Comps Scoring Rubric
Approved 1/27/2021
Approved 1/27/2021
In order to pass a specific question, students must earn an average numeric rating of 3.67 or higher with no more than 1 rating of “underdeveloped” (0.5) across all raters.
Passing the Common Questions section requires a passing score on both questions. Passing the Specialization Question requires a passing score.
As is current practice, in cases where individual raters differ by 2 points or more in their scoring of a given student, the comps director will facilitate discussion before scores are shared with the student.
Current policies regarding revisions would remain the same.
Strong 1
Disciplinary content is accurate and (if applicable) represents complexities or tensions in current thinking in the field.
The paper illustrates a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being presented.
Adequate 0.75
Disciplinary content is generally accurate and represents current thinking in the field.
The paper represents understanding of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being presented.
Underdeveloped 0.5
Disciplinary content is presented inaccurately or misrepresents current thinking in the field.
The paper demonstrates misunderstanding or oversimplification of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being presented.
Strong 1
The paper provides compelling evidence, reasoning, and support for the case.
The arguments of the essay hold together with reasoning, coherence, and and/or flow appropriate to the genre.
The paper makes an original and compelling case (e.g., argument, narrative) by providing analysis and/or synthesis.
The paper thoughtfully integrates multiple (and possibly divergent) perspectives.
Adequate 0.75
The paper provides evidence, reasoning, and/or support for the case appropriate to the genre.
Arguments are mostly connected in ways appropriate to the genre.
The paper makes a convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and/or provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond summary or description.
The paper shows evidence of some consideration of multiple ways of thinking.
Underdeveloped 0.5
The paper does not provide appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims.
The paper does not go beyond summary or description.
The paper relies on a narrow range of sources and/or only one perspective. It may appeal only those who already agree (e.g., preaches to the choir).
Strong 1
The paper draws on a wide array (i.e., research-based, practitioner-based, theoretical, seminal) of appropriate and high-quality sources.
The paper uses appropriate quotations effectively and selectively.
The paper provides appropriate attribution for concepts and ideas.
Adequate 0.75
The paper draws on several appropriate sources.
The paper includes quotations that are generally suitable for the argument.
The paper provides appropriate attribution for concepts and ideas.
Underdeveloped 0.5
The paper draws on sources that are low quality, out of date, limited in scope, or not clearly related to the topic.
Quotations are sometimes taken out of context or are provided in place of the author’s own thoughts/analysis.
The paper fails to cite the source for some of its concepts and ideas.
Strong 1
The paper addresses every aspect of the question.
Adequate 0.75
The paper addresses the major points of the question.
Underdeveloped 0.5
The paper does not respond to the question, or does not address several aspects of the question.
Strong 1
The focus of the paper is clear, explicit, and consistent.
The writing communicates effectively and eloquently to wide range of readers.
The paper uses an effective organizational structure that facilitates understanding.
The paper follows APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and bias-free language.
Adequate 0.75
The focus of the paper can be discerned by readers and is mostly sustained throughout.
The writing communicates effectively to other scholars in the topic area.
Readers can follow the flow of the paper.
The paper follows most APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and bias-free language.
Underdeveloped 0.5
The focus of the paper is not clear or consistent
Parts of the paper are incomprehensible or speak only to a very specialized audience.
The paper is not easy to follow.
The paper does not follow APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and/or bias-free language.
Scoring rubric adopted from CITE Program Scoring Rubric, Michigan State University