University of Southern California
The USC Andrew and Erna Viterbi School of Engineering
Prospective Students Current Students Alumni & Friends Corporate
About Us Academics Research News & Publications Giving
Events Calendar  |  Search  |  Contact  |  Site Map
Home  |  Academics  |  Programs  |  Engineering Writing Program  |  Written Skills Rubric  |  Writing D grade
Academic Departments
Programs
Engineering Writing Program
Courses
Community Consulting
Faculty
Illumin
Written Skills Rubric
Writing A grade
Writing B grade
Writing C grade
Writing D grade
Writing F grade
Oral Presentation Skills Rubric
VSoE Faculty
Undergraduate Student Affairs
Graduate Student Affairs
Faculty Awards
Professional Programs
Women in Science and Engineering
Globalization
Division of Engineering Education
Academic Integrity
 




 
Writing D grade  

CONTENT

Poor (D range):
 
  1. The topic is not valuable and not relevant; the paper makes little to no contribution to the audience’s knowledge; the writer does not distinguish clearly between a thesis-driven paper and an information-driven paper; in a thesis-driven paper, the thesis may be unclear, derivative, or simplistic; the writer shows limited understanding of the subject.
  2. The analysis does not support the paper’s purpose and conclusion; the writer’s ideas are not adequately connected to her or his thesis; the writer exhibits only a rudimentary understanding of the issues; the writer’s reasoning is flawed or unconvincing.
  3. The support for the overall argument (topic + analysis) is ineffective; the source materials are inadequate for the writing task, the writer’s discipline, or the writer’s audience; the evidence for the writer’s ideas is insufficient or unconvincing.
  4. Visual content is ineffective, irrelevant, or inconsistent; visuals not referred to within the text.
 
ORGANIZATION
 
Poor (D range):
 
  1. The paper does not have an adequate organizing principle; the paper’s structure detracts from the paper’s purpose and meaning; the paper’s structure makes it difficult for a reader to understand the writer’s ideas and information.
  2. Paragraph structure, length, and sequence are flawed.
  3. Key ideas are not generally clear and accessible. If they are there at all, they are not located so that readers can consistently find them. The supporting text is not organized around the key ideas and its location seems occasionally haphazard.
  4. Sentence sequences do not entirely make sense.
  5. Introductions, conclusions, point sentences, and transitions do not provide continuity and do not facilitate a reader’s access to the writer’s ideas and information.
 
ACCESSIBILITY 

Poor (D range)
 
  1. Syntax is intended to be appropriate for both the topic and the subsequent analysis and support. Intended context may still be complete and discernable. 
  2. Editing errors are numerous and detract from comprehension.
  3. Layout is intended to be sound, yet impedes navigation of the text. Balance, alignment, and grouping are inconsistent; there is limited order on the page. Visuals are inconsistently placed near the text they augment. 
  4. Formatting is intended to aid the organizational elements; titles, headings and subheadings, bullets and lists, and typographical devices are inconsistent; visuals are incompletely labeled with figure number, figure name or title, source, and description.
 

 

 


Home | About | Academics | Research | News | Giving | Prospective Students | Current Students | Alumni & Friends
Events Calendar | Search | Contact | Site Map
University of Southern California – Viterbi School of Engineering