INI204H1 Evaluation Checklist

Student_______________________________Assignment________________________________

Evaluator________________________________Date____________________________________

Relevance of Response to the Topic (Focus): This essay

[] responds innovatively to the topic, resembling graduate level work

[] responds precisely and perceptively to the topic

[] responds appropriately, comprehensively, and competently to the topic

[] responds generally to the topic, addressing some aspects more effectively than others

[] responds incompletely and/or simplistically to the topic, or distorts the topic, thereby demonstrating a weak understanding of the topic,

[] responds inappropriately or tangentially to the topic, perhaps indicating a complete lack of understanding of the topic

[] exhibits original thinking and advanced conceptualization skills based on a critical analysis of both primary and secondary research

[] exhibits clarity, complexity, and depth of thought about the topic based on outstanding secondary research (and perhaps some primary)

[] exhibits clarity and some depth of thought about the topic based on competent research

[] exhibits some clarity, although only minimal depth, of thought about the topic, reflecting adequate but less than thorough research

[] exhibits faulty, stereotypical, or superficial thinking about the topic, reflecting insufficient or inadequate research

[] exhibits little or no evidence of effective thinking about the topic, reflecting inadequate or no research

[] exhibits command of organization and a unique approach to the topic

[] exhibits command of organization and interesting development of the topic

[] exhibits control of organization and development of the topic

[] exhibits some control of organization (structure may be formulaic, may occasionally wander, or may be disrupted by weak transitions between points or paragraphs) and development (may contain some irrelevant or poorly chosen information) of the topic

[] exhibits insufficient control of organization (may ramble, may be repetitious, or may adhere to a simplistic formula) and development (may be mostly descriptive or may lack information) of the topic

[] exhibits limited or no sense of organization and/or contains little or no real substance (ideas are undeveloped, illogical, inconsistent, or based on inaccurate information) about the topic

[] exhibits extraordinary clarity, conciseness, and correctness in expression (word choice, usage, tone, sentence structure, and sentence sense) and style (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and mechanics)

[] exhibits command of expression and style with emphasis on correctness

[] exhibits control of expression and style, committing relatively few errors

[] exhibits sufficient control of expression and style, committing errors that do not interfere with understanding

[] exhibits a lack of control of expression and style, committing errors that interfere with understanding

[] exhibits serious and recurring errors in expression and/or style that prevent understanding

[] exhibits mastery of documentation and manuscript form by adhering meticulously to a designated (preferably by the instructor) format (such as MLA, CMS, or APA) in a manner that enhances the analysis

[] exhibits command of documentation and manuscript form by adhering consistently and precisely to a designated format

[] exhibits control of documentation and manuscript form by adhering mostly (with only minor inconsistencies and imprecisions) to a designated format

[] exhibits some control of documentation and/or manuscript form by demonstrating a basic awareness of the designated format but lacking in consistency and precision

[] exhibits lack of control of documentation and manuscript form by failing to adhere to a designated format (mixes different formats or fabricates own format)

[] exhibits little understanding or appreciation of documentation (references are insufficient or missing) and manuscript form (difficult to read or unprofessional)

Final Remarks and Recommendations for Improvement:

Original designed by Cleo Boyd, University of Toronto at Mississauga, and modified for current use by Roger Riendeau, Innis College, University of Toronto.