Evaluation Rubric

The Writing and Communication Program at Georgia Tech uses a Programmatic Rubric to evaluate student work in English 1101 and 1102. The rubric is designed to range from very beginning-level work (Basic) to professional-level work (Exemplary) and to evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness (understanding of audience and context, clear purpose and persuasive argument), the successful adherence to genre conventions across media, and the effectiveness of multimodal (WOVEN) design. Each graded assignment will be evaluated holistically based on this rubric, which has six categories: Rhetorical Awareness, Stance, Development of Ideas, Organization, Conventions, and Design for Medium. You can view a PDF of the rubric here.

Every assignment will have specific guidelines that outline the purpose and requirements of the assignment and the criteria used to assess your work. You can access all assignment information via the Assignment Sheets on this website, and we will go over each assignment in class, with time for questions. I also encourage you to meet with me soon after I have gone over the assignment to discuss your ideas. Although the assignments are designed to be challenging, and often ask you to be a problem-solver, you do not need to feel confused about what you are being asked to do. If you are, please meet with me during my office hours (or make an appointment to meet with me at another time). Qualities on the rubric do not correlate to specific grades; rather, your assignment will be evaluated holistically.

Each assignment will be awarded points that contribute to a total course value of 1,000 points. End-of-semester grades will correspond to the following point equivalencies:

A: 900-1,000 points

B: 800-899 points

C: 700-799 points

D: 600-699 points

F: 599 points or fewer

Please Note: Some scholarships, including the Hope Scholarship, require you to maintain a certain GPA. I am committed to equitable, ethical, and fair grading, and am always happy to discuss strategies for improvement with you. I will not, however, negotiate an overall course grade based on a jeopardized scholarship (or similar economic or social pressures). If you are concerned about your grades in the course, please arrange to meet with me to discuss your work far before the end of the semester.

 

Rhetorical Awareness: Response to situation, including purpose, audience, register, and context. How well do you address a relevant question for your audience? Do you understand the context in which you’re communicating? The audience you’re addressing? Do you have a clear purpose?

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Overlooks two or more aspects of the situation or assignment, and thus does not fulfill the task	Overlooks at least one aspect of the situation or assignment and thus compromises effectiveness	Attempts to respond to all aspects of the situation or assignment, but the attempt is incomplete	Addresses the situation or assignment  in a complete but perfunctory or predictable way	Addresses the situation completely, with unexpected insight	Addresses the situation in a sophisticated manner that could advance professional discourse on the topic

 

Stance: Argument, significance and implications (“so what” factor). Do you address that question with a relevant and interesting argument? Does your claim matter?

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Involves an unspecified or confusing argument; significance is not evident	Makes an overly general argument; significance is difficult to discern, or not appropriate to the rhetorical situation	Makes a simplistic or implicit argument, or multiple arguments that have no clear connection to one another; gestures towards significance, but does not fully develop it	Makes an explicit and straightforward argument that does not oversimplify the problem or question; explores at least one implication of the argument in depth	Makes a complex, unified argument that clearly articulates a position or stance; explores multiple implications of the argument	Offers an inventive, expert-like argument that clearly articulates a sophisticated position/stance; explores multiple implications of the argument in a compelling manner

 

Development of Ideas: Evidence, analysis, and substance. How well do you support your argument? Is evidence thorough, relevant, and well-analyzed? Is your line of reasoning clear and convincing? Do you address relevant counter-arguments?

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Claims requiring support are not backed by necessary evidence; lacks analysis of major pieces of evidence; content is not substantive	Evidence and/or analysis is weak or contradictory; does not account for important evidence that could support or disprove the argument	Evidence provides minimal but necessary support to each point; attempted analysis is not sufficient to prove the argument	Evidence and analysis are substantive; they support the argument and related claims, but are mostly predictable	Evidence fully supports and proves the argument and all related claims; evidence is always paired with compelling analysis	Evidence and analysis are precise, nuanced, fully developed, and work together to enhance the argument,

 

Organization: Structure and coherence, including elements such as introductions and conclusions as well as logical connections between points. Does the structure of your artifact aid audience engagement and understanding? Do you connect the dots for your audience and provide appropriate context?

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Lacks unity in constituent parts; fails to create coherence among constituent parts; contains major argumentative holes or fallacies	Uses insufficient unifying statements; uses few effective connections; some logical moves necessary to prove the argument are absent	Uses some effective unifying claims, but a few are unclear; inconsistently makes connections between points and the argument; employs simplistic organization	States unifying claims with supporting points that relate clearly to the overall argument and employs an effective but mechanical scheme	Asserts and sustains a claim that develops logically and progressively; adapts typical organizational schemes for the context; achieves substantive coherence	Artifact is organized to achieve maximum coherence and momentum; connections are sophisticated and complex when required

 

Conventions: Expectations for grammar, mechanics, style, citation. Does your artifact follow conventional expectations for academic and professional communication? Are sentences grammatically correct and stylistically clear? Do you cite sources appropriately?

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Involves errors that risk making the overall message distorted or incomprehensible	Involves a major pattern of errors	Involves some distracting errors	Meets expectations, with minor errors	Meets expectations in a virtually flawless manner	Exceeds expectations and manipulates conventions to advance the argument

 

Design for Medium: Features that use affordances of the genre to enhance factors such as usability and comprehensibility. How well do you use the affordances of the genre you’re working in? Do the multimodal elements of the artifact enhance audience engagement and understanding? 

Basic	Beginning	Developing	Competent	Mature	Exemplary
Lacks features necessary or significant for the genre; uses features that conflict with or ignore the argument	Omits some important features;  distracting inconsistencies in features; uses features that don’t support argument	Uses features that support the argument, but some match imprecisely with content; involves minor omissions or inconsistencies	Supports the argument with features that are generally suited to genre and content	Promotes engagement and supports the argument with features that efficiently use affordances	Persuades with careful, seamless integration of features and content and with innovative use of affordances