| Criteria |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Concept |
Sophisticated perspective.
Critical insight. Demonstrates complex thinking. Understands
the material and assignment. Where applicable, includes relevant
details and quotes. Strong comparisons to personal and contemporary
themes when appropriate. |
Less sophisticated.
Clear expression that tends toward summary rather than analysis.
Close to breaking through to a more analytical, critical,
or creative approach. |
Adheres to conventional
or one-dimensional attitudes. Misunderstands other points
of view. General statements. |
Vague or predictable.
Stock or cliché responses. No risk. Confuses some significant
concepts. |
Student wrote
a response but clearly misunderstood the assignment. Student
wrote very little. |
No response. |
Organization and Cohesiveness |
Work functions well as a
whole. Piece has a clear flow and a sense of purpose. |
Response has either a strong
lead, developed body, or satisfying conclusion, but not all
three. |
Uneven. Awkward or missing
transitions. Weakly unified. |
Wanders. Repetitive. Inconclusive. |
Incoherent and fragmentary.
Student didn't write enough to judge. |
|
Voice and Tone |
Voice is confident and appropriate.
Consistently engaging. Active, not passive voice. Natural.
A strong sense of both authorship and audience. |
The speaker sounds as if
he or she cares too little or too much about the topic. Or
the voice fades in and out. Occasionally passive. |
Tone is okay. But the paper
could have been written by anyone. Apathetic or artificial.
Overly formal or informal. |
"I just want to get this
over with." |
Mechanical and cognitive
problems so basic that tone doesn't even figure in. Student
didn't write enough to judge. |
|
Vocabulary and Word Choice |
Words chosen are striking
but natural. Description includes unusual adjectives and action
verbs. Good control of alliteration and assonance. |
Fine word choice and generally
good language. Some parts may be routine. |
Coherent but ordinary. Occasional
misspellings. |
Confusing. Many spelling
errors. Extremely limited range of available vocabulary. |
More errors than correct
words. Student didn't write enough to judge. |
|
Criteria |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Creative Writing |
Excellent use
of imagery; similes; vivid, detailed descriptions; figurative
language; puns; wordplay; metaphor; irony. Surprises the reader
with unusual associations, breaks conventions, thwarts expectations. |
Some startling
images, a few stunning associative leaps with a weak conclusion
or lesser, more ordinary images and comparisons. Inconsistent. |
Sentimental,
predictable, or cliché. |
Borrows ideas
or images from popular culture in an unreflective way. |
Cursory response.
Obvious lack of motivation and/or poor understanding of the
assignment. |
No
response. |
Visual Analysis Skills |
Writes detailed
descriptions of artifacts that display a comprehension of
the overall composition and/or purpose of the artifact. Shows
insight into the culture or context of origin. Uses terms
that pertain to the visual arts or analysis of artifacts (if
applicable). |
Demonstrates
comprehension of some terms, not others. Description is vivid
but lacks insight. Good understanding of cultural significance. |
Good attempt
that neglects or misuses key terms. Description is lengthy
but general, superficial. Lacks detail. |
Very superficial,
general relationship to the artifacts or image. No attempt
to explain cultural significance. |
Frustrated, aimless
response. Does not engage with image much at all. |
No response. |
The HOT Writing Rubric is designed for use by
undergraduate tutors, graduate workshop leaders, online journal
editors, host teachers, and evaluators (including student researchers).
It is based on rubrics developed by Project Zero at Harvard University
and by the Composition Program at the University of California,
Irvine. The rubric reflects HOT's emphasis on higher-order thinking
skills, writing across the disciplines, and the value of both creative
and academic writing. the rubric is designed to encourage and identify
excellence among all writers, including those who are English language
learners.
