Historical Accuracy

Documentation/Integration of Resources

Clarity of Presentation & Analysis

6

Virtually error-free; minor mistakes do not compromise argument.

Integrates abundant, accurate, and relevant concrete details (facts, evidence, quotes, statistics), properly cited according to M.L.A format to support argument.

Clearly and persuasively written; uses precise language, appropriate vocabulary, effective organization (see below) and graceful transitions between thoughts; and, writing mechanics are excellent (few, if any errors). Argument is well-reasoned, looking at cause and effect, considers alternate positions, and reaches firm, fully-supported conclusions.

Introduction provides historical setting, grabs reader’s interest, presents a well-crafted thesis, and is a supportable opinion.  Support Paragraphs support major thesis using effective topic sentences and pulling together commentary on significance of concrete details.  Closing offers new insight tied to historical events, rather than restating or repeating body arguments and information.

5

Includes a few errors;  errors do not significantly compromise argument.

Uses accurate and relevant concrete details, properly cited; Uses fewer concrete details, slightly less detailed than a “6” essay.

Has all the elements of a “6” except, does not fully support the thesis; commentary is excellent; includes causation, may consider alternate positions, and conclusions are plausible; writing flows, but not quite as smoothly as a “6”; some minor mechanical errors that do not detract from the paper. 

4

May have a major error, but is balanced by accurate historical data

Uses specific and generally appropriate concrete details, but in limited depth and/or quantity.  May also contain some minor citation errors/deviations from M.L.A. format.

Writing lacks authority and persuasiveness, but does show some interest in the topic.  Uses generally clear language, adequately organized, with some mechanical errors. Introduction may not grab reader’s attention or present a fairly simplistic interpretation of an historical moment, event, or period.  Support Paragraphs provide limited and simplistic commentary on concrete details to support opinions and conclusions, and may only loosely recognize principles of causation.  Closing may not offer new insight or fail to connect insight to historical event.

3

General, largely accurate data, but contains major errors or misstatements.

Demonstrates some knowledge through concrete details.  However, concrete details may be sketchy and lack specificity, hard evidence, accuracy, or relevance to the thesis.  May contain high frequency of mistakes in citation format.

Topic development is weak, does not offer a clear interpretation or opinion, or may be too broad or general.  Writing is haphazardly organized and frequent mechanical errors may hinder comprehension of argument. Support Paragraphs are off-topic and do not all relate to thesis. Commentary is far too brief and general.  Closing is simplistic and merely restates information covered in the paper.

2

Contains numerous, major errors.

Minimally provides concrete details, lacking specificity and/or inappropriately applied.  Does not follow M.L.A. citation format at all.

Essay organization is poor and writing tends to be brief.  Student does not grasp key historical concepts and evidence related to the topic, as shown by poor reasoning and/or lack of analysis.  Mechanical errors frequently hinder comprehension.

1

Writing has extremely high error rate; totally unsubstantiated by historical fact.

Uses totally irrelevant concrete details or uses none at all.

Writing contains no analysis, is extremely general, and virtually incomprehensible.