|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic for investigation was specific and achievable. It was clearly linked to an important histrocial issue.
|
Although the topic for investigation was specific and achievable, it was indirectly linked to an important historical issue.
|
The topic for investigation was too broad and only marginally linked to an important historical issue.
|
The topic for investigation was either too broad, not clearly stated, poorly managed, or not linked to an important historical issue.
|
|
|
The thesis statement has an interpretive angle and was clearly stated in the introduction to the paper.
|
The thesis statement is clearly stated in the introduction to the paper.
|
The thesis statement is more descriptive than interpretive.
|
The thesis statement is poorly stated or not apparent.
|
|
|
The interpretation is original and presents a perceptive organized analysis, including responding to counterarguments.
|
The interpretation shows some original thought and some response to counterarguments.
|
The interpretation summarizes or restates ideas from sources instead of presenting an interpretation. The paper is more narrative than analytical.
|
There is no discernible interpretation nor response to counterarguments.
|
|
|
Information is very organized with a specific and clearly understood viewpoint that leads to a well-supported conclusion.
|
Information is organized with a viewpoint that leads to a conclusion.
|
Information is organized but lacks a clear viewpoint or argument. The conclusion is not well supported.
|
Information is disorganized or irrelevant and lacks a discernible viewpoint. There is no clearly stated conclusion.
|
|
|
All topics are addressed with abundant detail.
|
All topics are addressed with a moderate amount of detail, but no section is richly detailed.
|
Topics are addressed but detail is basic.
|
One or more topics were not addressed.
|
|
|
Information clearly relates to the main topic. It includes several appropriate examples that support the argument.
|
Information clearly relates to the main topic. It provides some examples that support the argument.
|
Information relates to the main topic, but examples are basic.
|
Information has little or nothing to do with the main topic; examples are either inaapropriate or insufficient.
|
|
|
A variety of primary and secondary sources are used, but evidence from primary sources is emphasized.
|
Although primary and seondary sources were used, some were used excessivey.
|
There minimal use of primary sources; evidence from secondary sources is empahsized.
|
Almost all evidence is from secondary sources.
|
|
|
All sources are accurately cited according to the standards for the discipline of history.
|
Almost all sources are accurately cited according to the standards for the discipline of history.
|
The majority of sources are accurately cited according to the standards for the discipline of history, but several are incorrectly cited.
|
Numerous sources are improperly cited according to the standards for the discipline of history.
|
|
|
The mechanics of the paper, including sentence structure and transitions is without effort. There is sentence and vocabulary variety free of errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation.
|
The mechanics of the paper, including sentence structure and transitions is well-formed so that no meaning is lost. There is sentence and vocabulary variety, but there are minor errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation.
|
The mechanics of the paper are adequate so that no meaning is lost, but sentence and vocabulary variety is minimal. There are several grammatical spelling, or punctuation errors.
|
The mechanics of the paper are ill-formed so that meaning is lost. Sentence structure and vocabulary is repetitious or trite. There are numerous and serious errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation.
|
