Skip to main content

Sisters in the Struggle: Kentucky Women in the Civil Rights Era, 1920s-1970s: 1g. Grading Criteria

Grading Criteria


Grading Criteria for HIS 351 Individual Project (total 30%)



Writing Skills:

·         Entry includes an introductory paragraph that establishes a context for the entry and provides a succinct thesis statement that addresses the question, "Why is this entry included?" Paper ends with a conclusion paragraph that restates the thesis and summarizes the main points.

·         Organization and form enhance the central idea and theme; ideas are presented coherently to move the reader through the text. Paragraphs are well developed with logical sentence transitions. Sentences are complete, clear and concise.

·         The voice of the writer is compelling and conveys the writer's meaning through effective sentence structure and precise word choices. The prose is clear, accessible and understandable to the general public.  An average reader unfamiliar with the topic would be able to grasp the material and information presented. Avoids jargon or specialized terms.

·         The entry has few to no errors in mechanics, including spelling, grammar, usage and punctuation. Follows Wikipedia Style Guidelines.


Research Skills:

·         Entry includes hyperlinks to other Wikipedia entries that help inform the meaning and interrelationships of the entry's topic to other subjects.

·         Entry includes properly formatted citations and references as required by Wikipedia.




Writing Skills:

·         Key points in the entry identify and outline the role of twentieth century women in the life and experiences of the selected woman/women.

·         The entry shows clearly how the assigned course readings and the writer's own research are applied, demonstrating an understanding of how women's roles and experiences have helped shape their times and our world today.

·         The entry posits at least two challenges and opportunities affecting the roles of Kentucky women in the twentieth century.


Research Skills:

·         Entry includes citations from at least five scholarly, peer-reviewed sources.

·         Entry refers to at least one oral history resource available to the general public.



Research Journal Grading Rubric (total 20%)






Contributes to the Course

Posting is thorough* and original* and adds constructively to a climate of critical inquiry.*

Posting is thorough and original.

Posting is original but lacks critical inquiry and depth.

Posting is uninteresting and/or too brief for the assignment.

Demonstrates Understand-ing of the Assignment

Posting demonstrates thorough understanding of the readings and is substantiated by two (2) or more examples from scholarly, peer-reviewed resources and one (1) example from a primary source.

Posting demonstrates an understanding of the readings and is substantiated by at least one (1) example from a primary source.

Posting demonstrates an understanding of the readings but is not substantiated by examples.

Posting demonstrates very little understanding of the readings.

Provides Substantive Responses and Replies to Other Postings

Postings show that the writer is actively engaged in the conversations engendered by other students (using hyperlinks to other students' blogs) and includes at least two comments on other students blogs in a manner that demonstrates substantive analysis and/or evaluation.

Actively engaged in the discussion forum with at least two (2) comments on other students' blogs where one (1) of the comments demonstrates substantive analysis and/or evaluation while the second demonstrates constructive analysis but is not of the same quality as required for an excellent rating

Makes at least two (2) responses but responses fail to demonstrate constructive analysis or are inadequate.

Comments are less than acceptable; responses are off-topic; and/or student has not added comments to other students' blog postings.

Utilizes Correct Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling and Sentence Structure

Posting is polished and generally free of errors in mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence structure.

Posting is polished but may contain minor errors in mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence structure.

Posting is adequate but may contain some errors in mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence structure - but errors do not interfere with understanding.

Posting has numerous errors in mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence structure. Errors interfere with the readability.


* Thorough:  Careful about the accuracy and integrity of the historical record. The posting addresses more than just one part of the issue raised and differentiates between fact, inference and opinion.

* Original: Holds the attention of the reader because the posting is interesting and creative.  Relates concepts in a way that is different from other scholars and strives to enhance the issues related to the historical questions addressed.

* Adds Constructively to the Climate of Critical Inquiry: Discusses the question with clear and deep perception. The posting will display good deductive reasoning, which is a conclusion made by the blogger, related to the topic that is supported by evidence (especially concepts from the scholarly readings and primary sources.


Group Work Roundtable Evaluations

Group Work Peer Evaluations


·         Introduction of Team and Project (overall topic and logic underlying the combination)

·         Body of Presentation (main points expressed - key terms from research and assigned readings used)

·         Conclusions/Analysis


·         Use of original and appropriate audio-visuals

·         Creativity demonstrated

·         Audience's attention gained and interest kept

Ranking Scale: 1-rarely, 3-sometimes, 5-often

Respect for the group, e.g., openminded; willing to cooperate; helping communication to stay open by using supportive statements and nonverbals; give observations to show objective perspective; attending; help group stay on task; being patient

Participating constructively toward work assigned, e.g., being outspoken; offering other resources for all to use

Kept high standards in group projects, e.g., searched for needed info as supporting evidence, came prepared





Grading Criteria for Individual or Group Writing

Grade Range

What does the writing look like to your instructor?


The writing is clear, engaging, original, and focused; ideas are richly developed with details and examples. The voice of the writer is compelling and conveys meaning through effective sentence structure and choices in words and/or audiovisuals. Organization of the writing and use of audio-visuals (if any) enhance the central idea; content is presented coherently to move the reader through the text. The narrative moves successfully through diverging points of view using documentation effectively and shows the reader evidence of critical analysis. The writing demonstrates a clear balance of all these components.


The writing is reasonably clear, and statements are well supported; ideas are adequately developed. The writer’s meaning is understood through varied sentence structures and choices in types of documentation. Organization is adequate, and ideas are most often presented coherently.  The content does not interfere with the reader's understanding of the main points. The writing includes properly cited documentation, but has not fully developed any critical analysis.


The writing has some focus and supporting documentation though limited in details and examples. The narrative is disorganized and unstructured. Errors interfere with the content's meaning. Basic sentence structure and limited vocabulary convey a simple message with limited development and relies on stereotypes or large generalizations. Critical analysis is undeveloped or missing.


The writing has little focus and few details and examples to support ideas and content. Little evidence of structure or transitions between paragraphs. Awkward sentence structure and immaturity in vocabulary interferes with the overall goals for the writing. No critical analysis and the text is primarily rambling descriptions without academic context.


The writing is unintelligible, unsubstantiated and/or includes plagiarized material or content not attributed to its original creator.