363 Review Article Rubric, By Leslie Bruce

Reviewer(Sean)
Comments

Criteria
Absent or
Below
Basic
Developing Proficient Advanced

1

SLO #1:
Write
formally
and
informall
y, in-
class and
out-of-
class, for
a variety
of
audienc
es and
purpose
s.
Audience's
needs are
often not
recognized
: terms
and ideas
either
need
explanatio
n or are
over
explained
and
language
needs
adjustment
for the
journal's
audience.
Purpose
(to
familiarize
readers
with
research
regarding a
contempor
ary subject
of interest)
isn't clear
or
achieved.
Shows some
attention to
audience's
needs,
sometimes
defining
necessary
terms and
ideas and
using
audience-
appropriate
language.
Purpose (to
familiarize
readers with
research
regarding a
contempora
ry subject of
interest)
may be
unclear at
times, and it
may not be
achieved
convincingly
.
Usually
shows
attention
to
audience's
needs,
defining
necessary
terms and
ideas and
using
audience-
appropriat
e
language.
Purpose
(to
familiarize
readers
with
research
regarding
a
contempor
ary subject
of interest)
may be
implied,
but it's
clear and
achieved.
Shows
sophisticat
ed
attention
to
audience's
needs,
defining
necessary
terms and
ideas and
using
audience-
appropriat
e language.
Purpose
(to
familiarize
readers
with
research
regarding a
contempor
ary subject
of interest)
is clear and
achieved
with style.
SLO#1 has
thoroughly been met
in regard to the
nature of the
assignement.
Informal writing is
not applicable here,
nor is speaking to a
variety of audience
in the sense that he
is using a typical
journal sample.
There is a well
articulated design to
the way the
information was
presented which
ultimately allowed
the subject to be
clear, and readers to
familiarize
themselves with the
point of the work
(and defined
necessary terms)
2
SLO #2:
Find,
evaluate
, select,
synthesi
ze,
organize
,
ethically
cite, and
present
informat
ion from
a variety
of
sources
appropri
ate to
their
disciplin
es.
Fails to use
MLA- or
APA-style
parentheti
cal
citations,
quotation
marks, and
works
cited list as
specified
by journal.
Frequently
uses
irrelevant
or
unpersuasi
ve sources.
A few errors
in MLA- or
APA-style
parenthetic
al citations,
quotation
marks, and
works cited
list.
Sometimes
uses
irrelevant or
unpersuasiv
e sources.
Almost
always
uses MLA-
or APA-
style
parentheti
cal
citations,
quotation
marks, and
works
cited list as
specified
by journal.
Use of
sources is
usually
relevant
and
persuasive
.
Correctly
uses MLA-
or APA-
style
parentheti
cal
citations,
quotation
marks, and
works
cited list as
specified
by journal.
Use of
sources is
always
relevant
and
persuasive.
SLO#2 has been met
in its entirity. He
correctly used MLA
style citations, and
proper grammar and
so forth. The sources
that were used were
critical to
understand the
information and
their relevance was
heightened when
compared to make a
vivid persuasive
message.
3
SLO #3:
Compar
e,
contrast,
and
synthesi
ze
carefully
and
objectiv
ely the
relative
merits of
alternati
ve or
opposin
g
argumen
ts,
assumpti
ons, and
cultural
values.
Fails to
demonstra
te
similarities
and
differences
between
research of
different
scholars.
May be
biased in
presentati
on of
research.
Description
s of
research
may be
unclear.
Sometimes
demonstrat
es
similarities
and
differences
between
research of
different
scholars.
Attempts to
synthesize
this
research
carefully
and
objectively.
Some
descriptions
may be
unclear.
Usually
demonstra
tes
similarities
and
differences
between
research
of
different
scholars
with
clarity.
Synthesize
s this
research
carefully
and
objectively
.
Describes
the
research,
Demonstra
tes
similarities
and
differences
between
research of
different
scholars
with clarity
and
sophisticati
on.
Synthesize
s this
research
carefully
and
objectively.
Describes
the
research,
noting
SLO#3: The merits of
authors that are
relevant to this type
of research were
discussed in terms of
the results they have
produced, the value
of those results in
the context of the
methodology that
they used. There
were several
different procedures
that were evaluated
in terms of their
efficiency in yield of
a certain substrate
from a chemical
reactions by the use
of different
catalzying
substances; the
review offered a
usually
noting
objectively
merits of
various
procedure
s.
objectively
merits of
various
procedures
.
diverse survey of
these different
methods
4

SLO #4:
Organize
ones
thoughts
and
commun
icate
them
clearly
and
persuasi
vely to
address
a
rhetoric
al
situation
.
Employs
IMRAD
structur
e where
appropri
ate.
Organizati
onal
devices
(headings,
topic
sentences,
transitions)
may be
absent,
unrelated
to the
prompt, or
illogically
connected.
Ps are
usually not
unified or
organized.
Organizatio
nal devices
(headings,
topic
sentences,
transitions)
fit the
prompt, but
may be
vague, too
broad, or
inconsistenl
y or
illogically
linked. Ps
may not be
unified.
Clear,
specific
organizatio
nal devices
(headings,
topic
sentences,
transitions
) fit the
prompt
and tie
ideas
together
adequately
.
Clear,
specific
organizatio
nal devices
(headings,
topic
sentences,
transitions)
fit the
prompt
and tie
ideas
together
logically
and
seamlessly.
SLO#4: There was a
specific
organizational
system that was
used, topical
headings were
utilized. For the
chemistry society
this system seems
like it is the norm for
what is used, I
personally find
functional headings
more descriptive and
allows the writer to
express more
through their
writing. Recommend
the idea of seeing if
functional headings
maybe relevant or
not; otherwise
transitions and
organization of
paragraphs seem to
be good.

Inadequate
,
inappropri
ate, or
irrelevant
reasoning
and
evidence.
Over uses or
under-
analyzes
evidence.
May omit
reasoning
and include
some
irrelevant or
Usually
supports
paragraph
claims
with
persuasive
reasoning
and
credible,
Supports
paragraph
claims with
relevant,
thorough,
and
insightful
reasoning
and
SLO#5: The claims in
the paragraphs were
always supported
directly with a
scientific example as
to why this
information is
correct or indirectly
by the citing of an
unpersuasiv
e evidence.
relevant,
analyzed
evidence.
analyzed
evidence.
article that verifies
the validiity and
reliability of a claim
that was made
5

SLO #5:
Recogniz
e,
evaluate
, and
employ
the
features
and
contexts
of
language
and
design
that
express
and
influenc
e
meaning
and that
demonst
rate
sensitivit
y to
gender
and
cultural
differenc
es.
Tone
and/or
design
usually
suggest/s
an absence
of
awareness
of
audience
and/or
generic
convention
s.
Tone and/or
design
are/is
sometimes
inappropriat
e or
unconventio
nal.
Appropriat
e tone and
design
conform to
assigned
audience
and genre.
Sophisticat
ed tone
and design
engage
reader and
conform to
assigned
audience
and genre.
SLO#5: The tone
seemed to conform
to the audience that
the review was being
written for, the
chemical society.
There was a
sophisticated tone
that was obvious
however it seemed
to be a bit dry, but
this does seem like
the nature of
chemistry based
writing from the
perspective of a
psychology major
this might seem dry.

Spelling,
syntax,
diction, or
punctuatio
n errors
impede
readability.
Spelling,
syntax,
diction, or
punctuation
errors
impede
readability
or otherwise
distract
from
meaning.
Spelling,
syntax,
diction, or
punctuatio
n errors
are few
and do not
distract
from
meaning.
Outstandin
g control
of
language,
including
effective
diction and
sentence
variety.
SLO#5: There were a
few slight
grammatical and
syntax issues nothing
that was critical in
the sense that the
information
expressed was
compromised but
the flow of the
sentence it self was
not as fluid as some
of the other areas
without these errors.
Recommend another
quick read through
to cut out those
small errors
6

SLO #6:
Improve
ones
own and
others
writing
skills
through
the
assessm
ent and
critique
of
written
works.
Team's
work
seems to
have been
cobbled
together:
there may
be rough
transitions
or
repetition
among
sections.
Language
often shifts
from
paragraph
to
paragraph.
No
evidence
of
collaborati
on at the
revision
stage.
Team's work
seems to
have been
cobbled
together
without a
smoothing
of
transitions.
Language
often shifts
from
paragraph
to
paragraph.
Collaboratio
n may have
been
minimal at
the revision
stage.
Team's
work is
usually
effectively
meshed.
Language
is usually
similar
throughou
t
document.
Collaborati
on has
occurred
at the
revision
stage.
Team's
work is
clearly and
effectively
meshed.
Language
is similar
throughout
document.
Collaborati
on is
obvious
and
effective.
SLO#6 is being
completed presently,
Michael will use his
experience writing
the draft for his
review to evaluate
my own draft which
ultimately will help
me to improve my
writing ability as well
as his own writing
ability at minimum
with the nature of
the self-reflective
process inclusive of a
peer-review.