sections are generally used to organize information; most information is located in the appropriate section. |
Report format is generally consistent but may have stylistic inconsistencies. |
Visual aids support your arguments, but could be stronger. For example, they may not be referenced in your text. |
Minor errors. |
| 2 SATISFACTORY | Sentence structure and/or word choice sometimes interfere with clarity. Needs to improve sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs to make the writing easy to follow. | The writer is uncomfortable with content. Only basic concepts are demonstrated and interpreted. |
Some organizational issues; Sections may be inappropriate or lacking; information may not be cleanly placed in the correct section. |
Either inconsistent style, or general lack of style (for example, subheadings are not given any different stylistic weight). |
Lacking some visual aids that would have significantly improved the communication of your writing. Existing aids may be difficult to interpret and not improve your document as a whole. |
Several errors. |
| 1 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT | Sentence structure, word choice, lack of transitions and/or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding difficult. |
No grasp of required subject matter. No understanding of major issues. No interpretation of results. |
Very little organization; little to no sections; sections that exist have little discernable structure. |
Work shows little consistency in style. |
No visuals when there is a clear need for them. |
Numerous Errors. |
Sample 2 (source)
| Criterion | Great | Good | So-So | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Completeness | All components are present and complete. (23/23) | All components are present, but some are somewhat incomplete. (21/23) | One or more components are missing, or all components are severely incomplete. (16/23) | No genuine attempt at a complete solution. (8/23) |
| Correctness | All components are completely correct. (9) | At least one component contains a minor error. (7) | At least one component contains a major error. (4) | Multiple major errors, or an entirely incorrect response. (0) |
| Style | A professional, polished tone and format are maintained throughout the solution. (3) | Minor issues of tone, voice, spelling, punctuation, or formatting. (2) | Major tone or presentation issues. (1) | Exceedingly terse, sloppy, or otherwise unpolished writing. (0) |
| Clarity | All components are clear, organized, and easy to follow. (4) | Occasional or minor issues of clarity, causing confusion that can be overcome by careful reading and charitable interpretation by the reader. (3) | Truly confusing writing that can only be interpreted with significant effort. (1) | Exceedingly confusing writing. (0) |
| Precision | No meaningful ambiguity. (4) | Occasional or minor issues of precision, causing meaningful ambiguity that can be overcome by charitable interpretation by the reader. (3) | Major precision errors that cause meaningful ambiguity in the interpretation of the solution, which can only be resolved with difficulty (if at all). (1) | Severely underspecified instructions, definitions, claims, or arguments. (0) |
| Conciseness | Direct and to the point, without sacrificing appropriate clarity or precision. (3) | Occasional extraneous writing. (2) | Very long-winded, redundant, or extraneous writing. (1) | Exceedingly longer writing than is necessary for the clear, precise expression of the ideas in the solution. (0) |
