English 497/498: Adapting Texts, Spring 2006

Has a substantive thesis and essay fully addresses the topic; the thesis is defendable, clearly explained, and supported in the body of the essay.
If the essay is comparative, the thesis focuses on the significance of the texts’ connections and presents a comparison that is defendable, clearly explained, and supported by the analysis.
Shows substantial depth, fullness and complexity of thought.
Uses adaptation theory to develop argument; theory is integral component of the essay.
Expresses ideas clearly and commands the reader’s attention.
Demonstrates clear, unified and coherent organization.
Is fully developed and detailed with arguments supported by persuasive reasoning and references to text; there is an appropriate balance between providing evidence and analyzing that evidence.
Has a sophisticated style (remarkable variety of sentence pattern, smooth transitions between ideas, superior control of diction).
Properly cites source material.
Has few, if any, minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics.

Has a clear thesis and essay addresses the topic but may not do so completely; the thesis may be clear and well-argued, but could use additional support or development; or the thesis may be identifiable, but not sharply focused.
If the essay is comparative, the thesis clearly defines an area of comparison, but neither thesis nor essay may fully address the significance of the texts’ connections.
Shows some depth and complexity of thought.
Uses adaptation theory to develop argument but references to theory may seem tacked on rather than closely connected to the essay’s claims.
Expresses ideas clearly.
Demonstrates effective organization.
Is well developed with sensible reasoning and appropriate references to text; however, some evidence may detract from the thesis and some ideas might not be fully explored.
Demonstrates balance between evidence and analysis for the most part, but balance may be weak in places.
Has an effective style (some variety of sentence patterns, transitions between ideas, accurate diction).
Properly cites source material, but may have errors in citation format.
Has few errors in grammar, usage or mechanics.

Has a thesis that may not be entirely clear and essay does not fully address the topic.
If the essay is comparative, thesis may not fully articulate the relationship between the texts; essay may mention many points of comparison and analyze few.
Shows insufficient awareness of the complexity of issues addressed; may treat the topic or texts simplistically or repetitively.
Demonstrates little engagement with adaptation theory, offering a few citations of theoretical texts, but not tying the references to the essay in a clear manner.
Communicates ideas clearly for the most part, but may have some lapses in clarity.
Has a recognizable organizational pattern, but the relation among parts is not consistently clear enough to provide a coherent focus.
Is unevenly developed; writer may offer sufficient reasoning or references to text for some of the ideas but not for others.
Demonstrates some balance between evidence and analysis.
Has an adequate style (limited variation in sentence patterns, transitions between most ideas, diction accurate for the most part).
Cites the majority of source material, but occasionally material may be clearly cited but not referenced in parentheses.
Has some errors in grammar, usage or mechanics, but demonstrates basic control of these areas.

Has an unclear thesis; essay mentions topic and meets basic length requirements, but does not engage the topic in any meaningful fashion.
If comparative, the essay identifies similarities and differences and meets basic length requirements, but does not compare adaptations in any meaningful fashion.
Lacks focus or demonstrates confused, stereotyped or simplistic thinking; writer may demonstrate no overall conception of the issues raised by the topic.
Demonstrates misunderstanding of adaptation theory, including references that have no connection to the essay’s ideas.
May not communicate ideas clearly.
Is ineffectively organized, with no clear relationship between the parts of the essay.
May not provide adequate or appropriate reasoning or references to support generalizations, or may provide details without generalizations.
Demonstrates little relationship between evidence and the thesis.
Has stylistic weaknesses (no variety of sentence patterns, few transitions, imprecise diction).
Indicates use of source material, but does not have consistent parenthetical references.
Has occasional major errors in grammar, usage or mechanics or frequent minor errors that interfere in the reader's understanding of the essay.

Has no thesis or has an incomprehensible thesis.
May be deliberately off-topic or demonstrate no understanding of the issues raised by the topic; essay may mention multiple adaptations but fail to draw connections between them.
Does not engage adaptation theory.
Does not communicate ideas clearly.
Lacks coherent organization.
Shows no development of ideas; may simply summarize text.
Has an incoherent style (difficulties with sentence structure, pattern of diction errors).
Presents another writer’s work as the author’s own.
Has pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage and mechanics that renders the essay unreadable.