Argument map rubric:  Your argument map will be evaluated based on the following criteria:  

CATEGORY         acceptable                        MARGINAL                         Unacceptable

Content
  • includes all parts of an author's argument (e.g., claim, reasons, evidence, data, research question, etc.) as specified on the template
  • map demonstrates a careful reading of the text/argument
  • map can be read from box to box and it "makes sense"
  • many important parts of the author's argument are missing
  • map suggests a quick and superficial reading of the text 
  • many important parts of the author's argument are missing
  • map demonstrates a quick and superficial reading of the text
Visual and conceptual hierarchy
  • the visual arrangement of the parts of the argument benefits understanding and evaluation of the argument
  • logically and intuitively arranged
  • arrangement of the parts of the argument etc. not fully developed
  • little effort evident in arrangement of argument
Links
  • all parts of the argument are interlinked with linking words
  • linking lines and words descriptive and valid for most relationships
  • some parts of argument interlinked
  • linking lines and words valid for some relationships
  • few to no parts of the argument interlinked
  • linking lines and words not valid for many relationships
Visual appeal
  • clean and appealing design that aids comprehension
  • text easy to read/appropriately sized 
  • contained within 1 page
  • design lacks appeal
  • text not easy to read 
  • not contained within page limits
  • cluttered, unappealing design
  • text difficult to read
  • not contained within page limits
Adapted from University of Wisconsin - Stout, "Rubric for Graphic Organizers - Inspiration Diagrams/Concepts Maps" and University of Waterloo, Center for Teaching Excellence, Rubric for Assessing Concept Maps