Write an Op-ed paper

The approach to the assigned topic of study is insightful, and/or creative, persuasive, unique, and worth developing; the level of thinking/analysis is strong; the ideas are clearly communicated with focus and specificity; the topic is considered/addressed from several facets or perspectives; the writer understands discipline-specific methods for producing knowledge; the content is tailored to the disciplinary audience.

The approach is acceptable, reasonable, thoughtful; the level of thinking/analysis is appropriate; the ideas offered are generally specific and focused, some are insightful, usually communicated clearly; the writer shows an awareness of other facets or perspectives; the writer seems to understand the disciplinary discourse and has taken some care in including content appropriate to the disciplinary audience.

The approach is occasionally adequate; some evidence of thinking/analysis, or an attempt at analysis, is evident; the ideas offered are intermittently delineated, thought-through, and appropriate to the task; the writer attempts to show awareness of at least one other facet or perspective; the writer sporadically shows awareness of the disciplinary discourse and includes content that is relevant to the disciplinary audience.

The approach is inadequate or confusing; little or no evidence of critical thinking and analysis are evident; although some of the ideas may be worthwhile, the level of insight and clarity of presentation are lacking; the writer does not take into account other facets or perspectives, or does so in an inappropriate or simplistic manner; the thinking lacks focus and clarity, illustrates misconceptions; little or no evidence of awareness of the disciplinary audience.

Uses evidence/sources appropriately and effectively, with a clear understanding of the disciplinary audience’s expectations; evidence/sources, including data tables or other visuals, are clearly and accurately represented and smoothly integrated into writer’s argument/purpose

Generally uses evidence/sources appropriately and effectively, with understanding of the disciplinary audience’s expectations; shows awareness (if appropriate) of the previous knowledge generated within the discipline (e.g., literature review); evidence/sources used generally contribute to the overall argument/purpose of the writer; evidence/sources are usually represented accurately and with clarity; evidence/sources, including data tables or other visuals, are often well integrated into writer’s argument/purpose (writer controls the ideas, the sources do not).

Evidence/sources have occasionally been used appropriately, and intermittently further the writer’s purpose/argument; some evidence of disciplinary expectations for sources/research are evident; evidence/sources are presented with some degree of clarity, with some misreading or simplistic reading; the evidence/sources, including data tables or other visuals, may overwhelm the writer’s own voice and purpose; evidence/sources are inconsistently integrated into the prose.

Evidence/sources, if present at all, are used inappropriately, simplistically, or misreading is evident; the writing shows little or no evidence of the writer’s understanding of the discipline’s expectations for presenting evidence and using sources; evidence/sources, including data tables or other visuals, are mismatched with the writer’s purpose within the prose.

the organization is apparent, coherent, and contributes to the overall goals; the insightful, specific, focused development of the main purpose is effectively organized in sections; the reader is effortlessly guided through the writer’s chain of reasoning or progression of ideas

The prose generally illustrates the writer’s understanding of the genre/discipline’s methods of organizing written discourse; the organization is usually apparent, coherent, and contributes to the overall goals; the development of ideas is generally insightful, specific and focused, following a logical progression; appropriate transitions connect the ideas and show relations between them; the reader is guided through the writer’s chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.

The op-ed shows some of the writer’s understanding in how to develop an argument/support a key point; the development of ideas is somewhat insightful, specific, focused, and logical; ; the reader can occasionally follow the writer’s chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.

The op-ed piece does not clearly illustrate the writer’s understanding of the methods of organizing an op-ed piece; organization is random, simplistic or inappropriately sequential, and rarely (if ever) contributes to the overall goals; little or no development of ideas is evident, with limited insight, focus or logic; the writing has little or no internal coherence; the reader has difficulty following the writer’s chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.

The writing is styled and eloquent, with an easy flow, rhythm, and cadence; writing is clear and comprehensible to a general audience; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, and usage) enhance overall readability and purpose; writing free of errors, evidence of careful editing and proofreading.

The writing is generally appropriately styled and has a flow, rhythm, and cadence; sentences are purposeful and varied in structure; sentences and paragraphing typically show appropriate use of rhetorical, disciplinary, or generic conventions; the writer generally chooses words for their precise meanings and uses an appropriate level of specificity, illustrating his/her understanding of the discipline’s discourse; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and paragraphing) contribute to overall purpose; writing is almost free of errors, with evidence of editing and proofreading; limited errors do not detract from readability. Correct and appropriate use of citation methods for the discipline and genre.

The writing shows some styling and eloquence; writing is somewhat clear and comprehensible to a general audience; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage) enhance overall readability and purpose; writing has spelling or grammatical errors, but they don’t interfere with the comprehensibility of the paper.

The writing shows limited styling and eloquence; writing is unclear for a general audience; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage) interfere with overall readability and purpose; writing has numerous spelling or grammatical errors

All sources are cited using APA format

Some sources, but not all, have been cited. APA format hasn’t been used.

No sources are cited