I use rubrics in my courses, and sometimes the words I want to use to explain my grading system feel like they take up way too much space to be included in a rubric (if you’ve seen my rubrics you can attest to this—they are quite lengthy). So, while I try to be as clear as possible in my rubrics, sometimes I use words or phrases in them that I’d like to expand upon a little. So, without further ado, here is a guide to terms I use in rubrics...
“Timely”: this means that it is made explicit and clear by the author that their project connects to/ speaks to something going on currently. In other words: it is clear that what the project discusses is relevant today.
“Narrow enough”: this means that your arguments/ guiding questions/ claims are specific enough that they seem appropriate for a college student to focus a course paper on. In other words: it seems unlikely that a research paper written over the course of a month (or even three) could thoroughly analyze and attend to all the major arguments related to gun control, or gender inequity (it’s not that I doubt your abilities at all; there’s just so much going on in these topics and only so many hours in a month). However, it seems very likely that a paper written over the course of a month could thoroughly analyze and attend to a specific issue or specific rhetorical conflict related to gun control or gender inequity—maybe something specifically related to the “boyfriend exception” in gun policy, or something pertaining to gender representation in fantasy movies in the last 5 years. (This is why, for many of the papers and projects I assign, I’ll ask you to choose a topic, and from there narrow into a smaller research area and/or locate specific objects of research to focus on).
“Concise”: this means that the project feels focused and everything included seems important to helping the audience understand. There aren’t any parts of the project that feel unnecessary or disconnected to the overall goals of the project.
“Qualified”: a “qualified” argument is one that acknowledges its limits; to “qualify” an argument is to outline the limits and weaknesses of an argument—to situate it in the real world and say things like “this argument mostly works when we assume Y” or “this is true for situations in which Z happens but maybe not when G happens” or “to the extent that people self-report honestly, this experiment indicates A,” etc. Sometimes qualifying means admitting when things are just a hunch or opinion you have.
“Focused on finding the best solutions more than on being right”: sometimes when people argue, the argument becomes more about each person proving that they are right than it does about finding the best possible solution—I think we all fall victim to this sometimes, but we want to avoid this happening in this class. An argument focused more on finding the best solutions will handle evidence and weigh possible solutions fairly but critically, and the author’s preconceived notions won’t seem to cause them to unfairly or uncritically judge any of their sources to a large degree. A paper focused on finding the best solutions will think about how solutions impact all kinds of people and not just people like the author. A paper focused more on being right, however, may seem to dismiss certain evidence because it doesn’t fit with the author’s ideas.
If you ever encounter additional terms on my rubrics or assignment sheets that seem vague, jargon-y, or unclear in how they're being used, please do let me know and I'll be happy to clarify them for you (and maybe add them to this list!).