- Published: June 12, 2022
- Updated: June 12, 2022
- University / College: Stanford University
- Language: English
- Downloads: 18
BOOK REVIEW RUBRIC Spring 2011 (5) 100- 90 (4) 89 – 80 (3) 79 – 70 (2) 69 – 60 (1) 59 & Below Response to Project Questions Writer responds fully to all project questions. Exceptional responses to questions; answers are given in depth and in meaningful ways. Includes specific material from book to support ideas. Full responses to questions; answers are thoughtful. Includes some material from book to support ideas. Adequate responses to question, but responses lack depth and detail. Answers lack substantive information from book. Answers may be uneven. Attempts to respond to most questions; answers may be minimal. Lacks appropriate information from book to support ideas. Responses to questions may be vague or incomplete; not all questions are responded to. Meaning/ Development Writer understands the book and communicates the book’s ideas using an historical context Contains in-depth analysis with clear and insightful connections to the historical period. Ideas are richly developed, using many relevant details, quotes, and examples from the book. Contains analysis with strong connections to the historical period. Ideas clearly developed; relevant and specific details, auotes, and examples support ideas. Contains an understanding of the book’s ideas with some connections to the historical period. Some ideas are developed; references are specific, but may not contain details. Understanding of book may be uneven or inaccurate. Lacks appropriate connections to the historical period. Ideas are incomplete or undeveloped; references not clear or are too brief. Lacks understanding of book and fails to make appropriate connections to historical period. Ideas are not stated or developed; no references to the book or may only refer to one part of book. Organization The book report has a logical and focused structure. Clear focus, logical sequence, and skillful use of transitions. Clear focus with logical sequence and good transitions. Logical sequence of ideas, with clear focus. No focus, some organization or some focus, poor organization. Lacks focus or organization. Language Use The response is appropriate for the audience, with effective use of words, sentence structure, and variety. Appropriate language is precise and interesting; meaning is enhanced by varied sentence structure. Language is appropriate for audience and purpose; language is fluent and original, sentence structure varies. Language is appropriate for the audience and purpose; some effective use of sentence structure. Language may contain weaknesses in clarity; some attempt is made to vary sentence structure and length. Language is not clear and/or inappropriate for the audience. Conventions The writer used conventional spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, capitalization, grammar, and usage. Exceptionally strong control of conventions with no errors. Includes well-developed paragraphs with strong topic sentences. Strong control of conventions/may contain minor errors. Paragraphs well-developed with topic sentences. Occasional errors in conventions; errors do not prevent understanding of the writing. Paragraphs lack full development. Frequent errors; errors may make the writing difficult to understand. Weak paragraph development. Little use of conventions. Weak paragraph development. Documentation The paper is original and contains no plagiarism.* Original writing with careful attention to proper citation, avoiding any plagiarism. Original writing with careful attention to proper citation, avoiding any plagiarism. Adequate attention to proper citation, avoiding any plagiarism. Lack of attention to proper citation; avoids any plagiarism. Portions of paper plagiarized from book or other source. Paper will receive grade of zero. Neatness The paper is neat and legible. Paper is typed or neatly written in blue/black ink. Is stapled together in page order, with no stray marks/tears. Paper is typed or neatly written in blue/black ink. Is stapled together in page order, with no stray marks/tears. Paper is typed or neatly written in blue/black ink. Is stapled together neatly. May contain some typos. Paper is typed or written in blue/black ink. May contains several typos or alignment may be off. Difficult to read. May not be stapled together. Paper is poorly typed or poorly handwritten. May be written in pencil or ink other than blue/black. Loosely organized. May contain marks, stains.
The paper "Book review rubric spring 2011" was written by a real student and voluntarily submitted to this database. You can use this work as a sample in order to gain inspiration or start the research for your own writing. You aren't allowed to use any part of this example without properly citing it first.
If you are the author of this paper and don't want it to be used on EduPony, contact us for its removal.Ask for Removal
Cite this Review
EduPony. (2022) 'Book review rubric spring 2011'. 12 June.
EduPony. (2022, June 12). Book review rubric spring 2011. Retrieved from https://edupony.com/book-review-rubric-spring-2011/
EduPony. 2022. "Book review rubric spring 2011." June 12, 2022. https://edupony.com/book-review-rubric-spring-2011/.
1. EduPony. "Book review rubric spring 2011." June 12, 2022. https://edupony.com/book-review-rubric-spring-2011/.
EduPony. "Book review rubric spring 2011." June 12, 2022. https://edupony.com/book-review-rubric-spring-2011/.
"Book review rubric spring 2011." EduPony, 12 June 2022, edupony.com/book-review-rubric-spring-2011/.
If you have any suggestions on how to improve Book review rubric spring 2011, please do not hesitate to contact us. We want to know more: [email protected]