Writing Resources

Grading Rubric: News and Views

Biology

Student Name:     ________________________________

1 = Below Standard
2 = Approaching Standard
3 = At Standard
4 = Above Standard

Writing Style

• Organization

  1. The information appears to be disorganized
  2. Information is organized, but paragraphs are not well-constructed.
  3. Information is organized with paragraphs.
  4. Information is very organized with well-constructed paragraphs.

• Style and Tone

  1. Not appropriate scientific level.  Information is either too simple or too difficult to understand.
  2. Somewhat appropriate scientific level. 
  3. Appropriate scientific level. A general scientist can understand the information.
  4. Appropriate scientific level.  A general scientist can understand the information and the descriptions are succinct.

• Quality of Information

  1. Information has little or nothing to do with the main topic.
  2. Information clearly relates to the main topic. No details and/or examples are given. 
  3. Information clearly relates to the main topic. It provides 1-2 supporting details and/or examples. 
  4. Information clearly relates to the main topic. It includes several supporting details and/or examples. 

• Diagrams & Illustrations  No figure included = 0

  1. Diagrams and illustrations are not accurate OR do not add to the reader's understanding of the topic.
  2. Diagrams and illustrations are neat, accurate, and add to the reader's understanding of the topic.
  3. Diagrams and illustrations are neat, accurate, “attention-grabbing” and add to the reader's understanding of the topic.
  4. Diagrams and illustrations are neat, accurate, “attention-grabbing” and add to the reader's understanding of the topic. The figure has an appropriate legend and citation.

• Mechanics

  1. Many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.
  2. A few grammatical spelling, or punctuation errors. 
  3. Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
  4. No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. 

Information Content

• Introduction

  1. The background summarized a few facts known about the problem.
  2. The background appropriately summarized what is known about the problem. 
  3. The background information appropriately summarized what is known about the problem.  The introduction was complete.
  4. The background information appropriately summarized what is known about the problem.  The introduction was concise and complete. 

• Scientific Analysis/Description of Science Presented

  1. The science presented within the article is summarized, but is confusing or unclear.
  2. The science presented within the article is summarized.  The reader not sure either what, where, when and why this information was introduced.  The article does not present a biased view of the topic. 
  3. The science presented within the article is summarized.  The reader understands what, where, when and why this information was introduced.  The article does not present a biased view of the topic. 
  4. The science presented within the article is clearly summarized.  The reader understands what, where, when and why this information was introduced.  The article does not present a biased view of the topic. 

• Implications and social significance

  1. The societal implications of the disease are not clearly defined.
  2. The societal implications of the disease are defined, but do not suggest global effects and future directions.
  3. The societal implications of the disease are defined and suggest global effects and future directions.
  4. The societal implications of the topic are clearly defined and suggest global effects and future directions.

• Sources

  1. Some sources are not accurately documented. Scholarly information is not consulted.
  2. All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but many are not in the desired format. Periodicals and non-refereed articles are used
  3. All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but a few are not in the desired format. Mixture of refereed and non-refereed journal articles and conference presentations.
  4. All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented in the desired format. Sources are refereed journal articles or refereed conference presentations.

 

Developed at Brandeis University through a grant from the Davis Educational Foundation