Problem Solving Proposal Rubric
Revised May 2018
| Student’s Name | Course Code | Date | Facilitator/Evaluator’s Name |
| A | B | C-D | F | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2-0 | ||||
| Statement of Purpose/Focus | · The response is fully sustained and consistently and purposefully focused on the assigned prompt:
· Thesis/claim(s) are introduced and communicated clearly within the context · Thesis/claim(s) are clearly stated, focused, and strongly maintained throughout · Counterclaim(s) are clearly addressed |
· The response is adequately sustained and generally focused on the assigned prompt:
· Context provided for the thesis/claim(s) is adequate and mostly thorough · Thesis/claim(s) are clear and mostly maintained, though some loosely related material may be present · Counterclaim(s) are present, but may leave gaps in reasoning |
· The response is somewhat sustained and may have a minor drift in focus:
· Context for thesis/claim(s) is attempted, but significant lapses are present · Thesis/claim(s) on the issue may be somewhat unclear and unfocused · Counterclaim(s) are attempted |
· The response may be related to the purpose but may offer little relevant detail:
· Thesis/claim(s) may be confusing or ambiguous · Thesis/claim(s) off topic · Counterclaim(s) are not present |
|||
| Organization | · The response has a clear and effective organizational structure creating unity and completeness:
· Effective, consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies · Logical progression of ideas from beginning to end · Effective introduction and conclusion for audience and purpose · Strong connections among ideas, with some syntactic variety |
· The response has an evident organizational structure and a sense of completeness, though there may be minor flaws and some ideas may be loosely connected:
· Adequate use of transitional strategies with some variety · Adequate progression of ideas from beginning to end · Adequate introduction and conclusion · Adequate, if slightly inconsistent, connection among ideas |
· The response has an inconsistent organizational structure, and flaws are evident:
· Inconsistent use of basic transitional strategies with little variety · Uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end · Conclusion and introduction, if present, are weak · Weak connection among ideas |
· The response has little or no discernible organizational structure:
· Few or no transitional strategies are evident · Little or no organization discernable · Frequent extraneous ideas may intrude · No clear introduction/conclusion; conclusion merely repeats |
|||
| Elaboration of Evidence | · The response provides thorough and convincing support/evidence for the writer’s claim(s) that include(s) the effective use of sources, facts, and details. The response achieves substantial depth that is specific and relevant:
· Use of relevant evidence from sources is smoothly integrated · Effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques and thorough explanation of connection(s) between claim(s) and evidence · Correct APA citation |
· The response provides adequate support/evidence for writer’s claim(s) that include(s) the use of sources, facts, and details. The response achieves some depth and specificity but is predominantly general:
· Some evidence from sources is integrated, attribution present · Adequate use of some elaborative techniques · Attempt at APA citation |
· The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the writer’s claim(s) that include(s) partial or uneven use of sources, facts, and details, and achieves little depth:
· Evidence from sources is weakly integrated, and attribution, if present, is uneven · Weak or uneven use of elaborative techniques · Incorrect APA citation |
· The response provides minimal support/evidence for the writer’s claim(s) that includes little or no use of sources, facts, and details:
· Use of evidence from sources is minimal, absent, in error, or irrelevant · Explanations, if present, do not attempt to connect claim(s) and evidence · No attempt at APA citation |
|||
| Language and Vocabulary
|
· The response clearly and effectively expresses ideas, using precise language:
· Regular use of academic and domain-specific vocabulary · Rich and precise language · Consistently uses register suited to audience and purpose |
· The response adequately expresses ideas, employing a mix of precise with more general language
· Some use of academic and domain-specific vocabulary · Precise language · Attempt to use style and tone suited to audience and purpose |
· The response expresses ideas unevenly, using simplistic language:
· Little use of domain-specific vocabulary · Little use of precise language · Style and tone at times may be inappropriate for the audience and purpose |
· The response expression of ideas is vague, lacks clarity, or is confusing:
· Uses limited language or domain-specific vocabulary · Language is simplistic or vague · May have little sense of audience and purpose |
|||
| Conventions | · The response demonstrates a strong command of conventions:
· Few, if any, error arYou are at risk of failing your courses of CPNP 112 and CPNP 110 from last semester if you do not submit all of your outstanding course work. · · You will have until the 29th April 2020 @08:00 to do this.e present in usage and sentence formation · Effective and consistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling |
· The response demonstrates an adequate command of conventions:
· Some errors in usage and sentence formation may be present, but no systematic pattern of errors is displayed · Adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling |
· The response demonstrates a partial command of conventions:
· Frequent errors in usage may obscure meaning · Inconsistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling |
· The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions:
· Errors are numerous and severe, interfering with comprehension and readability · Sample may be too brief to determine adequate command of conventions |
|||
Plagiarism: A “0” grade will be given to a paper where significant sections of the paper were copied from other, unattributed sources.
Total Score out of 25
Facilitator/Evaluator’s Comments: