Management Communication for Undergraduates Writing Rubrics

SCORING RUBRICS FOR PROFESSIONAL WRITING Strategy/Purpose: Does the document meet its intended objective? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Objective of the document is easily identified; content supports objective Objective is not immediately clear; some additional content needed to support objective Objective is difficult to determine; additional content needed to support objective Objective cannot be determined Strategy/Audience: Does the document address the intended audience? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Content, structure, and language of document geared to intended audience Document is missing some content required by audience; some language used inappropriately (e.g., unfamiliar jargon, too much jargon) Document is missing a substantial portion of content required by audience; uses some inappropriate or ineffective language No organization apparent; content of document reflects interests of writer but not of audience; inappropriate use of language Structure: Does the organization reflect the purpose of the document and the needs of the audience? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Subsections thematically coherent and accomplish their intended functions; document organized according to readers’ needs; relationship between ideas clear Coherence or function of subsections weaker; organization is evident but may be undermined by weak transitions or occasional digressions Subsections are not logical or do not accomplish their intended function; organization is confusing or unclear No discernible organization; thoughts in random order without connections between them Support/Evidence: Is the evidence used to support the argument concrete, relevant, credible, accurate, and sufficient? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Argument is clearly supported by accurate evidence considered credible by the audience; sufficient detail to support the main points of the document Many details support argument, but some are not fully elaborated or sufficiently specific; some evidence not relevant Some evidence is provided, but data is not fully explained, relevant to the argument, or credible; important pieces of evidence have not been included; some data inaccurate Little or no data to support the main ideas of the argument; much of the data is inaccurate Coherence: Do sentences in paragraphs relate to one another in a logical way? Are relationships between paragraphs easily discernible? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Paragraphs are internally consistent (i.e., one idea/theme runs through paragraph); transitions between paragraphs allow reader to easily follow thread of argument A few paragraph lack internally consistency; a few weak or unclear transitions Many paragraphs lack internally consistency; many transitions are weak or used inappropriately Main idea in most paragraphs cannot be identified; paragraphs have little or no discernible relationship to one another Clarity/Conciseness: Are sentences structurally correct, succinct, and easy to understand? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Sentences flow smoothly, are structurally correct, and convey the intended meaning; no wordiness Five percent or less of sentences are awkward, incorrectly constructed, or wordy Six to ten percent of sentences are awkward, incorrectly constructed, or wordy More than 10 percent of sentences are awkward, incorrectly constructed, or wordy Formatting: Are formatting elements used appropriately to strengthen the document? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Formatting elements organize and highlight ideas as needed; formatting elements are used consistently throughout the document Formatting elements do not always support main points; elements are used consistently throughout Formatting elements often do not support main points; elements are not always used consistently Formatting elements are confusing or inconsistent; lack of any formatting Use of Tables and Graphs: Are tables and graphs used effectively? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic Mechanics: Tables and graphs are included to support key parts of the argument, are designed for easy comprehension, and are placed appropriately Table and graphs are not always tied to the key points of the argument; design makes it somewhat difficult for reader to interpret data Tables and graphs are disconnected from key points of the argument; design makes it difficult for reader to interpret data; table or graph is not placed in the optimum position in relation to text Table and graphs are disconnected from key points of the argument; design makes it impossible for the reader to interpret data; crucial tables or graphs are missing; table and graphs not germane to the argument are included Are there grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors? Well done Acceptable Some Weaknesses Problematic No grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors No more than three grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors Four to six grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors Seven or more grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors