Neuroscience Writing Practicum Evaluation Rubric
Points for Evaluation
Writing -- adheres to the
provided guidelines for clear
writing.
In A/B Papers:
Entire paper demonstrates
application of 8 guidelines for
clear writing.
In B/C Papers:
Most of the paper demonstrates
application of 8 guidelines for
clear writing.
In D/F Papers:
Paper does not demonstrate
understanding of 8 guidelines for
clear writing and does not apply
them.
Topics are grammatical sentence
subjects, verbs are active,
language is concise and never
wordy or labored.
Topics are grammatical sentence
subjects, verbs are active,
language is clear.
Organization – adheres to
structural requirements.
Entire paper demonstrates
adherence to required structure
and the content is coherently
arranged within that structure.
Most of the paper demonstrates
adherence to required structure
and the content is mainly
coherent within that structure.
Paper does not adhere to the
required structure nor does it
follow content guidelines for
each section.
Content – topic, focus and
content are coherent and clear
within the structure.
The writer demonstrates control
because the reader moves
comfortably and interestedly
through the content without
really noticing the structure.
The writer demonstrates some
control: the structure is strong
enough to move the reader
through the text.
The writer demonstrates lack of
control: the structure and
content do not help each other.
Facts, ideas and information
seem strung together in random
fashion.
Sentence Fluency
Writing is fluid, has rhythm and
cadence, it is pleasurable and
easy to read aloud.
Writing is functional, more
mechanical than rhythmic.
Writing does not flow and is
dissonant.
Sentences are correctly
constructed and pronouns are
Sentences are so poorly
constructed that meaning is
It is hard to figure out the topic
of the sentence; subjects are
buried or elliptical and verbs are
weak.
The writer provides adequate
Ideas and information build
amounts of relevant information.
sequentially; nothing necessary is
Irrelevant information is
omitted and nothing unnecessary
included; necessary information
is included.
is omitted.
Sentences are correctly and
1
Neuroscience Writing Practicum Evaluation Rubric
skillfully designed and pronouns
are used correctly.
usually used correctly.
Connections and transitions are
mostly clear and functional.
Connections and transitions
seem natural and helpful.
Sentences proceed logically.
Sentences proceed logically and
build meaning naturally.
Word Choice
Sentences tend to be of similar
structure, length and type.
A variety of long and short
sentences of all types are used
appropriately and with skill and
flair.
Words convey intended meaning
in a precise, natural and
interesting way.
Words are specific and accurate;
language is clear and original
where appropriate but never
overdone or incorrect.
Use of active verbs wherever
possible energizes the writing;
precise nouns and descriptive
modifiers convey the meaning.
impenetrable; improper use of
pronouns, transitions and
connections hinder, rather than
help, meaning.
Sentences do not proceed
logically.
Language is functional and
conventional but not particularly
interesting. However, the
meaning is clear.
Writer struggles with a limited
vocabulary and relies on clichés
and jargon in the hope of
sounding knowledgeable.
Words are adequate and correct
but predictable and lack
originality.
Words are used incorrectly and
major grammatical errors are
repeated.
Attempts at color come close
Overuse of passives combined
but do not quite work; they seem with labored sentence
contrived and overdone.
construction forces the reader to
work hard to ascertain even the
Overuse of passive construction general gist of what the writer is
and nominalization instead of
trying to convey.
active construction and strong
verbs.
2
Neuroscience Writing Practicum Evaluation Rubric
Use of Standard Written
English
Command of standard written
English is impeccable.
Use of standard written English
is acceptable.
Introduction
Introduction reflects the title
and draws the reader in by
logically and smoothly moving
from the general to the specific
and creating a sense of
anticipation and eagerness to
read;
Introduction provides context
and background by including
only those facts and figures most
relevant to the focus of the
paper;
Introduction provides a primer
to help the reader appreciate the
significance and relevance of
common aspects of subsequent
literature review.
Introduction seamlessly moves
from the general to the specific
by concluding with clear
transition sentence(s) that
outline the scope and focus of
the subsequent literature review.
Subtitles adequately signal
content and relationship to focus
of the paper; the text below
flows logically and provides
context and lead-in for each
study or experiment
Introduction contains all the
necessary information but is
disorganized; and/or it may not
provide enough background and
context or it provides too many
irrelevant details;
Introduction may be adequate
but fails to ignite the reader’s
interest and sense of
anticipation;
Introduction does not provide
an adequate primer to help the
reader recognize the significance
and relevance of the subsequent
literature review.
Introduction does provide a
basic transition between it and
the body and focus of the paper.
Body of Paper: Logically
Titled Subsections
Subtitles do not adequately
describe connection to paper’s
title and/or content described
within; experiments and studies
are not properly introduced,
named and contextualized; too
3
The writer does not use standard
written English either through
lack of skill or lack of care.
Introduction lacks clarity and
focus; it appears an almost
random collection of
disorganized information and
includes repetition and
redundancy.
Introduction fails to perform its
most basic function of framing
and focusing the paper;
Introduction provides no
context or inadequate or
irrelevant context;
Introduction appears as a litany
of unrelated facts and skips
about between topics.
Introduction fails to provide a
transition between introduction
and subsections outlining
direction of the paper.
Subtitles are not original and do
not bridge the gap between the
emphasis of the original research
and why you are reviewing it in
your paper. Content under the
subtitle does not provide enough
Neuroscience Writing Practicum Evaluation Rubric
discussed;
Discussion
Conclusion
Explanations of experiments and
studies provide exactly the right
amount of detail for the purpose
at hand.
Discussion provides lively and
original synthesis of facts
presented and sensibly
contextualizes them within the
body of knowledge of the
subject matter as previously
outlined in the introduction;
Discussion clearly articulates
logical next steps based on the
literature just reviewed and
suggests an additional study or
experiment to clarify a specific
question;
Discussion clearly demonstrates
a broad conceptual
understanding of the topic in
general and the nature of
scientific inquiry in particular.
Conclusion clearly synopsizes
the “where we are now” of the
topic and reiterates the “next
logical steps” aspect of the
research at hand;
Conclusion provides a neat
return from the specific to the
general, in some ways a mirror
4
much or too little detail is
provided about them.
background to contextualize the
hypothesis, method and results
of the study/experiment.
Discussion does not provide
synthesis or context and instead
sequentially reiterates what has
already been stated.
Discussion does not suggest
logical next steps for a particular
aspect of topic/experiment;
Discussion does not suggest a
specific study/experiment to
clarify topic and hence does not
demonstrate conceptual
understanding of the topic.
Discussion is a repetitive and
boring litany of what has already
been stated. No sensible or
interesting inferences are drawn.
Discussion pointlessly repeats
or jarringly contradicts
information already presented in
the introduction. Entirely new
or divergent points and/or
information are inappropriately
and confusingly introduced.
Discussion does not
demonstrate any ability to
synthesize, contextualize or
conceptualize materials
presented.
Conclusion is adequate but may
not clearly signal the elements in
the left adjacent column.
Conclusion contains pointless
and/or banal general
observations such as “a cure for
cancer will prevent many
deaths.”
Conclusion does not conclude
the topic at hand and even offers
entirely new and unsupported
claims.
Conclusion is illogical and/or
inappropriate.
Conclusion contains clichés,
unsupported generalities and/or
Neuroscience Writing Practicum Evaluation Rubric
References
Overall effect of the paper
of the introduction.
Conclusion avoids clichés,
generalities and banalities.
References appear within the
paper as numbered superscripts
at the end of each sentence that
reports a fact or assertion
attributable to the work of other
scientists. Numbered references
within the text correspond to the
numbered reference list which
appears on the last page of the
paper. References are formatted
to include at a minimum the
author(s), date, publication
names and relevant page
numbers.
Web references include ONLY
the main website address and the
date on which you accessed the
information. DO NOT include
long lines of code.
References are compiled using
software such as Endnote or
RefWorks.
All of the above elements work
so smoothly that reader is free to
be fascinated, absorbed and
engaged with the content.
banalities.
5
References are not fully correct
per left adjacent column.
References are incorrect,
inconsistent, absent, or
incomplete.
The reader may be interested but
writing and structure can be a
distraction from the content at
times.
The reader cannot engage with
the content and is annoyed and
frustrated.