Summary: A Grading Rubric explains the qualities professors look for when grading a paper.
This resource describes how your CTH professors evaluate your papers. The explanation of grading criteria provided below derives from standards for Advanced Placement exams and is called a “grading rubric.” It outlines the elements of a good paper and shows how a paper's grade is assigned according to how well the paper meets the standards expected of graduate level students. The basic grade of a paper derives from its content. The difference between a higher and lower grade may depend on issues such as organization, clarity, use of sources, grammar, and punctuation. Be sure to leave plenty of time to proofread your paper and to read it with the following elements in mind.
Thesis: Easily identifiable, plausible, novel, sophisticated, insightful, and crystal clear.
Note: When it comes to “novel” ideas in theology, your professor at CTH does not expect you to discover a hidden Biblical truth that no theologian before you was able to discover.
Structure: Evident, understandable, and appropriate for the thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Paragraphs support solid topic sentences.
Use of evidence: Primary source information used to buttress every point with at least one example. Examples support mini-thesis and fit within paragraph. Excellent integration of quoted material into sentences.
Analysis: Author clearly relates evidence to “mini-thesis” (topic sentence); analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think of the material.
Logic and argumentation: All ideas in the paper flow logically; the argument is identifiable, reasonable, and sound. The author anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel connections to outside material (from other parts of the class or from other classes) which illuminate the thesis.
Mechanics: Excellent sentence structure, grammar, and diction; correct use of punctuation and citation style; minimal to no spelling errors; absolutely no run-on sentences or comma splices.
Thesis: Promising, but may be slightly unclear or lacking in insight or originality.
Structure: Generally clear and appropriate though may wander occasionally. May have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic sentences.
Use of evidence: Examples used to support most points. Some evidence does not support point or may appear where inappropriate. Quotes well integrated into sentences.
Analysis: Evidence often related to mini-thesis, though links perhaps not very clear.
Logic and argumentation: Argument of paper is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Some evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not addressed adequately. Occasional insightful connections to outside material made.
Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction strong despite occasional lapses; punctuation and citation style often used correctly. Some (minor) spelling errors; may have one run-on sentence or comma splice.
Thesis: May be unclear (contain many vague terms), appear unoriginal, or offers relatively little that is new; provides little around which to structure the paper.
Structure: Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around. Few or weak transitions, many paragraphs without topic sentences.
Use of evidence: Examples used to support some points. Points often lack supporting evidence, or evidence used where inappropriate (often because there may be no clear point). Quotes may be poorly integrated into sentences.
Analysis: Quotes appear often without analysis relating them to mini-thesis (or there is a weak mini-thesis to support), or analysis offers nothing beyond the quote.
Logic and argumentation: Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. May not address counter-arguments or make any outside connections.
Mechanics: Problems in sentence structure, grammar, or diction (usually not major). Errors in punctuation, citation style, and spelling. May have several run-on sentences or comma splices.
Thesis: Difficult to identify at all, may be bland restatement of obvious point.
Structure: Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent. Transitions confusing and unclear. Includes few topic sentences.
Use of evidence: Very few or very weak examples. General failure to support statements, or evidence seems to support no statement. Quotes not integrated into sentences; “plopped in” in improper manner.
Analysis: Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument; may be no identifiable argument, or no evidence to relate it to.
Logic and argumentation: Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support. Simplistic view of topic; no effort to grasp possible alternative views.
Mechanics: Big problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction. Frequent major errors in citation style, punctuation, and spelling. May have many run-on sentences and comma splices.
Shows obviously minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the assignment. Very difficult to understand owing to major problems with mechanics, structure, and analysis. Has no identifiable thesis, or utterly incompetent thesis.