HACC/LDHS: History Department
PRESTIGE Final Paper: Learning Outcomes Rubric
Course and Final Paper Goal: To train students to research, analyze, and synthesize a variety of evidence, so they may infer
reasonable conclusions about history and then compose a substantive research paper based on the historical method.
Competency
Student
frames
historical
question(s)
Excellent Mastery
Possible Points: 12-11
(12= 100%; 11 = 92%)
The paper addresses a significant
historical question that is clearly
stated. The questions’ significance is
satisfactorily demonstrated; the
student is explicitly conscious of the
role of periodization in forming the
question; the question is of
manageable scope and logically
formulated.
Good (10-9) to Some (8-7) to Minimal (6-1) to No (0) Mastery
Possible Points: 10-0
(10 = 83%; 9 = 75%; 8 = 67%; 7 = 58%; 6 = 50%)
Good: The paper addresses a significant historical question that is
clearly stated. The student makes an effort to demonstrate
significance and to employ periodization. Question is of
manageable scope, posed with minimal logical flaws in question
framing
Some: The paper addresses historical question that can be
identified with some difficulty. Significance of question unclear;
minimal grasp of periodization; serious logical lapse in question
framing.
Minimal: Significance of question not demonstrated; question of
inappropriate scope or illogically presented; no grasp of
periodization
Student
employs a
broad range
of resources
Students
writing is
targeted,
expansive, &
detailed
Student
evaluates and
analyzes
primary
sources
Makes thorough use of all relevant
online and print databases to identify
primary and secondary literature; uses
classic and most recent secondary
literature; no major secondary sources
omitted; all available primary sources
identified. All sources in bibliography
thoroughly used in text.
12-10 pages
Demonstrates thorough awareness of
origins, authors, contexts of all
primary sources; consciously employs
verification strategies as needed
No: No identifiable historical question
Good: Makes good use of relevant online and print databases;
some omissions in secondary or primary source a base. A few
sources in bibliography not fully used.
Some: Makes some use of online or print databases; paper based
on only a few of cited sources
Minimal: No evidence of using databases to establish source
base; source base very limited. Major sources unknown or not
employed. Little evidence that author has used listed
bibliography.
No: No evidence of using databases; sources entirely insufficient
and inappropriate to paper topic.
Good: 9 pages
Some: 8-3 pages
Minimal: 2-1pages
No: 0 pages
Good: Demonstrates some awareness of context of primary
sources; employs some verification strategies.
Some: Offers partial evaluation of primary sources; spotty
verification.
Minimal: Offers little to no evaluation of primary sources; no
verification.
Student
writes clearly,
cogently, &
completely
Thesis statement is easily
identified/underlined; paragraphs
support solid topics sentences; all
ideas in paper flow logically;
No: Is not aware of need to evaluate or verify sources.
Good: Thesis statement is promising but slightly unclear, some
unclear transitions; some paragraphs lack strong topic sentences;
argument usually flows logically; some evidence that counterarguments acknowledged; mechanics strong despite occasional
argument identifiable, reasonable;
anticipates and defuses counterarguments; sentence structure,
spelling grammar, and punctuation
excellent; no run-on sentences or
comma splices. Includes all advice
from Rough Draft
lapses. Generally includes advice from Rough Draft.
Some: Thesis statement is vague, and poorly stated; weak
transitions; many paragraphs without topic sentences; may not
address counter-arguments; problems in sentence structure,
grammar, citations, spelling, punctuation. Occasionally includes
advice from Rough Draft.
Minimal: Thesis statement is difficult to identify; few topic
sentences; ideas do not flow at all; simplistic view of topic; no
effort to grasp possible alternative views; big problems in
sentence structure, mechanics. Barely includes advice from
Rough Draft.
Student
develops an
interpretation
based on
evidence
Primary sources analyzed in an
original and intentional way; primary
source information used to buttress
every point with at least one example
(per paragraph, typically). Examples
support sub-thesis and fit within
paragraph. Excellent integration of
quoted material into sentences (avoids
block quotes).
No: Has no identified/underlined thesis statement. Shows
minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the assignment. Very
difficult to understand owing to major problems with mechanics,
structure, and analysis. Omits any advice from Rough Draft.
Good: Primary source information used to support most points.
Some evidence does not support point, or may appear where least
effective or be inappropriate. Most often, quotations well
integrated into sentences.
Some: Limited reference to primary source material. Quotations
appear often without analysis relating them to thesis, or analysis
offers nothing beyond the quotation.
Minimal: No apparent use of primary sources; very few or very
weak examples. General failure to support statements, or
evidence seems to support no statement. Quotations not integrated
into sentences.
Student
grasps
relevant
historical
facts and
context
Demonstrates detailed knowledge of
contextual dates, persons, and
documents, as well as political,
cultural, social, and international
content for entire period under study;
all necessary relevant facts/
developments included.
Cover Page,
in text
Citations,
and
Bibliography
Total adherence to a recognized
documentation method such as MLA ,
APA, or Turabian
Completion
& Electronic
Submission
Total:
/100
On time = automatic 4 points
No: No interpretation of evidence.
Good: Demonstrates substantial knowledge of dates, persons, and
documents, as well as most political, cultural, social, and
international developments; few necessary relevant
facts/developments omitted.
Some: Demonstrates awareness of some obviously relevant dates,
persons, and documents; significant relevant facts/developments
omitted.
Minimal: Scant reference to relevant dates and developments
apart from those in the main narrative; some mistakes in historical
facts; serious omissions of relevant facts/developments.
No: Many mistakes in historical facts.
Good: Substantial adherence.
Some: Basic adherence, but several flawed areas.
Minimal: Seriously flawed areas.
No: Lacks in text citations, cover page, and/or bibliography
Late: Unacceptable (0)