Rubrics

While most of the assignment classification were straightforward, it was not as easy to code the rubrics for several reasons. The primary reason being that there was a greater variation

of terms on the rubrics and many of those terms had no details to explain the instructors’ expectations, unlike the assignments that often provided the assignment name and outlined enough specifics so I could determine how to classify them. Consequently, I approached the coding of the rubrics a little differently. I started by creating a master list of all criteria listed on each rubric, at which point it became apparent that I was not going to be able to classify the rubric criteria based on Cunningham and Stewart’s evaluation criteria. Their criteria were detailed and did not provide the broad evaluation themes that I needed for the study. Instead, I organized the standards according to the attributes outlined by the Analytic Writing Continuum (cited by Bang):

(a) Content (central theme or topic, quality and clarity of ideas and meaning);

(b) Structure (logical arrangement, coherence, and unity);

(c) Stance (perspective communicated through level of formality, style, and tone

appropriate for the audience and purpose);

(d) Sentence Fluency (rhetorical features, rhythm, and flow crafted to serve the purpose

of writing);

(e) Diction (Precision and appropriateness of the words and expressions for the writing

task); and

(f) Conventions (usage, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, paragraphing).

For each Analytic Writing Continuum criterion, I identified key words that represent the criterion. I then used those key words to determine how to classify each evaluation statement on the master list. For the first criterion, Content, I included measures that mentioned the words

content, clarity, clear, details, support, evidence, and justification. These words, which focus on

support was provided, directly deal with the content of the assignment as outlined by Band and the Analytic Writing Continuum. The rubric criteria that were incorporated under Content include, but are not limited, to the following statements (a complete list can be found in Appendix D. 1):

 You identify the project with enough clarity and detail for the readers to visualize

the site

 Content is accurate, comprehensive, relevant, and supported claims

 Document contains relevant information

 Connects the problem to similar problems identified in a survey of literature,

using multiple forms of detailed, appropriate, and well-documented evidence

 Includes complexity of thought as well as credible and numerous sources of

information

 Clear statement of what information the message contains and why it is important

For the second Analytic Writing Continuum criterion, Structure, I included assignment standards that had the words logic, organization, structure, unity, understand, organization,

headings, and concise. All the words are fit for the Analytic Writing Continuum’s definition of

structure, which focuses on arrangement, coherence, and unity (Bang). I included evaluation criteria related to headings since the purpose of headings is to help organize information and create an effective structure, which makes the headings appropriate for the Structure criterion. Sample criteria that were classified as structure statements include the following (see Appendix D. 2 for complete list):

 Arranges parts logically

 Sustains main idea through a logical progression of supporting points

 Information is “chunked” in ways that make sense

 Briefly outlines the plan and suggests the organization of the rest of this

document

 Technical writing makes use of appropriate heading, lists (where appropriate),

and transitions

The third criterion on Analytic Writing Continuum’s list is Stance, which Bang identifies as “perceptive communicate through level of formality, style, and tone appropriate for the audience and purpose.” Evaluation measures that had words including audience, voice, tone,

purpose, professional, and appeals were included in the Stance category based on Bang’s

description of Stance which focused on the tone of the work, understanding the audience, and using the appropriate appeals in writing. The following evaluation standards were identified as Stance criteria (refer to Appendix D. 3 for a complete list):

 Excellent match of level of formality and technically to audience

 The wording and style are unlikely to confuse or intimidate non-expert readers

 Takes care of the readers

 Uses active voice (unless passive voice is necessary)

 Uses professional tone/language

 Writer appears knowledgeable

For the fourth criterion, Sentence Fluency, I looked for standards that were related to the sentences and the overall flow of the document. I identified statements that included the

following statements are included in the Sentence Fluency criterion (the complete list can be found in Appendix D. 4):

 Sentence length is appropriate

 Concise, coherent, and smooth flowing sentences

 Sentence structure produces clear meaning

 Provides necessary transitions

 Varied sentence structure

The fifth criterion on the Analytic Writing Continuum is Diction, which includes word choice and word usage. For this category, I identified evaluation measures that included the words prose, language, terms, jargon, vocabulary, wording, and word choice. The following

statements were included as Diction criterion (see Appendix D. 5 for the complete list):

 Clear and succinct prose

 Technical terms, processes, acronyms, and jargon are defined and used appropriately

 Avoids redundancy, ambiguity, and abstract language

 Language is appropriate for the audience (bias-free, gender-neutral, and familiar wording;

no slang or clichés)

 Writing should not be monotonous in word choice

The last criterion outlined by the Analytic Writing Continuum is Conventions, which relate to “usage, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, paragraphing” (Bang). The measures included in the category are related to grammar and mechanics, and most of the standards

included the word grammar. Also included in this category was paragraph length. The following

are some of the criterion in this category (a full list can be found in Appendix D. 6):

 Paragraph length is appropriate

 Paragraphs are appropriately sized

 Document contains few to no distracting composition errors (grammar, mechanics,

punctuation, style, or spelling)

In addition, many of the rubrics provided by survey participants contained criterion that were not related to any of the above Analytic Writing Continuum attributes. Those criteria were typically included meeting assignment guidelines, providing proper citations, formatting

according to industry standards, and designing the document to be visually appealing. Any evaluation criterion that did not fit one of Analytic Writing Continuum’s six attributes was categorized as Other. The Other criteria were then subdivided into three categories: Assignment Requirements, Document Design, and Visuals. When referring to the Other criteria, I identified them by their sub classification with Other as a prefix. This approach makes it easy to identify

which criterion are not part of the Analytic Writing Continuum attributes of effective academic writing.

Other-Assignment Requirements statements include requirements such as length,

submission procedures, deadlines, and citations; anything that is a basic assignment requirement but does not serve to improve the effectiveness of the writing was classified as Other-

Assignment Requirements. The Other-Document Design statements focused on the visual appeal of the document. They did not include formatting such as adhering to MLA format, which would fall under Assignment requirement statements; instead, they focused on document design.

Assignment criteria that discussed the typography, visual appeal, and document layout were classified as Other-Document Design Statements. The last Other category is Other-Visuals; evaluation criterion in this category include criterion related to pictures, figures, graphs, tables,

and charts, such as the placement of graphics, proper use of figures, and the numbering and labeling of any visual aids used in the document. A complete list of the Other-Assignment, Other-Document Design, and Other-Visuals criteria can be found in Appendices D. 7, D. 8, and D. 9, respectively.

Only two of the rubrics included weights for individual criteria; all others were holistic with no indication of how different criterion would affect the final grade. While I hoped to be able to evaluate the instructors’ views of the importance of the different criteria based on the weight assigned to each for the specific assignments, it was not possible with only two rubrics that included weights. I did evaluate how often the different Analytic Writing Continuum attributes and the Other criterion were noted on the rubrics, but I was unable to determine which evaluation criteria was more heavily emphasized based on the rubrics provided.