Four Strand/Four Level rubric
shared by Prof. Rubric Curator, EssayTagger Rubric Library
Share this rubric via:

rubric code: CW-MEHZ

Use this code to import this rubric into your own EssayTagger assignments!
Log in and go to "my rubrics".
Display Options:  Show feedback comments
  Advanced
(strongest)
Proficient Basic Below Basic
(weakest)
Thesis / Position
sentence-level
  • - Substantive thesis/position.
  • - Manageable thesis/position.
  • - Vague thesis/position.
  • - Unmanageable thesis/position.
  • - Simplistic thesis/position.
  • - No thesis/position evident.
Introduction (  )
paragraph-level
  • - Uniquely presents thesis/position. Uses one or more of the introduction strategies. Creatively engages the reader. Gives a strong sense of direction.
  • - Presents thesis/position. Effectively uses one or more of the introduction strategies. Engages the reader. Gives a sense of direction.
  • - May only state main points or restate prompt. May attempt one or more of the introduction strategies. Does not attempt to engage the reader. Limited sense of direction.
  • - Introduction is missing; introduction strategy is not attempted; leaves reader with no direction.
Reasons
sentence-level
  • - Significant; fully supports the thesis/position.
  • - Relevant and supports the thesis/position.
  • - Generally connected; may not adequately support the thesis/position.
  • - Does not support the thesis/position.
  • - Reason is missing.
Elaboration
sentence-level
  • - Significant, purposeful, specific and precise; clarifies.
  • - Meaningful, relevant and specific; explains reasons.
  • - Somewhat connected but does not adequately support the thesis/reasons.
  • - Connection to thesis/reasons is implied but not stated.
  • - May confuse reader.
  • - Does not support thesis/reasons.
  • - Elaboration is missing.
Evidence
sentence-level
  • - Details, example, fact, or anecdote fully supports thesis/reason.
  • - Details, example, fact, or anecdote supports thesis/reason.
  • - Does not adequately support the thesis/reason.
  • - Evidence is missing.
Conclusion (  )
paragraph-level
  • - Signals a thought-provoking and insightful wrap-up that tightly connects to the thesis and body of the paper. Uniquely uses one or more conclusion strategies.
  • - Provides a strong wrap-up that effectively connects to the thesis and body of paper, more than a summary. Effectively uses at least one or more of the conclusion strategies.
  • - Limited to summarizing; may attempt one or more of the conclusion strategies.
  • - Missing or restates topic/thesis or the text abruptly ends. Conclusion strategy is not attempted.
Focus
whole document
  • - Narrow and concentrated throughout the paper
  • - Maintained and consistent throughout the paper.
  • - General throughout the paper.
  • - Lost or wanders throughout paper.
Message
whole document
  • - Insightful, distinct and/or anticipates questions.
  • - Present, interesting or important; goes beyond the obvious although may be anticipated.
  • - Present; may be simplistic, obvious or may require interpretation to make sense.
  • - Missing, severely flawed or comprised of random thoughts that make no discernable point.
Commentary
whole document
  • - Tightly connects elaboration, reason(s), and thesis/position to help the reader understand.
  • - Connects elaboration, reason(s), and thesis/position.
  • - May connect elaboration, reason(s), and thesis/position in a general way; reader may have to infer the connections.
  • - Missing or does not connect elaboration, reason(s), and thesis/position.
Organization
whole document
  • - Reasons/elaboration are tightly and purposefully arranged in a unified, cohesive and/or logical pattern to develop the thesis/position; has a sense of completeness.
  • - Reasons/elaboration are arranged in a unified, cohesive and/or logical pattern to develop the thesis/position; has a sense of completeness.
  • - Reasons/elaboration are loosely arranged or are outline-like (formulaic); may lack completeness.
  • - Reasons/elaboration are randomly or illogically ordered; may lack completeness.
Transitions
whole document
  • - Intentionally signal/imply connections throughout the text; clearly provide a sense of cohesion (between/within-paragraphs).
  • - Show, signal, or maintain connections (between/within-paragraphs).
  • - Telling/sequencing connections (between/within-paragraphs).
  • - Incorrectly used, omitted, or repetitive in use (between/withinparagraphs).
Sentences
whole document
  • - Create an appropriate cadence to address a designated audience/purpose/form; shows an intentional use of sentence beginnings, structures and lengths.
  • - Create a suitable cadence for a designated audience/purpose/form through a variety of beginnings, structures and lengths.
  • - Create a cadence that is troublesome for audience/purpose/form due to limited variety of beginnings, structures and lengths.
  • - Create a cadence that is awkward for audience/purpose/form using minimal variety of beginnings, structures and lengths.
Word Choice
whole document
  • - Vivid, apt, memorable; is natural and never overdone; uses various active verbs.
  • - Specific and persuasive/compelling; strengthens writing, and shows use of active verbs.
  • - Limited; does not enhance writing; may show thesaurus overload, and/or mostly uses passive verbs.
  • - Shows redundancy; is incorrect/has omissions, or confuses and weakens the writing.
Voice
whole document
  • - Uses tone that engages designated audience; may take risk.
  • - Uses tone that is appropriate for designated audience; writes in a consistent voice.
  • - Uses tone that is inconsistent with relationship to designated audience.
  • - Uses tone that does not address the designated audience.
Conventions
whole document
  • - Intentionally applies usage, spelling, capitalization, punctuation and paragraphs to enhance meaning; may break rules for style purposes; demonstrates good command of convention.
  • - Lower grade-level expectations must be met. Accurately applies gradelevel usage, spelling, punctuation and paragraph expectations; has competent use of conventions.
  • - Consistently applies lower grade-level usage, spelling, capitalization, punctuation and/or paragraph expectations; lower grade-level errors do not interfere with meaning and/or readability.
  • - Inconsistently applies lower grade-level usage, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and/or paragraph expectations; lower grade-level errors interfere with meaning and/or readability.


This public link makes it easy for you to share this rubric on the web! Anyone can view it; no accounts or logins required!


Use our free tool now! You don't even need an EssayTagger account!
Rubrics FAQ:
- How are EssayTagger rubrics different from traditional rubrics?
The EssayTagger system allows you to configure each rubric element to target a specific "scope" within each essay:
  • sentence-level
  • paragraph-level
  • whole document
Let's say you configure an "Evidence" element to be sentence-level. The EssayTagger grading app will then allow you to "tag" and evaluate individual sentences with the "Evidence" element. A particular essay might have one good piece of evidence and two poor ones — now you can identify exactly which ones were good and which ones weren't. You can also provide targeted feedback in each specific case.

This is a huge improvement over the typical "some evidence was insufficient and/or irrelevant" descriptor in a traditional rubric.

That's why you'll see much more specific language in the sentence-level and paragraph-level feedback comments; instead of "some body paragraphs are..." you'll see "this body paragraph is..."

That being said, whole document rubric elements are also supported. Plenty of typical rubric elements (e.g. "Organization" or "Voice") are overall categories by nature and don't require the drill-down granularity of the sentence- or paragraph-level.

We expect a typical EssayTagger rubric to make use of all three scope levels.

Read more about our philosophy on rubrics.

Or watch the grading app in action.

- Can anyone view / use this rubric?
Yes! Anyone with the link to this rubric can view it without needing to register or log in to our site.

You're free to print it out or copy-and-paste and alter the rubric for your own use however you like. We're trying to build an open community of shared rubrics for all teachers to take advantage of.

However, do note that these rubrics are designed to work at a deeper level of specificity than is normally possible/practical with traditional rubrics (see above FAQ item). It's very difficult to use a paper-based rubric to evaluate essays at a sentence- or paragraph-level of specificity.

We're big believers in this deeper level of specificity and, obviously, we think EssayTagger's system is the most efficient way to drill down deep into the students' work and give them the very specific guidance and feedback they need in order to improve.

- Can these rubrics be altered?
Yes! You can create a free EssayTagger trial account and import this rubric into your own assignment using the rubric code listed at the top.

Once you've imported the rubric, you can:

  • add / edit / delete rubric elements
  • change an element's scope (e.g. "sentence-level" to "whole document")
  • change the quality labels (e.g. "Level 3" to "Needs Work")
  • most importantly: add your own feedback comments so that students recognize your voice and your feedback style.
Learn more about sharing, importing, and editing rubrics.
- Can I share my own rubrics?
Yes! Please do! The rubrics that we've created are just a starting point; we're eager to see teachers modify our rubrics or, even better, create their own and share them with the world.

Registered users can share any rubric they have created. Begin by creating a free EssayTagger trial account.

Learn more about sharing, importing, and editing rubrics.