| Final Paper Rubric (last rev S26) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|
Understanding of the specific topic and its connections to other aspects of the food web |
100 to >90 pts Proficient The use of data, reasoning, and analysis demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the selected topic, supports the paper’s argument, and sheds new light on the question. All important factors are identified and explained. Claims are based on clearly identified credible sources that are used appropriately. There is a well demonstrated understanding of the topics connections with other aspects of the food web. Reader gains important insights. 90 to >65 pts Competent The use of data, reasoning, and analysis in the paper demonstrates a solid understanding of the selected topic, supports the paper’s argument, and sheds new light on the question. The paper identifies and analyzes most of systems involved in the topic. Most claims are based on clearly identified credible sources that are used appropriately. Displays evidence of a basic analysis of a significant topic and its connections to the broader context of the food web. Most important factors are identified and explained. Reader gains some insight. 65 to >40 pts Developing The use of data, reasoning, and analysis in the paper demonstrates some understanding of the selected topic, generally supports the paper’s argument, and may shed some light on the question. Some important factors are identified and explained. Some claims are based on clearly identified credible sources that are used appropriately. Analysis is basic or general. Reader gains few insights and is aware of topics connections with other aspects of the food web but has made limited effort to link them to the main argument. 40 to >0 pts Beginning The use of data, reasoning, and analysis in this paper demonstrates only partial understanding of the selected topic, fails to support the paper’s argument, and sheds little or no light on the question. Few important factors identified or explained. Few or no claims are based on clearly identified credible sources that are used appropriately. Analysis is vague or not evident. |
40 / 100 pts |
|
Logical flow, organization, use of word count and argument, clarity of arguments |
100 to >90 pts Proficient The concepts discussed flow logically with well-reasoned arguments. The “voice” of the author is consistent and appropriate for an undergraduate student. Balanced presentation of relevant and legitimate information clearly supports a central purpose. Paper flows well including key components of a research paper such as an introduction, body, and conclusion. Reader can easily follow line of reasoning. Target length of 2,500-3,000 words accomplished with mastery of argument. 90 to >65 pts Competent The concepts discussed generally flow logically with well-reasoned arguments. The “voice” of the author is mostly consistent and appropriate for an undergraduate student. Information provides reasonable support for a central purpose/argument. Paper flows has an attempt at most of the key components of a research paper such as an introduction, body, and conclusion. For the most part, the reader can follow the line of reasoning. May be slightly over or under target length of 2,500-3,000 words, but still largely masters argument. 65 to >40 pts Developing The paper identifies and analyzes some of systems involved in the topic. The “voice” of the author is mostly inconsistent and may not be appropriate for an undergraduate student. The concepts discussed occasionally flow logically with well-reasoned arguments. Information supports a central purpose or argument at times. Paper flow is missing some key components of a research paper such as an introduction, body, and conclusion. Reader is fairly clear about what writer intends. May fail to accomplish target length of 2,500-3,000, leaving argument under-developed or overly verbose. 40 to >0 pts Beginning The paper does not identify and analyze the systems involved in the topic. The “voice” of the author is overall inconsistent and may not be appropriate for an undergraduate student. The concepts discussed do not flow logically and fail to connect together. Central purpose or argument is not clearly identified. Reader is confused and cannot identify a line of reasoning. May severely fail to accomplish target length of 2,500-3,000. |
40 / 100 pts |
|
Supporting research |
100 to >90 pts Proficient Paper references credible scholarly sources consistently throughout. Non-scholarly sources are used appropriately. 90 to >65 pts Competent Paper references are mainly credible scholarly sources. Non-scholarly sources are occasionally used inappropriately. 65 to >40 pts Developing Paper references a few credible scholarly sources and/or has bias not acknowledged. 40 to >0 pts Beginning Paper is lacking support from credible scholarly sources and sources has bias not acknowledged. |
70 / 100 pts |
|
Effectiveness of presentation: clarity, spelling, grammar, and styles |
50 to >45 pts Proficient Writing is free or almost free of errors. Tone is consistently professional and appropriate for an academic research paper. Word choice is consistently precise and accurate; sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure. Writing is compelling, hooks the reader, and sustains interest throughout. 45 to >30 pts Competent Occasional errors don’t represent a major distraction or obscure meaning. Tone is generally professional and appropriate for an academic research paper. Word choice is generally good; sentences are well phrased with some variety in length and structure, and sentences flow smoothly. Writing is mostly engaging with some dry spots. In general, paper is focused and keeps the reader’s attention. 30 to >20 pts Developing Writing has many errors and they distract the reader. Tone is not consistently professional or appropriate for an academic research paper. Word choice is merely adequate and range of words is limited, with some words used inappropriately. Though the paper has some interesting parts, the reader finds it difficult to maintain interest. 20 to >0 pts Beginning There are so many errors that meaning is obscured and the reader is confused. Tone is unprofessional or not appropriate for an academic research paper. Many words are used inappropriately, confusing the reader. Writing has little personality and the reader quickly loses interest. |
20 / 50 pts |
|
Demonstrated engagement with the writing process |
50 to >45 pts Proficient The paper demonstrates an active, thoughtful understanding of the assignment’s objectives and shows consistent engagement with all stages of research, writing, and revision. Student turned in all drafts of their paper for revision. Actively participated in all workshop discussions. 45 to >30 pts Competent The paper demonstrates solid participation with all stages of research, writing, and revision and reveals a growing understanding of writing as a nonlinear process. Student turned in all drafts of their paper for revision. Actively participated in workshop discussions, missing no more than one. 30 to >20 pts Developing Paper shows an emerging understanding of the steps in the writing process. Preliminary assignments may seem rushed or lack significant attention to detail. Student turned in at least one draft of their paper for revision. Actively participated in workshop discussions, missing no more than two. 20 to >0 pts Beginning Demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the writing process or may be missing entirely. Student turned in no drafts for revision. Limited participation in workshop discussions. |
20 / 50 pts |
|
Proposing a plausible solution |
50 to >45 pts Proficient Paper identifies well thought out blueprints for what might solve problems identified in the main argument. The reader collects well-rounded facts around why the proposed solution might work or is plausible. 45 to >30 pts Competent Reader can identify a/some clear solution/s that is backed up by research on the subject. Papers comes to a reasonable conclusion. 30 to >20 pts Developing Paper demonstrates a vague understanding of factors that may solve the problems identified in the main argument. Multiple questions left unanswered about plausibility of solution proposed. 20 to >0 pts Beginning Reader cannot identify any solution proposed by the author to the problem identified. The paper largely leaves out any attempt to come to a conclusion. |
25 / 50 pts |
|
Citations |
50 to >45 pts Proficient APA style is followed for all citations both in-text and in the bibliography. 45 to >30 pts Competent APA style is followed most citations both in-text and in the bibliography. 30 to >20 pts Developing APA style for all citations both in-text and in the bibliography has several mistakes. 20 to >0 pts Beginning APA style is not used for all citations both in-text and in the bibliography. |
Your draft for this submission should be a complete draft, with the exception of a still loose and developing solution (we will cover developing your solution in one of the final discussions of the course). Every required section should be represented, and your foundation of identifying the problem, representing stakeholder, and justifying the need for a solution should be well-developed and supported. You should target a complete or nearly complete paper of 2500-3000 words for this draft.
You should incorporate the takeaways from each of the weekly discussions, this time reflecting on the revision process to clarify and strengthen your points. You should refine and develop all of your main points from draft #2: representation of the current situation, a clear and well-justified statement of critical need, representation of any existing or previous efforts to address the critical need, some evaluation of what has made improvements and what hasn’t made improvements, and why the problem persists. You should avoid the use of AI tools for any part of this draft. Do not use them for revising your writing to address feedback. Do not use them for polishing your sentences. Do not use them for making corrections to spelling or grammar. And do not use them on future drafts or the final paper.
feedback:You have an interesting potential topic for a research paper, and I encourage you to continue to build a stronger connection to a problem in the human food web. Here is some feedback based on the rubric:
Understanding of the specific topic and its connections to other aspects of the food web: My biggest concern about your writing is that you appear to be writing your paper on a very broad scale. This can limit your ability to discuss your topic in depth. You should focus your writing to the problem you are discussing and your proposed solution. Implementing the solution may not look the same for every region, species, production style, location in the supply chain, etc. To help build your understanding of the topic I would encourage you to explore it from multiple perspectives and stake holders. You can refer back to our activity in the week 4 discussion.
Logical flow and clarity of arguments: The voice of the paper is inconsistent for what we would anticipate for a junior/senior level class. If you have used AI, we recommend visiting with an instructor. AI voice papers do not grade well on our rubric. A thesis statement should include an overview of the most important details of your entire paper
Supporting research: The prompt requested a minimum of 10 scholarly sources.
Effectiveness of presentation: clarity, spelling, grammar, and style: Just a reminder this is supposed to be a research paper supported with facts and ideas from scholarly sources. We do not want to discourage opinions, but we do want to see constructive ideas emerging supported by credible scholarly information.
Demonstrated engagement with the writing process: As you work toward your next draft your revisions should also take into consideration the feedback provided on this draft. Implementing feedback and turning in multiple revised drafts will help in this rubric category. Actively participating in workshop discussions helps you increase your score in this category. By the final paper, if you are not missing no more than 2 of those workshops, you will move out of the beginning category.
Proposed Solution: The solutions you mentioned seems to already be out there, so what is the missing link that is preventing them from solving the problem?
Citations: Good job following APA 7 style for your citations.
Please email the instructor help desk or visit office hours if you have any questions or want to further discuss your ideas! ~ ETMA 311 Instructors
We noticed that some sections feel less connected to your own analysis and voice than we typically expect in this assignment. One of the goals of ETMA 311 is to help you practice developing and communicating your own ideas, so we want the paper to clearly reflect your thinking, interpretation of the research, and writing style.
As a reminder from our course policy, digital tools can be helpful for finding information and supporting your writing process, but they should not generate or rewrite the content that you submit. Your final work should always represent your own analysis and wording.
For your next revision, I encourage you to focus on explaining the ideas in your own words and expanding your analysis of the sources you are using. Sometimes the easiest way to do this is to step away from the draft and rewrite sections while looking only at your notes and sources.
If you would like support with this process, I would strongly encourage you to come to office hours. We would be happy to talk through your ideas, help you strengthen your argument, and discuss strategies for revising the draft so it better reflects your own thinking and voice.
Get this or a similar paper done in as fast as 4 hours, 24/7.
NB: We do not sell prewritten papers. All essays are written from scratch according to specific needs and instructions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.