Lori Ostergaard

Project 2 Grading Standards

3.6 - 4.0

Suggests the rhetor has identified a clear approach to take in gathering, reporting, and synthesizing her/his research and has performed that analysis successfully by asking critical questions about the writing that is done by professionals in his/her field.
Illustrates the rhetor's thorough understanding of how to conduct primary research and how to analyze primary documents.
Illustrates a quality of thought that is generally ambitious and mature.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to utilize ideas and insights gained from the reading and class discussion.
Includes all of the required elements, including at least one interview with a professional in the writer’s field and a rhetorical analysis of several documents within that field.

3.0 - 3.5

Suggests the rhetor has identified an approach to take in gathering, reporting, and synthesizing her/his research, and has performed that analysis somewhat successfully by asking critical questions about the writing that is done by professionals in his/her field.
Illustrates the rhetor's understanding of how to conduct primary research and how to analyze primary documents.
Illustrates that the writer is a little less ambitious in choice of intended topics or less sophisticated in the way he/she addresses his/her readers, although these essays clearly illustrate a maturity of thought not found in a C analysis.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts.
Includes all of the required elements, including at least one interview with a professional in the writer’s field and a rhetorical analysis of several documents within that field.

2.0 - 2.9

Suggests the rhetor has identified an approach to take in gathering, reporting, and synthesizing her/his research, and has performed that analysis with a little success by asking some critical questions about the writing that is done by professionals in his/her field.
Illustrates the rhetor's adequate understanding of how to conduct primary research and how to analyze primary documents.
Illustrates a quality of thought that is competent and sometimes compelling, though often standard or familiar.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate some ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts: such incorporation is generally as support or proof and may be done with little sophistication.
Includes all of the required elements, including at least one interview with a professional in the writer’s field and a rhetorical analysis of several documents within that field.

1.0 - 1.9

Suggests the rhetor may not have identified an approach to take in gathering, reporting, and synthesizing her/his research, and may not have performed that analysis by asking critical questions about the writing that is done by professionals in his/her field.
Illustrates the rhetor's struggles to conduct effective primary research and/or to analyze primary documents.
Illustrates evidence of a quality of thought that is frequently stock or perfunctory.
Suggests the rhetor's ability to incorporate some ideas and insights gained from reading and class discussion into his/her own texts: such incorporation is only as support or proof and is done in a cut and paste fashion with little paraphrase or analysis.
Includes some of the required elements. Any work that does not incorporate both the writer’s interview and rhetorical analyses of documents from within the field cannot receive a grade above a 1.9.

0.9 - 0.0

Suggests the rhetor does not appear to have identified an approach to researching and writing about the writing done in his/her field. His/her analysis of the research may be superficial or the research may be missing or incomplete.
Illustrates the rhetor's inability to conduct primary research and/or to analyze primary documents.
Illustrates evidence of a quality of thought that is perfunctory, obvious, or unclear.
Suggests the rhetor's struggles with using or inability to use insights gained from reading and class discussion in his/her work.
Includes some of the required elements. Any work that does not incorporate both the writer’s interview and rhetorical analyses of documents from within the field cannot receive a grade above a 1.9.