Paper Evaluation Criteria

Criteria for evaluating a research report

The components of our course come together in the research paper. Your efforts at argument mapping assigned readings were designed to teach you how to identify and structure an argument. Scientific knowledge is created through effective argumentation. The ability to create and evaluate an argument is an essential skill necessary for success in many careers and for evaluating what we are told. The research report demonstrates your understanding of effective argumentation and your understanding of the content of our course.

I hope you have used the recommended tools to structure your report: Scrivener, CMap, and the argument map template I provided and populate each box before you begin to write your paper.

Your paper should be the number of pages I specify, double-spaced, with a 12 point font. Your citations and bibliography should follow a journal in your sub-discipline or a recognized format (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.).

Below is the criteria I will use to evaluate your paper. This criteria is consistent with the discussions we have had in class about argumentation. The criteria below are also broadly applicable to many disciplines and careers.

To be fair to all students, late papers will be result in point deductions. See the specific webpage description of the report. Please ignore the point values below; these will vary by course.

Research Paper Evaluation Criteria

Components Arranged in Order of Relative Importance	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Argument (most important) (Your paper should be an effort to convince a reader of one understandable and well-argued claim or thesis. Your thesis completes the sentence: “I am trying to convince the reader that __________________).	The author’s argument was convincing. It is narrow and specific and well-defended given the page limits of the paper. All components of the argument fit together into a coherent whole. (4 points)	The author’s argument generally makes sense. It is narrow and specific given the page limits of the paper. Most components of the argument fit together into a coherent whole. (3 points)	The author’s argument is somewhat confusing and unclear. Some components of the argument fit together. (2 points)	The paper lacks a single unifying thesis and as a result the argument is confusing. The purpose of some paragraphs seems to be demonstrating that the author “worked hard.”
Comments:
Intellectual merit (The paragraph arguing the intellectual merit of your work answers the question: “why should the reader care what I am saying?” It is best to make this argument early in the paper.)	The author convincingly argues the importance of his/her argument and results. This argument is presented early so the reader’s attention is not threatened by wondering, “who cares?” (4 points)	The author argues the importance of their argument and results. This argument is presented early. (3 points)	The issue the author considers is important but the author assumes rather than argues this. (2 points)	No effort to convince the reader of the importance of the author’s work is attempted.
Comments:
Organization (In what order does the reader need to know and understand the different parts of your argument? Some information or parts of your argument must precede or follow other parts so that you are understood. The length of a paragraph or explanations should roughly equal the importance of the paragraph or explanation to your argument.)	A logical sequence of argumentation is presented in a clear and interesting manner. The thesis is clearly stated very early in the paper (e.g., on page 1 or 2). Every paragraph in the paper supports or explains the thesis. Sentences within each paragraph support or explain the paragraph’s topic sentence. The paper concludes by reminding the reader of the author’s argument and/or summarizing the argument. (4 points)	A logical sequence of argumentation is presented. The thesis is stated very early in the paper (e.g., page 1 or 2). Most paragraphs in the paper support or explain the thesis. Most sentences within each paragraph support or explain the paragraph’s topic sentence. The paper concludes by reminding the reader of the author’s argument and/or summarizing the argument. (3 points)	The structure of the paper is difficult to follow. The thesis is unclear, too broad, wordy, difficult to understand, and/or presented too late in the paper. Some paragraphs have no apparent link to the thesis and argument. Some sentences have no apparent link to topic sentences. The paper concludes in an unhelpful manner. (2 points)	A seemingly random sequence of thoughts presented in a confusing manner.
Comments
Understanding (Convincing a reader of your argument and thesis requires that you minimize confusion and create understanding--- You cannot convince anyone of what they don’t understand.)	The author’s paper is understandable by a college-level audience. Overly long sentences (those that span more than 3 lines), undefined terms, and grammatical errors are minimal to nonexistent. (4 points)	The author’s paper is generally understandable by a college-level audience. Some overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors but none significantly distracting. (3 points)	The author’s paper is likely confusing to a college-level audience. Many overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors that likely create misunderstanding. (2 points)	The author’s paper is likely to confuse any audience. Overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors significantly threaten understanding. (1 points)
Comments
Intellectual Contribution (Your paper must make an original intellectual contribution through research or innovative thinking. Your research question should not be answerable with a cursory internet search. Your research must also be more than a summary of the arguments of others.)	The paper will likely create new insights for a college-level audience. The author’s original intellectual contribution is evident. Intellectual rigor (e.g, thoroughness, accuracy) is evident in the thinking and demonstrated in the writing. (4 points)	The paper may create new insights for a college-level audience. The author’s original intellectual contribution is evident. The paper is not a summary of the insights of others. (3 points)	The paper will likely not create new insights for a college-level audience because it is a restatement of obvious and relatively well-understood claims and/or relationships. The author’s original intellectual contribution to answering a research question is not evident. (2 points)	The paper will not create new insights for a college-level audience because it is a restatement of obvious and relatively well-understood claims and/or relationships. The author’s original intellectual contribution to answering a research question is not evident.
Comments:
Figures and Tables (All figures and tables must support your effort to argue or explain your thesis. For each figure or table you include, ask yourself: “is this necessary, does this promote understanding or advance my argument?”)	All figures and tables are clearly readable, axes clearly labeled, titles represent content, and each figure/table contributed to understanding or supporting the author’s argument. (2.5 points)	Most figures and tables are readable, axes clearly labeled, titles represent content, and each figure/table contributes to understanding or supporting the author’s argument. (2 points)	Significant problems with readability, clarity, and content of figures and tables. (1.5 points)	Unreadable, unclear, unprofessional figures and tables: axes unclear, titles an afterthought, and inclusion of figures and graphs seems like “filler”to meet page length requirements.
Comments:
Sources (The sources you use provide the reader with evidence of the rigor and veracity of your argument.)	Credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was implemented. (2.5 points)	Some credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was implemented. (2 points)	Few credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was not evident. (1.5 points)	Credible (peer-reviewed) sources not used. Citation format was inconsistent and did not conform to any appropriate style guide.
Comments:

Components Arranged in Order of Relative Importance

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Argument (most important)

(Your paper should be an effort to convince a reader of one understandable and well-argued claim or thesis. Your thesis completes the sentence: “I am trying to convince the reader that __________________).

The author’s argument was convincing. It is narrow and specific and well-defended given the page limits of the paper.

All components of the argument fit together into a coherent whole. (4 points)

The author’s argument generally makes sense. It is narrow and specific given the page limits of the paper.

Most components of the argument fit together into a coherent whole.

(3 points)

The author’s argument is somewhat confusing and unclear.

Some components of the argument fit together.

(2 points)

The paper lacks a single unifying thesis and as a result the argument is confusing.

The purpose of some paragraphs seems to be demonstrating that the author “worked hard.”

Comments:

Intellectual merit

(The paragraph arguing the intellectual merit of your work answers the question: “why should the reader care what I am saying?” It is best to make this argument early in the paper.)

The author convincingly argues the importance of his/her argument and results. This argument is presented early so the reader’s attention is not threatened by wondering, “who cares?” (4 points)

The author argues the importance of their argument and results. This argument is presented early.

(3 points)

The issue the author considers is important but the author assumes rather than argues this.

(2 points)

No effort to convince the reader of the importance of the author’s work is attempted.

Comments:

Organization

(In what order does the reader need to know and understand the different parts of your argument? Some information or parts of your argument must precede or follow other parts so that you are understood. The length of a paragraph or explanations should roughly equal the importance of the paragraph or explanation to your argument.)

A logical sequence of argumentation is presented in a clear and interesting manner.

The thesis is clearly stated very early in the paper (e.g., on page 1 or 2).

Every paragraph in the paper supports or explains the thesis. Sentences within each paragraph support or explain the paragraph’s topic sentence.

The paper concludes by reminding the reader of the author’s argument and/or summarizing the argument.

(4 points)

A logical sequence of argumentation is presented.

The thesis is stated very early in the paper (e.g., page 1 or 2).

Most paragraphs in the paper support or explain the thesis. Most sentences within each paragraph support or explain the paragraph’s topic sentence.

The paper concludes by reminding the reader of the author’s argument and/or summarizing the argument.

(3 points)

The structure of the paper is difficult to follow.

The thesis is unclear, too broad, wordy, difficult to understand, and/or presented too late in the paper.

Some paragraphs have no apparent link to the thesis and argument. Some sentences have no apparent link to topic sentences.

The paper concludes in an unhelpful manner.

(2 points)

A seemingly random sequence of thoughts presented in a confusing manner.

Comments

Understanding

(Convincing a reader of your argument and thesis requires that you minimize confusion and create understanding--- You cannot convince anyone of what they don’t understand.)

The author’s paper is understandable by a college-level audience.

Overly long sentences (those that span more than 3 lines), undefined terms, and grammatical errors are minimal to nonexistent.

(4 points)

The author’s paper is generally understandable by a college-level audience.

Some overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors but none significantly distracting.

(3 points)

The author’s paper is likely confusing to a college-level audience.

Many overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors that likely create misunderstanding.

(2 points)

The author’s paper is likely to confuse any audience.

Overly long sentences, undefined terms, and grammatical errors significantly threaten understanding.

(1 points)

Comments

Intellectual Contribution

(Your paper must make an original intellectual contribution through research or innovative thinking. Your research question should not be answerable with a cursory internet search. Your research must also be more than a summary of the arguments of others.)

The paper will likely create new insights for a college-level audience.

The author’s original intellectual contribution is evident.

Intellectual rigor (e.g, thoroughness, accuracy) is evident in the thinking and demonstrated in the writing.

(4 points)

The paper may create new insights for a college-level audience.

The author’s original intellectual contribution is evident. The paper is not a summary of the insights of others.

(3 points)

The paper will likely not create new insights for a college-level audience because it is a restatement of obvious and relatively well-understood claims and/or relationships.

The author’s original intellectual contribution to answering a research question is not evident.

(2 points)

The paper will not create new insights for a college-level audience because it is a restatement of obvious and relatively well-understood claims and/or relationships.

The author’s original intellectual contribution to answering a research question is not evident.

Comments:

Figures and Tables

(All figures and tables must support your effort to argue or explain your thesis. For each figure or table you include, ask yourself: “is this necessary, does this promote understanding or advance my argument?”)

All figures and tables are clearly readable, axes clearly labeled, titles represent content, and each figure/table contributed to understanding or supporting the author’s argument.

(2.5 points)

Most figures and tables are readable, axes clearly labeled, titles represent content, and each figure/table contributes to understanding or supporting the author’s argument.

(2 points)

Significant problems with readability, clarity, and content of figures and tables.

(1.5 points)

Unreadable, unclear, unprofessional figures and tables: axes unclear, titles an afterthought, and inclusion of figures and graphs seems like “filler”to meet page length requirements.

Comments:

Sources

(The sources you use provide the reader with evidence of the rigor and veracity of your argument.)

Credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was implemented.

(2.5 points)

Some credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was implemented.

(2 points)

Few credible (peer-reviewed) sources were relied on to support the author’s claims. A consistent citation format was not evident.

(1.5 points)

Credible (peer-reviewed) sources not used. Citation format was inconsistent and did not conform to any appropriate style guide.

Comments: