Marcellus Shale Policy Solution Paper Rubric
Name:_________________________ Paper Score:______________
Category
Introduction of
Problem/Policy
10 %
Policy
Environment
10 %
Current Policy
Exceeds Standards
9-10 pts
OUTSTANDING
Meets Standard
8-9 pts
STRONG
Problem and/or
Presents a wellexisting policy is
considered position
thoroughly described. on the issue.
The history of the
problem/policy is
included. Key terms,
stakeholders and
policy areas needing
analysis and
resolution are
defined.
OUTSTANDING
STRONG
Evaluative review of
the policy is
included. All relevant
legislative, judicial,
and regulatory policy
factors affecting the
policy are addressed.
Ambiguities,
conflicts, problems,
and contradictions
related to the policies
are explained.
Explains the factors
impacting the policy
with logically sound
reasons and/or wellchosen examples.
OUTSTANDING
STRONG
Nearly Meets
Standard 7-8 pts
ADEQUATE
Presents a clear
position on the issue
ADEQUATE
Explains most of the
factors impacting the
policy with relevant
reasons and/or
examples.
ADEQUATE
Does Not meet
Standard 4-7
pts
LIMITED
No evidence
0 Points
Presents a
vague or limited
position on the
issue.
Is unclear or
seriously
limited in
presenting or
developing a
position on
the issue.
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
Is weak in the
use of relevant
reasons or
examples.
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
Provides
few, if
any,relevant
reasons or
examples.
DEFICIENT
Score
(or lack thereof)
10 %
Policy
Alternatives
10 %
Development of
Idea/Support for
Ideas 20%
Clarifies the
underlying
assumptions and
effectiveness of the
current policy,
including, effects on
and roles of key
stakeholders.
Assesses the
efficiency of the
current policy
OUTSTANDING
Discussion is
focused and
generally wellorganized,
connecting ideas
appropriately. The
efficiency of the
current policy is
assessed.
STRONG
Is adequately focused
and organized, but
does not assess the
efficiency of the
current policy.
Is poorly
focused and/or
poorlyorganized.
Is unfocused
and/or
disorganized.
ADEQUATE
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
Three or more
alternatives to the
current policy are
presented. A
thorough cost-benefit
analysis is provided
for each policy
alternative
Three or more
alternatives to the
current policy are
presented. An
adequate costbenefit analysis is
included for each
policy alternative
Two or more
alternatives to the
current policy are
presented. A thorough
cost-benefit analysis is
provided for each
policy alternative.
Two or more
alternatives to
the current
policy are
presented. An
adequate costbenefit analysis
is included for
each policy
alternative
One
alternative to
the current
policy is
presented.
Policy solution is
obviously welldeveloped and based
in an excellent
understanding of
government structure
and power; policy
solution is obviously
supported by
research;
Policy solution is
tentatively asserted
and is mostly
supported by
research and based
in a decent
understanding of
current government
structure and power;
development of
Policy solution is very
basic and not based in
a thorough
understanding of
current government
structure and power;
policy solution is
tentatively based in
research; transitions
are convoluted and
Policy solution
is not possible
and/or is not
grounded in any
understanding
of current
government
structure/power;
transitions are
weak
No evidence
of attempt to
articulate
policy
solution
development of
argument is logical
and transitions
enhance clarity
Written
Communication
10 %
Strength of
analysis
10%
OUTSTANDING
Excellent mechanics,
grammar, word
usage. Language is
clear and appropriate.
Writing style is
effective.
OUTSTANDING
Each assertion is
supported with
researchable and
verifiable support
from reputable
sources. No bias is
evident in the
analysis.
argument is sound
but sometimes
difficult to follow;
transitions solid but
not seamless
STRONG
interfere with
development of idea
Expresses ideas
clearly and well,
using appropriate
vocabulary and
sentence variety.
May have errors in
mechanics,
grammar, or word
usage.
Expresses ideas with
reasonable clarity.
Contains signficant
errors in mechanics,
grammar, or word
usage.
ADEQUATE
STRONG
ADEQUATE
Assertions are
generally wellresearched and
supported by
appropriate
reference materials.
No bias is evident in
the analysis
Some evidence is
provided to support
many of the
assertions, but not all.
Reference materials
may be inappropriate
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
Has problems
in language and
sentence
structure that
result in a lack
of
clarity.Contains
occasional
major errors or
frequent minor
errors in
grammar,
usage, or
mechanics.
Has serious
problems in
the use of
language and
sentence
structure that
frequently
interfere
with
meaning.
Contains
serious
errors in
grammar,
usage, or
mechanics
obscure
meaning
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
Evidence is
provided to
support many
of the
assertions, the
analysis is
biased.
Assertions
and
statements
are weak,
unsupported
or biased.
Citations
10 %
OUTSTANDING
Support and evidence
are referenced using
paraphrasing in the
students own voice
and are cited properly
within the text of the
paper.
Research skills
10 %
OUTSTANDING
Paper uses at least 6
scholarly sources.
Clear evidence of
primary research.
Plus Additional
STRONG
Support and
evidence are
referenced using
paraphrasing in the
students own voice
and most are cited
properly within the
text of the paper.
STRONG
Paper uses at least 5
scholarly sources.
Plus Additional
ADEQUATE
LIMITED
Support and evidence
are referenced using
paraphrasing in the
students own voice citations are not
properly formatted.
The student
uses language
that is not
his/her own and
does not
provide
citations for
support.
ADEQUATE
LIMITED
DEFICIENT
DEFICIENT
Paper uses at least 4
Paper uses at
Paper uses 2
scholarly sources. Plus least 3 scholarly scholarly
Additional
sources.
sources.
Lacking
additional