Rubric for Critical Analysis



Criterion

4

A-level qualities
(90–100)

3

B-level qualities
(80–89)

2

C-level qualities
(70–79)

1

F-level qualities
(below 70)



Score

Purpose Introduces and presents paper effectively and clearly; purpose is readily apparent to the reader Introduces and presents paper adequately; purpose is not consistently clear throughout the paper Introduces and presents paper somewhat effectively; writing has a clear purpose but may sometimes digress from it Introduces and presents paper poorly; purpose is generally unclear  
Development and content Develops paper as assigned, providing a robust and accurate summary and analysis of Friedman's premise; critiques Friedman's ideas with great insight and shows a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of the Friedman volume Develops paper as assigned with a full and effective summary and analysis of Friedman's premise; offers a thoughtful critique of Friedman's ideas and an adequate basic analysis of the Friedman volume Does not fully develop paper as assigned, may fail to provide an accurate summary or an effective analysis of Friedman's premise; analysis of the Friedman volume is basic or general Paper is undeveloped and completely ignores or misunderstands the Friedman's premise; paper does not relate to the assignment; analysis of the Friedman volume is vague or there is no evidence that the writer has read it  
Makes appropriate and powerful connections with the readings in the course and effectively introduces more than one source of outside research Makes appropriate connections with the readings in the course and effectively introduces at least one source of outside research Makes somewhat vague connections with the readings in the course; introduces no sources of outside research or uses them incorrectly or ineffectively Makes little or no connection with the readings in the course and makes no attempt to bring in outside areas of research  
Provides a strong, balanced, and critical assessment of Friedman's remedies and steps and makes reasonable and insightful recommendations Provides an effective assessment of Friedman's remedies and steps and makes reasonable recommendations Provides some assessment of Friedman's remedies and ideas but does so in a vague or confusing manner; may make recommendations but they are not well-thought out or are impractical Does not provide an assessment of Friedman's remedies and steps or makes statements that indicate little understanding of these concepts; recommendations may be unreasonable or outlandish  
Documentation and support Ideas are supported effectively and sources are clearly attributed Ideas are generally supported and paper includes clear attribution Attribution may be present, but sources are questionable or style is incorrect; some statements are unsubstantiated and the source of some ideas is unclear Attribution is missing, or sources given are poorly chosen, or sources have not been used  
Organization Arranges ideas clearly and logically to support the purpose or argument; ideas flow smoothly and are effectively linked; reader can follow the line of reasoning Arranges ideas adequately to support the purpose or argument; links between ideas are generally clear; reader can follow the line of reasoning for the most part Arranges ideas adequately, in general, although ideas sometimes fail to make sense together; reader remains fairly clear about what writer intends Arranges ideas illogically; ideas frequently fail to make sense together; reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and becomes frustrated or loses interest  
Writing mechanics Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors  
APA format Uses APA format accurately and consistently Uses APA format with minor violations Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA format Does not use APA format  

Total:

 

Note: Criteria are evaluated on a 4-3-2-1-0 basis. Total rubric points are converted first to a letter grade and then to a numerical equivalent based on a 0–100 scale: 30–32 = A (93–100); 29 = A– (90–92); 28 = B+ (88–89); 23–27 = B (83–87); 22 = B– (80–82); 21 = C+ (78–79); 15–20 = C (73–77); 14 = C– (70–72); 7–13 = D (60–69); 0–6 = F (below 60).