Primary Traits for ENGL 1010, 2010, and 2020 Assessment

UVSC Spring 2003
 

 

 

 

  

5

PROFICIENT

3

MODERATELY PROFICIENT

1

NOT PROFICIENT
IDEAS

Control of topic

(Weight 3)

 

 

 

 

 

Support

(Weight 3)

 - Writer understands and precisely identifies the terms and concepts at issue in the discussion.

- Writer articulates her/his own position regarding the issue (thesis).

- The writer presents a variety of views and controls the tension among them.

- The student precisely articulates the point or generalizations he/she is making.

 

- The student= s evidence is pertinent to the point she/he wishes to make.

- The evidence reaches a very concrete level of specificity.

- Outside sources beyond anecdote are used as evidence.

 - The writer= s position is fairly clear, but more work is needed in focusing the position.

- The writer includes several perspectives, but has trouble articulating differences and/or controlling the relationships among them.

- The train of thought expressed in generalizations is, for the most part, logically consistent.

 

 

- The evidence appears to be pertinent, but the writer does not explain its relevance.

- The evidence does not reach the most concrete levels of specificity.

- The paper relies on anecdotal evidence alone.

 - The writer= s position is unclear, and the central issue of the paper is unfocused.

- Writer refers to the concepts under discussion in a vague and imprecise way.

- The student= s argument is single-minded; he/she tends toward premature closure.

- The concepts expressed are superficial, irrelevant to the topic, trivial or unelaborated.

- Contradictions among generalizations are neither addressed nor resolved.

- There is little attempt to develop points with supporting evidence.
ORGANIZATION

(Weight 2)

 

 

 

 

  

- A deliberate and sound organizational plan is evident.

- The paper contains an inviting beginning and a logical and effective conclusion.

- The logical progression and ordering of ideas allows for the most important points to stand out.

 - A deliberate and sound organizational plan is suggested, but may be slightly confusing or ineffective.

- The paper leads to a logical conclusion.

- The paper contains a logical progression and ordering of ideas.

 - Ideas are randomly put together with little apparent structure evident.

- Ideas are presented in a haphazard manner.

- The paper appears illogical in its construction and ordering or ideas.
CONVENTIONS

(Weight 2)

SCHOLARSHIP

(Weight 2)

 - Few to no errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammar and usage.

- The student cites outside sources appropriately, including in-text references and list of works cited.

- Sources are scholarly and credible.

- Sources are integrated into the student= s own text.

 

- Some distracting errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and/or grammar and usage.

 

- Sources are acknowledged informally.

- Sources are credible, but quality is sporadic.

- Sources are sporadically well integrated into the student= s own text.

 - Errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and/or grammar and usage interfere with meaning.

- Outside sources are not used or not credited.

- Credibility of sources is questionable.

- Sources are not integrated into the student= s own text.
VOICE

(Weight 1)

 

 

 

  

- The student chooses a level of formality (register), tone and diction appropriate to academic discourse.

- The voice and tone are appropriate for a reasonable and thoughtful audience. Humor or irony is appropriate.

- Diction is precise; sophisticated and scholarly words are used.

 - Level of formality and diction is unevenly appropriate to the rhetorical situation.

- Voice and tone are generally appropriate, but some unevenness appears.

- Diction is adequate, but not especially sophisticated.

 - The level of formality, tone or diction fail to show an understanding or knowledge of a college reader= s expectations.

- The register is colloquial and conversational, more like an e-mail to a friend than a college paper.

- The voice of the persona might seem argumentative, emotional, preachy, closed-minded, or prone to the use of ridicule or sarcasm.

- Diction is vague or imprecise.
WORD CHOICE

(Weight 1)

 

 

  

- Accurate and precise words are well suited for connecting the audience to the subject matter.

- Sentences contain vivid sensory images with specific nouns, action verbs, and well-chosen descriptive works.

- Student avoids biased and pejorative language and instead uses languages that is respectful of the audience.

  

- Functional and appropriate words connect the audience to the subject matter.

- Sentences contain moderately specific nouns, verbs and descriptive words.

- Student avoids biased and pejorative language.

 - Many words are imprecise, and word usage is confusing to the extent that locating meaning is difficult.

- Most nouns and verbs are vague, and there are few descriptive words.

- Student uses biased and pejorative language.
SENTENCE FLUENCY

(Weight 1)

 

 

 

  

- Ideas are organized and transitions articulated so that the reader can follow a logical progression of thought.

- A rhythm is created across sentences; the flow is pleasing to the ear.

- A rich variety of sentence lengths, beginnings and patterns enriches meaning. Repetition, if used, is applied for good effect.

 - Transitions and connections between ideas may be unsophisticated, but there is evidence of student= s attempt to articulate relationships.

- Sentences are somewhat varied in length and structure; grammatical /structural errors are rare.

 - There is little apparent order to the arrangement of ideas, with unconnected jumps from topic to topic.

- Sentences are monotonous; more than half have similar lengths, beginnings, or patterns.

- Numerous fragments, comma splices, run-ons and incoherent sentences distract the reader.

The primary traits are adapted from the Provo School District Assessment Handbook of Instructions for high school students (2002 edition) and the A Utah Statewide Assessment CriteriaB Writing 1010 and 2010" (Revised 2003). The UVSC English Assessment Committee believes that using the six traits from the Provo School District accommodates students arriving at UVSC who are familiar with the six traits language as a result of their high school experience. Using language from the Utah Statewide Assessment acknowledges the standards used for assessing writing proficiency in institutions of higher education in Utah.

The six categories of traits (ideas, organization, conventions, voice, word choice, and sentence fluency) come directly from the Provo School District categorization of traits. The division of proficiency levels into A more proficient,@ A moderately proficient,@ and A less proficient@ is adopted from the Utah Statewide Assessment. The statements used to describe proficiency levels come primarily from the Utah Statewide Assessment, but additional statements from the Provo School District have been included where needed to complete descriptions of the traits. In addition, the UVSC Assessment Committee added statements in order to assess 2010 and 2020 writing assignments that require more in-depth research than is addressed by the Provo School District traits or the Utah Statewide traits.

 

University of Life Home | High Adventure Coalition | Writing Center | LDS Singles Network | FreeHomeShop.com