Portfolio Assessment Rubric for ENGL 120 and ENGL 121 at EMU
 

Analysis

Characteristics Examples
A - Analysis is engaging, surprising, goes beyond the ordinary or obvious.  Demonstrates depth and complexity and shows that the writer has used writing to think through issues. .
B – Analysis is thorough and shows that the writer has tried to engage significant issues.  .
C – Analysis is competent, though not sophisticated.  .
D – A competent report back of ideas, but no engagement or analysis.  .
E – No analysis  .

Evidence

Characteristics Examples
A – Thorough evidence from all sources required by course/assignments that is meaningfully and purposefully incorporated, acknowledging the original context (e.g., not just dropped in because it’s required).  Evidence is detailed and vividly supports and/or illustrates the writer’s analysis.  The writer defines and explains key terms, ideas, and contexts.  .
B – Evidence from all sources required by course/assignment that is purposeful, acknowledges original context, and supports and/or illustrates writer’s analysis.  Consideration of key terms, ideas, and contexts.  .
C – Evidence from all sources required by course/assignment that supports and/or illustrates writer's analysis and acknowledges original context is included.  .
D – Little evidence from sources required by course/assignment.  .
E – Virtually no evidence from sources required by course/assignment.  .

Engagement with the issues/voice

Characteristic Examples
A – Engagement is reflected in a distinctive way, e.g., through writer’s voice and/or purposefully unique structure for writing.  .
B – Attempts at engagement (e.g., through voice and/or structure) are evident.  Writer does not have full control over distinctive features, but it is apparent that they are intentional.  .
C – Engagement seems pro-forma; there are no attempts to insert unique voice or other unique features in the essay. .
D – Few attempts at engagement  .
E – No evidence of engagement  .

Focus/structure/organization

Characteristics Examples
A – Focus/structure/organization that revolves around themes threaded throughout the essay and developed to advance the analysis or thesis.  Organization and structure are purposeful, demonstrate audience awareness, and show that the writer understands the conventions of writing appropriate for the genre they are using.  .
B – F/S/O supports a common theme threaded throughout the essay, demonstrates audiences awareness, and is developed, with evidence, to support analysis.   .
C – F/S/O reflects a theme, but is not fully developed or is unevenly developed and demonstrates less audiences awareness.  May be excessive reliance on structure (e.g., stilted topic sentences that repeat ideas)  .
D – F/S/O seems random or incomplete  .
E – F/S/O is difficult/impossible to follow and understand  .

Revision

Characteristic Examples
A – Reflects peer and instructor comments and is done with an eye toward developing ideas and evidence and polishing writing.  .
B – Demonstrates consideration for peer and instructor responses to student work.  .
C – Acknowledges responses, but little effort to incorporate suggestions is evident.  .
D – Little or no acknowledgement of revision suggestions.  .
E – No revision  .

Editing

Characteristics Examples
A – Editing is consistently successful.  There are few, if any, surface errors.  MLA citations are used appropriately with minor, if any, errors.  .
B – Successful editing with few surface errors.  MLA citations used without serious error.  .
C – Editing is mostly consistent, though some surface-level errors remain.  MLA citations used, but there are errors.  .
D – Editing is inconsistent and results in significant numbers of surface errors.  MLA citations used with many errors.  .
E – Significant number of errors; MLA citations not used correctly.   .