This is a comprehensive analytical rubric that is designed to effectively evaluate a novel analysis.
|Introduction||The opening statement is engaging. It introduces the topic, inspires thinking about the topic, and offers sound, critical, and analytical thinking. The title and author are properly cited.||The opening statement is generally engaging. There is a need .to strengthen presentation of the general topic, transition between the general opening statement to specific details. The title and author are properly cited.||The opening statement is functional but too brief or simplistic. It needs to be developed to engage the readers, Paragraphs are incoherent, jumping from one point to the next without proper transitions. The title and author are properly cited.||The opening statement is ineffective, poorly organized, and undeveloped. The title and author are not cited.|
|Body/ Paragraph Organization||The supporting sentences and specific details clearly connect with the topic. Transitions between ideas are logical and coherent.||The supporting statements generally connect to the main idea but one or more main idea needs to be clarified. Concrete details are generally well-chosen but some may be irrelevant. Some transitions may be awkward.||Topic sentences are present but weak, Concrete details are present but weak and insufficient. Lacks consistency and locus. Abrupt transitions impede the flow of ideas.||Points of para graphs are not clear. Topic sentences are absent or lack focus. Concrete details are absent or insufficient. Lack of coherence within the paragraph or from one paragraph to the next.|
|Analysis||The written work exhibits critical, analytical understanding of the|
text; through clear and well-supported reasoning, insightful on the themes and functions of literary devices of symbols.
|The written work generally exhibits critical thinking but unevenly; inferences could be developed further to better explain its significance. Some claims lack support. There are some imbalance between the quotes and interpretations.||The written work exhibits basic comprehension of the text but not a critical and analytic understanding. The interpretive analysis is inconsistent or unsubstantiated. The writer reiterates content instead of drawing significant inferences.||The written work exhibits some awareness of the text details but not critical or analytical understanding. Points are vague and unsubstantiated.|
|Style and Voice||Choice of words is appropriate and displays the writer’s sense of purpose and audience.||Choice of words is generally appropriate but may not be consistently persuasive and discernible_ Writing reflects awareness of the purpose-but vocabulary may be simplistic or ineffective.||Choice of words is simplistic, informal, and imprecise. Writing is mechanical and reflects inconsistent awareness of purpose.||Choice of words is simplistic and inappropriate. Writing is mechanical and reflects no awareness of purpose.|
|Mechanics||Sentences vary in structure, are grammatically and syntactically correct, and without –|
misspellings and punctuation errors.
|Sentences are generally effective but may lack appropriate variety. Same words are repeated. Syntax and grammar may be awkward in some place but are not distracting.||Sentences lack variety. Grammar and syntax are awkward and distract the reader. There are misspellings, contractions, and fragments.||Frequent and glaring errors in syntax, grammar, and spelling distract the reader.|