| Scale | Basic | Beginning | Developing | Competent | Mature | Exemplary |
| Rhetorical Awareness Response to the situation/ assignment, considering elements such as purpose, audience, register, and context |
Ignores two or more aspects of the situation and thus does not fulfill the task | Ignores at least one aspect of the situation and thus compromises effectiveness | Attempts to respond to all aspects of the situation, but the attempt is insufficient or inappropriate | Addresses the situation in a complete but perfunctory or predictable way | Addresses the situation completely, with unexpected insight | Addresses the situation in a complete, sophisticated manner that could advance professional discourse on the topic |
| Stance and Support Argument, evidence, and analysis |
Involves an unspecified or confusing argument; lacks appropriate evidence | Makes an overly general argument; has weak or contradictory evidence | Lacks a unified argument; lacks significance (“so what?”); lacks sufficient analysis | Offers a unified, significant, and common position with predictable evidence and analysis | Offers a unified, distinct position with compelling evidence and analysis | Offers an inventive, expert-like position with precise and convincing evidence and analysis |
| Organization Structure and coherence, including elements such as introductions and conclusions as well as logical connections within and among paragraphs (or other meaningful chunks) |
Lacks unity in constituent parts (such as paragraphs); fails to create coherence among constituent parts |
Uses insufficient unifying statements (e.g., thesis statements, topic sentences, headings, or forecasting statements); uses few effective connections (e.g., transitions, match cuts, and hyperlinks) | Uses some effective unifying claims, but a few are unclear; makes connections weakly or inconsistently, as when claims appear as random lists or when paragraphs’ topics lack explicit ties to the thesis | States unifying claims with supporting points that relate clearly to the overall argument and employs an effective but mechanical scheme | Asserts and sustains a claim that develops progressively and adapts typical organizational schemes for the context, achieving substantive coherence | Asserts a sophisticated claim by incorporating diverse perspectives that are organized to achieve maximum coherence and momentum |
| Conventions Expectations for grammar, mechanics, style, citation, and genre |
Involves errors that risk making the overall message distorted or incomprehensible | Involves a major pattern of errors | Involves some distracting errors | Meets expectations, with minor errors | Exceeds expectations in a virtually flawless manner |
Manipulates expectations in ways that advance the argument |
| Design for Medium Features that use affordances to enhance factors such as comprehensibility and usability |
Lacks the features necessary for the genre; neglects significant affordances, such as linking on the web; uses features that conflict with or ignore the argument | Omits some important features; involves distracting inconsistencies in features (e.g., type and headings); uses features that don’t support argument | Uses features that support with argument, but some match imprecisely with content; involves minor omissions or inconsistencies | Supports the argument with features that are generally suited to genre and content | Promotes engagement and supports the argument with features that efficiently use affordances | Persuades with careful, seamless integration of features and content and with innovative use of affordances
|
Rubric from the Georgia Tech Writing and Communication Program.
