Linguistics Assessment Rubric

  A B C D E F
Content Clear, detailed presentation of the topic with full understanding of the issue; good argumentation; good effective logical structure. Some features of A and

some features of C.

 Clear, simplified presentation; partial understanding of the topic; generally good argumentation with occasional inconsistencies. Mostly clear logical structure. Some features of C and

some features of E

 Superficial understanding of the topic; insufficient or chaotic argumentation; often not clear or completely correct; some parts missing. Very little understanding of the topic; insufficient, chaotic and sometimes incorrect argumentation; some parts missing.
Theoretical knowledge and Literature Shows evidence of understanding the main tenets of basic theories and approaches relevant to the topic. Consistently refers to appropriate literature, specifying the title and author. Evidence of critical evaluation and synthesis of reading. Good bibliography with evidence of reading beyond the required sources. Shows some understanding of the main tenets of basic theories and approaches relevant to the topic. Mostly refers to appropriate literature, in most cases specifying the title and author.  Some evidence of critical evaluation of reading, hesitant or no synthesis. Good bibliography containing required sources. Shows limited understanding of the main tenets of a limited range of theories and approaches relevant to the topic. Refers to one title only; descriptive summary lacking critical evaluation. Limited bibliography; not all required sources provided. Shows very limited or no understanding of the main tenets of one theory or approach relevant to the topic. Very little or no evidence of reading. Limited or inappropriate bibliography, mostly internet sources; the required sources are evidently not read.
Analysis and Interpretation Good selection of material for analysis and exemplification, appropriate methods of analysis. Linking theory to text/data analysis and interpretation of results. Interpretation shows own views and ideas adequately situated in the context of existing knowledge. Generally good selection of material for analysis and exemplification, methods of analysis limited. Partial linking of theory to text/data analysis; hesitant interpretation of results. Interpretation occasionally shows own views and ideas but rarely if at all adequately situated in the context of existing knowledge. Not fully adequate selection of material for analysis and exemplification, methods of analysis inadequate or limited. Very few signs of linking theory to text/data analysis; scarce interpretation of results. Interpretation rarely shows own views and ideas and is not situated in the context of existing knowledge. Poor selection of material for analysis and exemplification, methods of analysis inadequate. No signs of linking of theory to text/data analysis; no interpretation of results. Shows no signs of own views and ideas; not able to situate the issue in the context of existing knowledge.
Style

and Language

 Appropriate to the content; good use of discipline specific terminology and academic English.

Language quality is high (both range and accuracy), fluent, and natural.

 Generally appropriate to content, terminology occasionally substituted by general expressions, academic English occasionally inconsistent. Language either limited in range or accuracy. Simple way of explanation with some non-fluency features; rare or inappropriate use of terminology; inconsistent use of academic English; problems with accuracy and fluency. Inadequate style; rare or incorrect use of terminology; substantial problems with accuracy and fluency.

NOTE:
The student must pass a minimum of three out the four categories.