| Criteria | 1 (Needs Improvement) | 2 (Satisfactory) | 3 (Good) | 4 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | The writer’s topic and main idea were unfocused and insufficiently supported. |
The writer’s topic and/or main idea were not quite clear; main idea may be too broad or too narrow. Main idea was somewhat supported. |
The writer conveyed the topic and the main idea. The main idea may need to be more specific and was adequately supported by key details. |
The writer clearly conveyed the topic and the main idea is specific and well supported by key details. |
| Organization | Organizational structure was weak or nonexistent. The writer did not include the main parts (i.e., introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion) and did not include separate paragraphs or headings. |
Organizational structure was inconsistent; flaws were apparent. The writer attempted to introduce the topic and/or main idea. The writer grouped information in one, single paragraph. Headings may not be included. The writer attempted a conclusion, but it did not provide final statements. |
Organizational structure was clear; minor flaws. The writer included an introductory paragraph that introduced the topic, main idea, and attempted to grab the reader’s attention. The writer grouped some related information in the body paragraphs and used some headings to separate the grouped information. The writer included a concluding paragraph that restated the main idea and important points. |
Organizational structure was clear. The writer included an introductory paragraph that introduced the topic, grabbed the reader’s attention, explained the significance of the main idea, and told readers the subtopics they would learn about the topic. The writer grouped related information in body paragraphs and used headings & subheadings to separate the grouped information. The writer included a concluding paragraph that reminded readers of the main idea and important points, and left readers with a final insight by sharing thoughts or questions about the topic. |
| Development | Information was weak or nonexistent. The writer did not include relevant information in the writing. The writer’s facts, definitions, details, and examples may be confusing or missing. The writer did not include quotes, paraphrasing, and/or summarizing. The writer did not use reliable and credible sources. |
Information was uneven or incomplete. The writer included irrelevant and/or insufficient information in the writing. The writer attempted (did not connect well to the topic) to use quotes, paraphrasing and/or summarizing. The writer attempted to include text features when applicable. The writer used limited sources and/or did not give credit to the source when appropriate. |
Information was adequate. The writer included some relevant information in the writing such as facts, details, definitions, and examples. The writer used some quotes, paraphrasing, and/or summarizing adequately (connected to the topic). The writer included text features when applicable. The writer used some reliable and credible sources and gave credit when appropriate. |
Information was relevant and thorough. The writer included a variety of relevant and thorough information in the writing such as facts, details, definitions, and examples, AND explained some of them. The writer used quotes, paraphrasing, and/or summarizing effectively (connected well to the topic and enhanced the reader’s understanding). The writer included relevant text features when applicable. The writer used reliable and credible sources and gave credit when appropriate. |
| Language and Vocabulary | The writer did not include precise language or domain specific language. (e.g., It is important.) The writer did not include transition/linking words and/or phrases. |
The writer included general language (e.g.,Animals are important. They use camels and reindeer.) and/or included limited transition/linking words and/or phrases related to the topic. |
The writer included some precise language and domain-specific words related to the topic (e.g.,Animals are important to them. The Afar use camels and the Sami use reindeer.) The writer included some transition/linking words and phrases that connect ideas and information. |
The writer included a variety of precise language and domain-specific words related to the topic. (e.g. Animals are also very important to both communities. The Afar use camel to carry their goods to market. Reindeer are very important to the Sami.) The writer included a variety of transition/linking words and phrases that connect ideas and information. |
| Conventions: Mechanics, Grammar, and Spelling | The writer had little command of conventions. The writing was difficult to follow because of frequent errors. |
The writer’s command of conventions was uneven. The writing contained several errors. |
The writer’s command of conventions was sufficiently demonstrated. The writer made a few errors, but the writing was completely understandable. |
The writer’s command of conventions was strongly demonstrated. |