 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Course M, 2:30-5:20 W, 2:30-4:20 Thomson 125 |
| Instructor K. Gillis-Bridges Padelford A305 543-4892 MW, 1:00-2:20 |
| Page last updated 11/14/02 |
Grading Criteria for Critiques
A 40- to 50-point Critique (A Range)
- Offers a full and substantive analysis of the article; the writer selects significant points of critique that are defendable, clearly explained, and supported
- Has a strong thesis that is clearly differentiated from the article author’s main argument; the thesis focuses on key strengths and limitations of the article
- Shows complexity of thought and a thorough understanding of the article
- Expresses ideas clearly and commands the reader’s attention
- Demonstrates clear, unified and coherent organization
- Is fully developed and detailed with points of critique supported by persuasive reasoning and references to the critiqued article, the film under study, or other course readings; there is an appropriate balance between providing evidence and analyzing that evidence
- Differentiates the writer’s critique from the article’s points; does not summarize the article without analyzing it
- Has a sophisticated style (remarkable variety of sentence pattern, smooth transitions between ideas, superior control of diction)
- Properly cites source material
- Has few, if any, minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics
- Offers a clear analysis of the article; the writer presents clear points of critique, but the critique may not address significant aspects of the article, or it may not support all points of critique
- Has a thesis that is differentiated from the article author’s main argument; however, the thesis may not be focused
- Shows some complexity of thought and a general understanding of the article
- Expresses ideas clearly
- Demonstrates effective organization
- Is well developed with sensible reasoning and appropriate references to the critiqued article, the film under study, or other course readings; however, some evidence may detract from the thesis and some points of critique might not be fully explored.
- Demonstrates balance between evidence and analysis for the most part, but balance may be weak in places
- Differentiates the writer’s critique from the article’s points, but may summarize without sufficient analysis
- Has an effective style (some variety of sentence patterns, transitions between ideas, accurate diction)
- Properly cites source material, but may have errors in citation format
- Has few errors in grammar, usage or mechanics
- Offers an analysis of the article, but the analysis addresses few significant aspects of the article; the writer may present many points of critique and support few
- Has a thesis that may not be entirely clear or well differentiated from the article author’s main argument
- Shows insufficient awareness of the article’s complexity; may treat the article simplistically or repetitively
- Communicates ideas clearly for the most part, but may have some lapses in clarity
- Has a recognizable organizational pattern, but the relation among parts is not consistently clear enough to provide a coherent focus
- Is unevenly developed; writer may offer sufficient reasoning or references to the critiqued article, the film under study, or other course readings for some of the ideas but not for others
- Demonstrates some balance between evidence and analysis
- Attempts to differentiate the writer’s critique from the article’s points, but may not be consistently successful, and may offer frequent summary without sufficient analysis
- Has an adequate style (limited variation in sentence patterns, transitions between most ideas, diction accurate for the most part)
- Cites the majority of source material, but occasionally material may be clearly cited but not referenced in parentheses
- Has some errors in grammar, usage or mechanics, but demonstrates basic control of these areas
- Offers a limited or muddled analysis of the article; writer identifies minor points of critique and meets basic length requirements, but does not address the article in any meaningful fashion
- Has an unclear thesis that is difficult to differentiate from the article author’s main argument
- Lacks focus or demonstrates confused, stereotyped or simplistic thinking; writer may demonstrate no overall conception of the article
- May not communicate ideas clearly
- Is ineffectively organized, with no clear relationship between the parts of the essay
- May not provide adequate or appropriate reasoning or references to support points of critique, or may provide details without identifying the point of critique; evidence may have little relationship to the thesis
- May not clearly differentiate the writer’s critique from the article’s points for the most part; may provide mainly summary with little analysis
- Has stylistic weaknesses (no variety of sentence patterns, few transitions, imprecise diction)
- Indicates use of source material, but does not have consistent parenthetical references
- Has occasional major errors in grammar, usage or mechanics or frequent minor errors that interfere in the reader's understanding of the essay
- May be deliberately off-topic and demonstrate no understanding of the article
- Has no thesis or has an incomprehensible thesis
- Does not communicate ideas clearly
- Lacks coherent organization
- Shows no development of ideas; may simply summarize the article
- Has an incoherent style (difficulties with sentence structure, pattern of diction errors)
- Presents another writer’s work as the author’s own
- Has pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage and mechanics that renders the essay unreadable