Skip to ContentGo to accessibility pageKeyboard shortcuts menu
OpenStax Logo
Writing Guide with Handbook

12.7 Evaluation: Effectiveness of Research Paper

Writing Guide with Handbook12.7 Evaluation: Effectiveness of Research Paper

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

  • Identify common formats and design features for different kinds of texts.
  • Implement style and language consistent with argumentative research writing while maintaining your own voice.
  • Determine how genre conventions for structure, paragraphing, tone, and mechanics vary.

When drafting, you follow your strongest research interests and try to answer the question on which you have settled. However, sometimes what began as a paper about one thing becomes a paper about something else. Your peer review partner will have helped you identify any such issues and given you some insight regarding revision. Another strategy is to compare and contrast your draft with the grading rubric similar to one your instructor will use. It is a good idea to consult this rubric frequently throughout the drafting process.

Rubric

Score Critical Language Awareness Clarity and Coherence Rhetorical Choices

5

Skillful

 The text always adheres to the “Editing Focus” of this chapter: integrating sources and quotations appropriately as discussed in Section 12.6. The text also shows ample evidence of the writer’s intent to consciously meet or challenge conventional expectations in rhetorically effective ways. The writer’s position or claim on a debatable issue is stated clearly in the thesis and expertly supported with credible researched evidence. Ideas are clearly presented in well-developed paragraphs with clear topic sentences and relate directly to the thesis. Headings and subheadings clarify organization, and appropriate transitions link ideas. The writer maintains an objective voice in a paper that reflects an admirable balance of source information, analysis, synthesis, and original thought. Quotations function appropriately as support and are thoughtfully edited to reveal their main points. The writer fully addresses counterclaims and is consistently aware of the audience in terms of language use and background information presented.

4

Accomplished

 The text usually adheres to the “Editing Focus” of this chapter: integrating sources and quotations appropriately as discussed in Section 12.6. The text also shows some evidence of the writer’s intent to consciously meet or challenge conventional expectations in rhetorically effective ways. The writer’s position or claim on a debatable issue is stated clearly in the thesis and supported with credible researched evidence. Ideas are clearly presented in well-developed paragraphs with topic sentences and usually relate directly to the thesis. Some headings and subheadings clarify organization, and sufficient transitions link ideas. The writer maintains an objective voice in a paper that reflects a balance of source information, analysis, synthesis, and original thought. Quotations usually function as support, and most are edited to reveal their main points. The writer usually addresses counterclaims and is aware of the audience in terms of language use and background information presented.

3

Capable

 The text generally adheres to the “Editing Focus” of this chapter: integrating sources and quotations appropriately as discussed in Section 12.6. The text also shows limited evidence of the writer’s intent to consciously meet or challenge conventional expectations in rhetorically effective ways. The writer’s position or claim on a debatable issue is stated in the thesis and generally supported with some credible researched evidence. Ideas are presented in moderately developed paragraphs. Most, if not all, have topic sentences and relate to the thesis. Some headings and subheadings may clarify organization, but their use may be inconsistent, inappropriate, or insufficient. More transitions would improve coherence. The writer generally maintains an objective voice in a paper that reflects some balance of source information, analysis, synthesis, and original thought, although imbalance may well be present. Quotations generally function as support, but some are not edited to reveal their main points. The writer may attempt to address counterclaims but may be inconsistent in awareness of the audience in terms of language use and background information presented.

2

Developing

 The text occasionally adheres to the “Editing Focus” of this chapter: integrating sources and quotations appropriately as discussed in Section 12.6. The text also shows emerging evidence of the writer’s intent to consciously meet or challenge conventional expectations in rhetorically effective ways. The writer’s position or claim on a debatable issue is not clearly stated in the thesis, nor is it sufficiently supported with credible researched evidence. Some ideas are presented in paragraphs, but they are unrelated to the thesis. Some headings and subheadings may clarify organization, while others may not; transitions are either inappropriate or insufficient to link ideas. The writer sometimes maintains an objective voice in a paper that lacks a balance of source information, analysis, synthesis, and original thought. Quotations usually do not function as support, often replacing the writer’s ideas or are not edited to reveal their main points. Counterclaims are addressed haphazardly or ignored. The writer shows inconsistency in awareness of the audience in terms of language use and background information presented.

1

Beginning

 The text does not adhere to the “Editing Focus” of this chapter: integrating sources and quotations appropriately as discussed in Section 12.6. The text also shows little to no evidence of the writer’s intent to consciously meet or challenge conventional expectations in rhetorically effective ways. The writer’s position or claim on a debatable issue is neither clearly stated in the thesis nor sufficiently supported with credible researched evidence. Some ideas are presented in paragraphs. Few, if any, have topic sentences, and they barely relate to the thesis. Headings and subheadings are either missing or unhelpful as organizational tools. Transitions generally are missing or inappropriate. The writer does not maintain an objective voice in a paper that reflects little to no balance of source information, analysis, synthesis, and original thought. Quotations may function as support, but most are not edited to reveal their main points. The writer may attempt to address counterclaims and may be inconsistent in awareness of the audience in terms of language use and background information presented.
Table 12.8
PreviousNext
Order a print copy

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Citation/Attribution

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Attribution information
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:
    Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a digital format, then you must include on every digital page view the following attribution:
    Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
Citation information

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.