Cultural Studies - Position Paper Rubric

Component
THESIS:
/10

ORGANIZATION:
Introduction,
Counterargument &
Refutation
(if applicable),
Body Paragraphs w/
Topic Sentences,
Conclusion

/30

Depth and Quality of

Researched-Support
for Argument
& Sophistication
of Analysis
/40
Writing Conventions
& Style
/15
MLA Formatting
(Citations, Works-Cited Page)

/5

A
The Thesis...
...fully addresses the question.
...takes a clear, well-analyzed position.
...provides at least 3 distinguishable, possibly
nuanced organizational categories.
...is factually defensible.

Name: __________________________________

B
The Thesis...
...mostly addresses the question.
...takes a clear position.
...provides at least 3 mostly distinguishable,
but potentially overlapping organizational
categories.
seems to be factually defensible.

10-9

Introduction
Introduction is captivating. It clearly establishes
topics relevance and makes effective links to thesis
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are elaborative sentences that clearly
connect to the organizational categories of the thesis.
Each paragraph provides a thorough direct/partial
answer the BIG QUESTION.
Each paragraph represents a distinct argument with
no overlap w/ other paragraphs

Introduction
Introduction is effective. It adequately establishes
topics relevance.
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are for the most part linked to the
organizational categories in the thesis.
For the most part, paragraphs provide a direct/partial
answer the BIG QUESTION but might require some
clarification.
Each paragraph represents a mostly-distinct argument
with limited overlap w/ other paragraphs.

Overall Grade: ______/100

D or F

The Thesis...
...partially addresses the question.
...has an overly simplistic/superficial position.
...provides weak organizational categories
that are somewhat unclear, overlapping
and/or inaccurate.
...may contain a factual inaccuracy.

The Thesis...
...does not address the question in a meaningful way
or demonstrates a misunderstanding of the
question.
...position is confused or undetectable.
...provides no organizational categories or
the organizational categories lack relevance.
...is factually inaccurate.
6 or less

Introduction
Introduction is weak or is not relevant to the topic and
it does not demonstrate the topics relevance.
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are inconsistent or are only
partially/loosely linked to the organizational
categories in the thesis.
Paragraphs seem to suggest a loose connection to the
BIG QUESTION. Some paragraphs seem out-of-place,
or they significantly overlap with other paragraphs.
In-paragraph evidence is marginally effective in
supporting the arguments made by the topic
sentences.
Counterargument (if applicable)
Counterargument (if applicable)
Counterargument (if applicable)
The counterargument is laid out clearly and
The counterargument is laid out in basic terms and
The counterargument is overly simplistic or is
demonstrates a deep understanding of the strongest
mostly expresses the strongest opposing position(s).
incomplete.
opposing position(s).
The refutation suggests flaws in the opposing position The refutation is incomplete and supporting evidence
The refutation clearly exposes flaws in the opposing
and, for the most part, uses evidence in support.
is limited.
view and offers a thorough evidence-based refutation. Conclusion
Conclusion
Conclusion
Adequately restates thesis arguments, and provides
Effectively restates thesis arguments, provides,
thoughtful commentary on the topic and arguments Inconsistently restates thesis arguments, and provides
insightful commentary, demonstrates personal
therein.
limited commentary on the topic and arguments
ownership of topic and arguments therein
therein.

Introduction
Introduction is extremely short, weak, irrelevant,
disconnected from the topic or is non-existent
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are not linked to the organizational
categories in the thesis.
Paragraphs do not directly connect to the BIG
QUESTION. Many paragraphs are out-of-place, do not
reflect a position/argument and/or they significantly
overlap with other paragraphs.
In-paragraph evidence is not effective in supporting
the arguments made by the topic sentences.
Counterargument (if applicable)
The counterargument is either non-existent OR is not
presented as a counter-argument OR does not
represent a valid opposing argument to the writers
position.
The refutation is non-existent OR is invalid OR
contains no evidence.
Conclusion
Does not effectively restate thesis arguments, and
provides inadequate commentary on the topic and
arguments therein.
20 or less

30-27

26-24

23-21

Argumentative Support
...is thorough and draws upon an ample evidence from
6 or more sources.
...demonstrates a deep understanding for issues related
to the topic.
...conveys an nuanced understanding of various
perspectives/sources
Analysis is
highly sophisticated and demonstrates a personal
ownership and nuanced understanding of the topic.
40-36

Argumentative Support ...

draws upon a significant evidence from close to 6
sources.
...shows a basic understanding for issues related to the
topic.
...conveys a limited understanding of various
perspectives/sources
Analysis is
appropriate and reflects a fundamental
understanding of the topic.
35-32

Argumentative Support ...

draws upon a evidence a limited number of sources.
...shows an understanding for some issues related to
the topic but is confused on others.
conveys only a simplistic understanding of various
perspectives/sources.

Argumentative Support ...

draws upon limited researched evidence.
...demonstrates confusion about issues related to the
topic.
...does not distinguish among various
perspectives/sources.

Analysis is
uneven revealing some understanding for the topic,
but with some clear misperceptions.
31-28

Analysis is
limited, non-existent, or highly-flawed.

The sentences of the paper are engaging, precise,

The sentences of the paper are reasonably well-written.
sophisticated and insightful.
While there is some attempt to write clearly, the paper
Grammatical, spelling and mechanical errors are rare. Grammatical, spelling and mechanical errors are limited. contains a significant number of grammatical, spelling
Proofreading is extremely evident.
Proofreading is evident.
and mechanical errors. Proofreading is lacking.
The paper SCREAMS to be read aloud.
15-14
13-12
11
In-paper citations are near flawless and the Works
Cited page is well-organized. The entire paper
conforms to proper MLA formatting.
5

A reasonable attempt has been made to be sure that

in-paper citations and Works Cited page adhere to MLA
guidelines.
4

27 or less
The paper is poorly written and contains many
grammatical, spelling and mechanical errors.
There is limited-to-no evidence of proofreading.
10 or less

A basic, uneven, limited or no attempt has been made to be sure that in-paper citations and Works Cited page
adhere to MLA guidelines.
3 or less