EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR COMPOSITIONS*

Language 25%

12 VERY POOR: Many errors in use and form of the grammar presented in lesson; frequent & basic errors in subject/verb agreement; non-Spanish sentence structure; erroneous use of language makes the work mostly incomprehensible; no evidence of having edited the work for language; or not enough to evaluate

16 FAIR to POOR: Some errors in the grammar presented in lesson; some errors in subject/verb

agreement; some errors inadjective/noun agreement; erroneous use of language often impede comprehensibility; work was poorly edited for language

21 GOOD to AVERAGE: Few errors in the grammar presented in lesson; occasional errors in subject/verb or adjective/noun agreement;

erroneous use of language does not impede comprehensibility; some editing for language evident but not complete

25 EXCELLENT to VERY GOOD: No errors in the grammar presented in lesson; very few errors in subject/verb or adjective/noun agreement; work was well edited for language

Vocabulary 20%

8 VERY POOR: Inadequate; very repetitive; incorrect use or non use of words studied; literal translations; abundance of invented words; or not enough to evaluate. Reader does not understand.

12 FAIR to POOR: Erroneous word use or choice leads to confused or obscured meaning; some literal translation and invented words; limited use of words studied, repetitive. Reader has many difficulties to understand.

16 GOOD to AVERAGE: Adequate but not impressive; some erroneous word usage or choice, but meaning is not confused or obscured; some use of words studied.

20 EXCELLENT to VERY GOOD: Broad; impressive; precise and effective word use and choice; extensive use of words studied

Content (use of evidence and argumentation) 35 %

23 VERY POOR: Series of separate sentences with no transitions; disconnected ideas; no apparent order to the content; or not enough to evaluate, very repetitive. Reader gets lost.

27 FAIR to POOR: Limited order to the content; lacks logical sequencing of ideas; ineffective ordering; very choppy; disjointed; and repetitive.

31 GOOD to AVERAGE: An apparent order to the content is intended; somewhat choppy; loosely organized but main points do stand out although sequencing of ideas is not complete.

35 EXCELLENT to VERY GOOD: Logically and effectively ordered; main points and details are connected; fluent; not choppy whatsoever.

Comments: See reverse =>

Organization 15 %

6 VERY POOR: Minimal information; information lacks substance (is superficial); inappropriate or irrelevant information; or not enough information to evaluate

8 FAIR to POOR: Limited information; ideas present but not developed; lack of supporting detail or evidence.

10 GOOD to AVERAGE: Adequate information; some development of ideas; some ideas lack supporting detail or evidence.

15 EXCELLENT to VERY GOOD: Very complete information; no more can be said; thorough; relevant; on target.

Comments: See reverse =>

Mechanisms (MLA; in-text citation) 5 %

1 VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions, dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, handwriting illegible, or not enough to evaluate.

3 FAIR to POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, poor handwriting, meaning confused but not obscured

4 GOOD to AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, but meaning is not obscure

5 EXCELLENT to VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of convention, few errors in spelling, punctuation

2 Floating points for outstanding innovative work

 

*f. Prof. Eva Nez, Rubrics. The Portland State University (2005). All changes mine.