Evaluation Criteria for BGS Research Papers
Rank |
A |
B |
C |
D |
(Scoring) |
4 points |
3 points |
2 points |
1 point |
Criterion |
||||
Focus of argument |
Precise, concrete, complex thesis; highly coherent argument | Good thesis, but could be more specific; focused argument, but may lapse occasionally | Weak, simplistic, and/or unclear thesis; lack of a strong focus to argument | Vague and/or sloppy thesis; completely unfocused discussion |
Depth of analysis |
-- Explores issue thoroughly and intelligently -- Examines issue from multiple perspectives -- Explores ideas and develops a clear position with insight and persuasive examples |
-- Explores issue adequately and with some
insight -- Supports a defined position with good examples -- Argument and/or examples weak in places |
-- Defines an issue, but explores it
inadequately -- Use of examples is inconsistent and/or significantly lacking -- Argument is weakly supported, unpersuasive and/or contradictory |
-- Doesn't adequately define or explore an
issue -- Very weak support: poor and/or lack of relevant examples -- Lack of thoughtful development |
Quality of research |
-- Relevant, timely, and varied sources -- Excellent balance b/t scholarly and mainstream works -- # of sources exceeds minimum |
-- Relevant and timely sources, but may be
limited in scope -- Sufficient balance b/t scholarly and mainstream works -- # of sources at or above min. |
-- Sources significantly lack in timeliness,
scope, or relevance -- Clear lack of thorough research --Overreliance upon popular works -- Min. # of sources consulted |
-- Dated and/or irrelevant sources -- Lack of fundamental research -- Lack of scholarly sources -- Min. # or fewer sources consulted |
Integration of sources |
-- Smooth and judicious integration of info. in
argument -- Sources clearly relate to and support thesis -- Effective analysis/critique of sources -- Excellent balance b/t quoting and paraphrasing; emphasis on latter |
-- Good integration of sources -- Sources relate to and support thesis, but inconsistently -- Sources are analyzed, but inconsistently and/or insufficiently -- OK balance b/t quoting and paraphrasing |
--Inconsistent and/or sloppy integration of
sources -- Sources only marginally support thesis -- Insufficient analysis of sources -- Inadequate balance b/t quoting and paraphrasing (too much quoting) |
-- Poor integration of too few sources -- Sources don't support thesis -- Sources are "plopped in" without analysis |
| Organization |
-- Clear and logical throughout -- Clear and forceful intro. -- Excellent transitions -- Focused paragraphs |
-- Basically clear, with some lapses possible -- Adequate intro. -- Good transitions, but used inconsistently -- Generally focused paragraphs, with some lapses |
-- Unclear: reader must work to discern
organization -- Weakly developed intro. -- Inadequate use of transitions -- Many unfocused paragraphs |
--Poor overall organ. -- Very weak intro. -- Lack of transitions -- High % of unfocused paragraphs |
Mechanics and Style |
-- Writer's voice is clear and strong -- Highly readable, fluid prose -- Sophisticated writing style -- Excellent grammar -- Careful editing |
-- Writer's voice is somewhat overshadowed by
sources -- Readable, generally clear prose -- Good grammar, with some errors -- Fair editing |
-- Writer's voice is unclear, hard to discern -- Prose is often difficult to read -- Significant # and frequency of grammatical errors -- Weak editing |
-- Prose is consistently unclear and difficult
to read -- High # of errors -- Editing is poor or completely lacking |
Docu- |
-- Excellent quoting and paraphrasing technique
-- MLA style used consistently and correctly -- Complete and error-free works cited list |
-- Good quoting and paraphrasing technique,
with some lapses -- MLA style generally used well, allowing a few mistakes -- Good, but not perfect, works cited list |
-- Just adequate quoting and paraphrasing
technique, but many errors -- MLA style attempted, but used inconsistently -- Fair works cited list, but with several errors |
-- Poor quoting and paraphrasing technique -- MLA style not used in text -- Works cited list not in MLA format, alphabetical order, etc. |
Compiled by Michael A. Bryson,
PhD
Associate Professor of Humanities
BGS/BPS Program
Evelyn T. Stone University
College
Roosevelt University
Chicago, IL 60605
Last updated: 01 Dec 2004