Grading Rubric (Jon Hegglund, 1998)

Welcome to the English Department Knowledge Base at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The EDKB Wiki is a database that makes available the various interests, talents, and resources of the English Department community. See the Main Page to learn more about the EDKB. The wiki does not offer information on current course offerings, nor is it a comprehensive archive of materials related to all past courses. Visit the English Department home page for this type of information.

This grading rubric was written by Jon Hegglund in 1998 and edited by Zia Isola in Summer 2003.

[edit] Jon's Totally Unscientific and Idiosyncratic Grading Guidelines

First, some things to remember:

Grading guidelines should be contingent on the nature and length of the assignment. A 2-page paper will be asking for something different than an 8-page paper, for example. In the same way, a research paper will be asking for a different kind of writing than a position paper or close textual analysis paper.
Your grading standards can change throughout the quarter--you might grade a bit more rigorously on the first paper to get students to work harder, for example.
Although your job is ostensibly teaching and evaluating literary analysis, like it or not, you're also a writing instructor--grading is a balancing act between these two roles.
Grading is finally subjective--and your students know this. Be explicit about what you're looking for.

An A paper--"Oh, yeah!"

teaches me something new
"original" idea or synthesis of ideas that takes course material beyond lecture/discussion
not limited by a vague assignment, does justice to a sophisticated assignment
specific, "risky" thesis that is supported abundantly and effectively
clear, effective prose with precise diction, distinctive voice, and consistent point of view
knows when to shut up

A B paper--"Okay..."

capable reproduction of ideas covered in class, or interesting, but slightly misguided ideas
engages assignment, but in a limited way
thesis is there, but maybe a little too broad, or not concisely stated; support sometimes inappropriate or sparse
readable prose that communicates ideas capably with a few grammatical or sentence variation problems
can usually be described as either "awkward insight" or "glib mediocrity"

A C paper--"Uh-oh."

not much critical thought
potentially productive ideas hampered by organizational problems
consistently avoids or misunderstands assignment or question
thesis either extremely superficial or nearly invisible; little textual support, ample plot summary
choppy, imprecise prose that hampers communication of ideas

A D-F paper--"Oh, no!"