English 497/498: Adapting Texts, Spring 2006

Has a substantive thesis, and essay fully explores the analytical possibilities and limitations of adaptation theory; the thesis is defendable, clearly explained, and entirely supported in the body of the essay
Shows substantial depth, richness and complexity of thought
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 theory, film and book; 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 that addresses the analytical possibilities and limitations of adaptation theory, but essay may not fully explore all elements of the main argument; the thesis may be well argued, but could use additional support or development in the body of the essay; or the thesis may be identifiable, but not sharply focused
Shows some depth and complexity of thought
Expresses ideas clearly
Demonstrates effective organization
Is well developed with sensible reasoning and appropriate references to theory, film and book; however, some evidence may detract from the thesis and some ideas might not be discussed in adequate depth
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 only partially explores the analytical possibilities and limitations of adaptation theory
Shows insufficient awareness of the complexity of issues addressed; may treat theory simplistically or repetitively
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 references the analytical possibilities and limitations of adaptation theory and meets basic length requirements, but does not address the topic in any meaningful fashion.
Lacks focus or demonstrates confused, stereotyped or simplistic thinking; writer may demonstrate no overall conception of adaptation theory
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 that does not engage the analytical possibilities and limitations of adaptation theory
May be deliberately off-topic and demonstrate no understanding of adaptation theory
Does not communicate ideas clearly
Lacks coherent organization
Shows no development of ideas; may simply summarize fictional texts or randomly quote theory
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