Learning Outcome 1: Present written work that is focused ...



|Technical and Research Writing Rubric, p. 1 |

|Performance Criteria |No/Limited Proficiency |Some Proficiency |Proficiency |High Proficiency |

| |(1) |(2) |(3) |(4) |

|Topic |The topic is unprofessional; main ideas |The topic is professional but unfocused. The |The topic is professional; writing is clear and |Topic is both professional and original |

| |and/or purpose are unclear and may |reader can discern main ideas though they may |focused. Reader can easily understand main ideas. |(appropriate to assignment/context). Purpose and |

| |require extensive inferences from |be overly broad or simplistic. | |main ideas are exceptionally focused, clear, |

| |reader. | | |interesting and useful. |

|Audience |Little evidence that writer has |Writer’s sense of audience is unclear. Report |Writer addresses specific, targeted audience. Aimed |Writer addresses a specific, targeted audience. |

| |considered audience. OR The audience |addresses inappropriate audience or minimally |at appropriate technical level or higher. |Appropriate technical audience is addressed. |

| |addressed is inappropriate to technical |adjusts to audience. | |Technical expertise of audience is acknowledged. |

| |assignment. | | | |

|Development |Development is minimal; details are |Supporting details are relevant, but may be |Main ideas are developed by supporting details |Main ideas are well developed by strong support |

| |insufficient. Some details may be |limited or rather general. Support may be based|suitable to both audience and purpose. When |and rich, reliable and valid details suitable for|

| |irrelevant or unnecessarily repetitious.|on clichés, stereotypes or questionable sources|appropriate, use of outside sources provides credible|audience and purpose. When appropriate, use of |

| |Subsidiary elements may be missing or |of evidence. Support may be thin at times. |support. Subsidiary elements are developed and |outside sources provides strong, credible |

| |incomplete. |Subsidiary elements may be underdeveloped. |generally effective. |support. Subsidiary elements are well developed. |

|Organization |Writing lacks clear organizational |Order and structure are present, but sections |Order and structure are clear and easy to follow; |Order and structure facilitate fast reading and |

| |structure or may be too short to |are underdeveloped and/or unable to function |sections are developed and able to function |sections function separately. Transitions are |

| |demonstrate organizational skills. |separately. Order and relationship of ideas |separately. Transitions are present but may be |smooth and effective. Headings are descriptive |

| |Sections may be missing, underdeveloped |may be unclear at times. Headings are present |formulaic. Headings are somewhat descriptive and |enough that the table of contents effectively |

| |or unclear in purpose. Headings are |but insufficiently descriptive and/or |effectively ordered. |summarizes the report. |

| |missing or unclear in meaning. |ineffectively ordered. | | |

|Writing style and/or voice|Voice is unprofessional and/or |Voice is professional but inefficient. Word |Voice is professional and efficient, not saying too |Voice is professional and efficient. The wording |

| |inefficient. Writing shows language that|choice is ordinary, lacking interest, precision|much but also not too little. The wording conveys the|is fresh, specific, with a striking and varied |

| |is monotonous, misused, or overused, |and/or variety, and may rely on clichés. May |message in an interesting, precise, and natural way. |vocabulary. Word choice is precise with no |

| |detracting from meaning and impact. |use jargon excessively. The sentences tend to |At times the word choice may be imprecise or |unnecessary jargon. Sentences show a high degree |

| |Sentences tend to be choppy, rambling, |be mechanical rather than fluid with an overuse|unnecessarily burdened by jargon. Sentences are |of craftsmanship, with varied structure that |

| |or awkward. |of simple sentence structures. |carefully crafted with variations in structure. |makes reading easy and enjoyable. |

|OIT Technical and Research Writing Rubric, p. 2 |

|Performance Criteria |No/Limited Proficiency |Some Proficiency |Proficiency |High Proficiency |

| |(1) |(2) |(3) |(4) |

|Research |Sources are minimal or of questionable |Sources are of adequate quality, including |Sources are of effective quality. Materials are |Sources are of exceptional quality, including |

|(technical project) |quality, including biased surveys, |short but effective surveys, interviews as well|well-designed, organized, and thorough. |in-depth and insightful surveys and interviews, |

| |undirected interviews, poorly-defined |as organized but rather cursory observations | |as well as meticulous and focused observations |

| |observations or experiments. |and/or experiments. | |and experiments. |

|Research |Sources are minimal, purely tertiary, or|Sources are of adequate or varying quality. |Sources are of effective quality. They are current |Reference use is seamless or at least nearly so. |

|(research project) |of questionable quality. References are|They are current and appropriate. References |and appropriate. References not only clearly connect|References are synthesized with each other and |

| |inserted with little or no connection to|have clear connection to surrounding text and |with writer’s discussion but effectively interact |with the writer’s own ideas into an entirely |

| |surrounding text and/or block quotations|support the writer’s discussion without |with each other, whether providing counterpoints or |cohesive whole. |

| |are so large as to be unintentional |dominating it. |further support. | |

| |plagiarism. | | | |

|Documentation |Major documentation errors. (Chicago or |Frequent minor errors in documentation with a |Documentation is correct except for a few minor |Not only is all documentation correct, quotations|

| |APA style). |general lack of attribution. Documentation |errors. Attribution is generally appropriate. |are attributed and all major sources are |

| | |errors (Chicago or APA style). |Appropriate style (Chicago or APA style); formatted |introduced correctly. Signal phrases |

| | | |correctly and ethically used. |well-handled. (Chicago or APA style). |

|Graphics |Graphics are not present or merely for |Graphics ineffectively support discussion. May |Graphics simplify and reinforce ideas. Beyond merely |Graphics simplify and reinforce but also create |

| |unsupportive illustration, most likely |be confusing, incorrectly labeled, and |supporting, the graphics provide something the text |interest, not only increasing understanding but |

| |unlabelled. Labels, titles, captions |inconsistently referenced in text. Information |cannot. Information presented accurately and |engagement and, when necessary, persuasion. |

| |are inconsistently presented or absent. |presented accurately and ethically. |ethically. Labeling appears sporadically. |Information presented accurately and ethically. |

| | | | |Labeling is complete and correct. |

|Format (heading systems, |Format is formulaic and, thus, not |Format may be inappropriate for report/project |Appropriate for document’s purpose; attractive; |Format effectively communicates purpose of |

|table of contents, font |adapted to demands of report/assignment.|purpose. Some inconsistent features may be |invites reading and is consistent with report/project|report. Consistent and attractive and invites |

|sizes, etc.) |Format is ineffective, difficult to |present. (heading systems, table of contents, |purpose. |selective reading. |

| |follow, or idiosyncratic. |etc.) | | |

|Conventions |Numerous errors in usage, spelling, |The writing contains punctuation, spelling, or |The writing demonstrates control of standard writing |The writing demonstrates strong control of |

| |punctuation and grammar. Frequent errors|grammar errors, but they do not impede |conventions and uses them effectively to enhance |standard writing conventions and uses them well |

| |impede readability. Substantial editing |readability and are not extensive. Moderate |communication. Very few errors. Little editing |to enhance communication. Little or no need for |

| |needed. |need for editing. |needed. |editing. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download