New York Performance Standards Consortium
Student ___________________________________________________
Social Studies Research Paper
Title of Research ___________________________________________
Teacher or External Evaluator __________________________________________________________________ Date________
Overall evaluation ___________________________
Signature __________________________________________________
09/08
Performance Indicators
Viewpoint
Effective and Appropriate
Use Of Evidence
Effective Organization
Outstanding
 Has sharply defined,
compelling organizing idea,
thesis or question.
 Coherent, complex,
sophisticated arguments
support organizing idea/thesis.
 Opposing arguments opposing
organizing idea/thesis are
clearly presented.
 Supporting arguments include
specific, relevant, and highly
persuasive evidence, drawn
from both primary and
secondary sources.
 Uses quotations and
paraphrasing appropriately to
sustain an argument.
 Clearly, thoughtfully, and
thoroughly explains or analyzes
the connection between the
evidence and supporting
arguments.
 Each opposing argument is
supported by consistently clear,
well-connected, and focused
evidence.
 Clear, thoughtful, and precise
explanation for the lack of
persuasiveness in each
opposing argument’s evidence.
Counter-evidence may be
introduced.
 Clear introduction presents
thesis in a highly engaging,
compelling manner.
 Each argument clearly supports
an overall structure.
 Consistent, effective transitions
develop ideas and arguments
logically& build to compelling,
persuasive conclusion.
 Distinct conclusion
synthesizes arguments that
support idea/general thesis.
Good
Competent
Needs Revision
 Has clearly defined organizing  Organizing thesis, idea or
idea, thesis or question
question is comprehensible but
 Coherent, sometimes complex
not especially clear
arguments support organizing  Coherent but rarely complex or
idea/thesis.
sophisticated arguments
 Arguments opposing the
support organizing idea/thesis.
organizing idea/thesis are
 Opposing arguments are
clearly presented.
clearly presented but not
always thoroughly explained
 Supporting arguments include  Evidence for supporting
relevant and mostly persuasive
arguments are sometimes
evidence, drawn from both
specific, mostly relevant and
primary and secondary source.
generally persuasive,
 Uses quotations and
 Use of quotations and
paraphrasing appropriately to
paraphrasing is too inconsistent
sustain an argument.
to sustain an argument.
 Mostly clear and thoughtful
 Some explanation of how the
explanation or analysis of how
evidence presented supports
the evidence presented supports
each argument, but the
each argument.
explanation are not always
 Each opposing argument is
clear and thorough.
supported by evidence that is
 Evidence for opposing
mostly clear and wellarguments is not consistently
connected.
introduced or critiqued.
 Clear, thoughtful, and mostly  Clear and thoughtful response
precise explanation for the lack
to the opposing argument may
of persuasiveness in each
reference, but does not always
opposing argument’s evidence.
specify, evidence.
Counter-evidence may be
introduced.
 Organizing idea, thesis, or
question is not clear.
 Arguments lack coherence
and/or clarity
 Arguments opposing the
organizing idea/thesis are
either missing or not clearly
presented.
 Clear introduction presents
thesis in an engaging manner.
 Each argument presented
supports an overall structure
 Usually uses effective
transitions to connect ideas and
arguments, leading to a
persuasive conclusion.
 Distinct conclusion partly
synthesizes, but mostly represents the major arguments
to support idea/general thesis
 Introduction and the thesis it
contains are not clear.
 Arguments presented are not
clearly or supportively
connected to the overall
structure
 Transitions between arguments
are largely unclear.
 Conclusion is either vague or
unclear and poorly connected
to the paper’s major arguments.
 Mostly clear introduction
presents thesis in a coherent,
comprehensible manner.
 Most arguments presented in
clearly support the overall
structure.
 Transitions are sometimes
abrupt but the arguments and
conclusion mostly connect.
 Conclusion represents major
arguments and connects them
to thesis; some synthesis.
 Supporting arguments lack
clear, persuasive, or relevant
supporting evidence.
 Quotations and paraphrasing
are inappropriately used to
support arguments
 No explanation or analysis of
how or why the evidence
supports each argument.
 Evidence supporting opposing
arguments is either missing or
poorly integrated.
 Response to opposing
argument is general and not
based on an analysis of
evidence.
Performance Indicators
Understanding of
Implications and Context
Strong, Engaged Student
Voice
Conventions
External Assessment and
Validation
Outstanding
Good
 Arguments, ideas, and voice
 Arguments and ideas, and
reflect a highly informed
voice reflect a somewhat
awareness of the larger
informed awareness of the
historical, political, or
larger historical, political, or
cultural context surrounding
cultural context surrounding
questions addressed in the
questions addressed in the
paper.
paper.
 Broader implications of the
 Some broader implication of
central arguments are presented
the central argument is
and thoroughly explored.
presented and explored.
 Confident, highly fluid writing  Confident writing style is
style is evident; writes with
evident; writes with engaging,
lively, engaging, articulate
mostly articulate language that
language that yields wellyields developed and original
developed, original ideas and
ideas and some new
new understanding. Paper has
understanding. Paper has an
distinct, individual identity that
individual identity that
manifests itself throughout.
manifests itself at important
points in the text.
 Grammar and punctuation
 Grammar and punctuation
nearly flawless.
mostly correct.
 Appropriate and accessible
 Appropriate and accessible
documentation of sources
documentation of sources
(complete, well-organized
(complete, well-organized
bibliography and citations).
bibliography and citations)
Competent
Needs Revision
 Arguments, ideas, and voice
 Arguments, ideas and voice
reflect a very general,
reflect almost no awareness of
somewhat less informed
the larger historical, political,
awareness of the larger
or cultural context surrounding
historical, political, or cultural
the questions addressed in the
context surrounding questions
paper.
addressed in the paper
 The broader implications of the
 The broader implications of the
central argument are neither
central argument are alluded to
presented nor explored.
but not necessarily explored.
 Engaged but somewhat
 Awkward, wooden, or
tentative or basic writing style;
confusing writing style: student
writes clearly but language is
voice is buried at best; writing
such that original ideas are not
is disorganized and ideas in
fully expressed or developed.
general are poorly expressed.
Paper has clear viewpoint but
Viewpoint is obscured or
lacks persuasive conviction.
inhibited by the writing.
 Grammar and punctuation
sometimes flawed, but not in a
manner that undermines the
coherence and clarity of the
paper’s ideas.
 Accessible, complete but
somewhat imprecise
bibliography and citations
 Communicates clear
 Communicates clear
 Communicates a mostly clear
understanding of the paper’s
understanding of the paper’s
and basic understanding of the
ideas and arguments in an
ideas and arguments in an
paper’s ideas and arguments in
appropriate, consistently
appropriate, sometimes
an appropriate, thoughtful
sophisticated way that
sophisticated way that
though not necessarily
demonstrates ownership to
demonstrates ownership to
sophisticated manner to
assessors.
assessors.
examiners.
 Presentation and response to
 Presentation and response to
 Presentation and response to
questions reflect the coherence
questions reflect the coherence
questions may not fully reflect
and depth of the paper.
and depth of the paper.
the coherence and depth of the
 Answers questions accurately,  Answers questions accurately,
paper, but they are nevertheless
thoughtfully, and effectively,
thoughtfully, and effectively,
clear and thoughtful.
developing new ideas when
developing new ideas when
 Answers to questions are
they are appropriate. Presents
they are appropriate.
mostly accurate, thoughtful,
relevant evidence that may not
and effective.
have appeared in the paper.
 Consistently defective
grammar and punctuation
 Inappropriate and/or mistaken
documentation of sources
(poorly organized, incomplete
bibliography and citations).
 Fails to communicate a clear
and basic understanding of the
paper’s ideas and arguments in
an appropriate, thoughtful
manner.
 Presentation and response to
questions reflects the
incoherence and general
weakness of the paper.
 Answers questions
superficially, inappropriately,
or incorrectly.