Blog

Grading Rubric
Overall Impression Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Author directly addresses main question Author competently addresses main Author attempts to address main or issue, and may add new insight to the question or issue, but covers the material question or issue, but fails. The subject not provided in lectures, only in part -- perhaps missing an author has retained some readings, or class discussions. The essential issue or topic covered in class information from the course and/or author has retained nearly all of the and/or the reading. That said, it is clear the reading, but does not fully knowledge presented in class and/or the that the author has learned a great deal understand its meaning or context reading. He/She is able to synthesize this in class and is able to communicate this and cannot clearly convey it to knowledge and relate it to material not knowledge to others. Student has not others. covered in the classroom discussion. gone beyond the required assignment but Student has gone beyond the required has thought through the basic questions assignment and has thought through and and problems of the assigned material. researched related questions, problems, and material. Essay contains an intro, main body, and conclusion. The introduction lays out the main argument/question/problem but gives the reader little idea of what to expect in the essay. The conclusion may summarize the main argument and evidence. The structure of the body is somewhat clear and generally relates to the issue or topic at hand. Underdeveloped Poor Essay does NOT address main Essay does NOT question or issue and that little of the address the main material covered in the course -- question or issue, and either in lecture, discussion, or it is clear that the reading -- is present in the essay. author does not understand the material.

Summary Evaluation

Structure and Cohesion Essay contains an intro, main body, and conclusion. Introduction lays out main argument/question/problem and gives an outline of what the reader can expect in the essay. All sub-theses and supporting sections are clear and relate to the main thesis. There is a logical progression and transition from section to section.

Thesis or Problem Statement

Evidence

Counter-Evidence

Sources

Essay contains an intro, main body, Essay has little organizational pattern. Essay has no clear and conclusion. The introduction organizational pattern. gives the reader an idea of what to expect in the paper, but does not effectively lay out the main argument. It may begin with a set of rhetorical questions, or an anecdote that is never fully explained. The conclusion does little more than restate the problematic introduction. Intro and/or conclusion may be too wordy or short. The structure of the body of the essay is unclear and does not always relate to the topic. Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Underdeveloped Poor Essay identifies and articulates a clear The argument is present or perhaps Author attempts, but fails, to make Little attempt is made to articulate an No attempt is made to thesis or problem, which drives the incomplete. The thesis or problem an argument. Either the thesis or argument. articulate an argument and structure of the essay. statement may be weak, or the reader problem statement is missing, or it is argument. must reconstruct it from the text. very weak. Provides compelling, accurate, and Provides necessary evidence to convince Not enough evidence is provided to Either little evidence is provided, or No evidence is complete evidence that convinces the reader of most aspects of the main support authors argument, or there are numerous factual mistakes, provided or the reader to accept main argument. The argument but not all. The importance/ evidence is incomplete, incorrect, or omissions or oversimplifications. evidence lacks any importance/relevance of all pieces of relevance of some evidence presented oversimplified. Information from There is little or no mention of relation to the main evidence is clearly stated and related to may not be totally clear. Reader must lectures and readings is not information from lectures and question or issue. the thesis statement. There are no gaps make a few mental leaps or do some effectively used. readings. in reasoningi.e., the reader does not additional research to fully accept all need to assume anything or do aspects of main argument. additional research to accept main argument. The author has clearly analyzed the evidence presented in the essay. The author considers the evidence, or Author acknowledges that counter- Author acknowledges some of the Little acknowledgement of counter- No acknowledgement alternate interpretations of evidence, evidence or alternative interpretations most obvious counter-evidence and evidence or alternative of counter-evidence or that could be used to refute or weaken exists, and lists them fully, but does not alternative explanations, but is not interpretations. alternative his/her argument, and thoughtfully effectively explain to reader why his/her comprehensive in this task. There is interpretations. responds to it. argument still stands. little or no attempt made to respond to them. Evidence is used from the widest range Evidence is presented, but author relies Uses few sources. Few of the Only minimally uses sources provided Does not use sources. of sources. The author consults scholarly on a limited set of sources. Some effort is sources are academic, peer by instructor, or relies exclusively on books, websites, journal articles, etc. not made to go beyond material presented in reviewed sources. Sources that are non-scholarly outside sources. explicitly discussed in class. Most of the class when required, but not much. Most not peer reviewed are chosen sources are academic, peer reviewed of the sources are academic, peer uncritically. sources. Sources that are not peer reviewed sources. Sources that are not reviewed are chosen critically and peer reviewed are chosen critically and represent the high quality scholarship represent the high quality scholarship and well-conceived arguments. and well-conceived arguments.

Argument

Argu

Evidence is used from the widest range Evidence is presented, but author relies Uses few sources. Few of the Only minimally uses sources provided Does not use sources. of sources. The author consults scholarly on a limited set of sources. Some effort is sources are academic, peer by instructor, or relies exclusively on books, websites, journal articles, etc. not made to go beyond material presented in reviewed sources. Sources that are non-scholarly outside sources. explicitly discussed in class. Most of the class when required, but not much. Most not peer reviewed are chosen sources are academic, peer reviewed of the sources are academic, peer uncritically. sources. Sources that are not peer reviewed sources. Sources that are not reviewed are chosen critically and peer reviewed are chosen critically and represent the high quality scholarship represent the high quality scholarship and well-conceived arguments. and well-conceived arguments. Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Underdeveloped Poor All sentences are grammatically correct All sentences are grammatically correct A few sentences are grammatically Paper is full of grammatical errors Paper is completely and clearly written. No words are and clearly written. An occasional word is incorrect or not clearly written. and bad writing. Several words are unclear in part misused. Technical terms, words from misused. Technical terms, words from Several words are misused. misused. Technical terms, words because of lack of other languages, and words from other other languages, and words from other Technical terms, words from other from other languages, and words clarity and style. historical periods are always explained. historical periods are usually, but not languages, and words from other from other historical periods are All information is accurate and up-to- always, explained. All information is historical periods are rarely rarely explained. Not all information date. Paper has been spell-checked AND accurate and up-to-date. Paper has been explained. Not all information is is accurate and up-to-date. Paper has proofread (ideally by author and spell-checked AND proofread, and accurate and up-to-date. Paper has not been spell-checked or proofread, somebody else), and contains no errors. contains no more than a few minor been spell-checked AND proofread, and contains numerous errors. errors, which do not adversely affect the but still contains several errors. Reader has a difficult time readers ability to understand the essay. Readers ability to understand essay understanding essay because of may be compromised by these errors. errors. Citations and Hyperlinks All evidence is properly cited in All evidence is cited in footnotes, but Some pieces are unreferenced or Little attempt is made to cite No attempt is made to footnotes. All digital sources have there are some minor problems with inaccurately referenced, and there evidence. Few digital sources have cite evidence. hyperlinks. completeness or format of some are problems with completeness hyperlinks. citations. All digital sources have and format of citations. Some hyperlinks. digital sources have hyperlinks. Interactivity The author has made clear attempts to The author has made some attempts to The author has made some Little attempt is made to interact No attempt is made to solicit the input of peers and academic solicit the input of peers and academic attempts to solicit the input of peers online. interact online. readers. This includes asking one or two readers. This includes asking one or two in class, but is not engaged in a colleagues to comment on the piece. It colleagues to comment on the piece. The community of digital scholars. also includes posting links to the article author has been reluctant to post in in relevant social media locations (in this relevant social media locations. The class, at minimum you will circulate your author sometimes responds to comments posts on Twitter with the hashtag and thanks others for reposts and #iupuidh). The author responds to retweets. The author is mildly engaged in comments and thanks others for reposts building their digital scholarly community and retweets. The author is engaged in through asking questions online and building their digital scholarly reading and commenting on related community through asking questions online posts. online and reading and commenting on related online posts. Grammar and Spelling Excellent Comprehension of Topic Author shows a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is able to clearly articulate the historiographical, methodological, and theoretical context of the topic. It is clear that the author has gone beyond the assigned readings to comprehend the topic in depth. Relevance Author shows a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is able to link his/her analysis to the larger questions, problems, and debates with which other scholars are wrestling. It is clear that the author has gone beyond the assigned readings to analyze the topic in depth. Very Good Author shows a relatively clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is able to articulate the historiographical, methodological, and theoretical context of the topic. Satisfactory Author shows a vague understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is moderately able to articulate the historiographical, methodological, and theoretical context of the topic. Author shows a vague understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is moderately able to link his/her analysis to the larger questions, problems, and debates with which other scholars are wrestling. Underdeveloped Poor Author does not understandthe topic Author makes no and its relevance to the fields of attempt at Digital History and Public History. comprehending the The author is unable to articulate the topic. historiographical, methodological, and theoretical context of the topic.

Critical Rationality

Mechanics

Author shows a relatively clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the fields of Digital History and Public History. The author is generally able to link his/her analysis to the larger questions, problems, and debates with which other scholars are wrestling.

Author does not understand the topic Author makes no and its relevance to the fields of attempt at analyzing Digital History and Public History. the larger questions, The author is unable to link his/her problems, and analysis to the larger questions, debates in the field. problems, and debates with which other scholars are wrestling.

Adapted from Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, Carnegie Mellon University, "History Research Paper Rubric."