Geology 101 - PAPER GRADING

Grading of your paper will be based on:

1. The quality of the research. This is judged by the nature and adequacy of the references. An excellent paper will use at least 4 different and relevant primary references, some or all of which are from journal or magazine articles (i.e. not just web pages).

• Secondary sources such as encyclopedia articles may be useful to get an overview of the subject but should not be the main source of information.
• Newspaper articles are useful to indicate relevance of the topic but the information in the article must be supported from a primary source (an actual interview, a peer reviewed journal article, etc.).
• Information from Web pages must be verifiable by other means. It is best to use only web pages from a reputable organization (for example the U.S. Geological Survey) or individual who works for such an organization (for example a faculty member at a university).

1. The content of the paper. Your writing must give evidence that you understand the problem. It will be evaluated on the way the problem or issue that is the focus of the paper is presented and discussed or explained.
2. Writing organization and style. Refer to the specific guidelines. You may also want to check out the suggestions for paper writing.
3. The quality or caliber of the science presented. Superficial summaries of simple topics will receive less credit than papers that identify an interesting topic or issue and evaluate and discuss that topic based on information obtained from reading or direct personal investigation and research.

Specifics of grading scheme for papers

4.0 The topic was well researched, with a number of sources that go beyond the most trivial and obvious such as encyclopedia articles, the text, overview web sites. Clearly written with a minimum of typographical and grammatical errors. Carefully and clearly cites the references in the text. Figures referred to in the text so the reader knows to turn to them when appropriate. Gives references for figures and includes figure captions.

3.7 As above but not as well written. Fewer sources, more paraphrasing. May have omitted key parts such as page numbers, an abstract, a map, figure captions.

3.3 May cite fewer sources, and may be somewhat narrow in scope. Writing is clear and easy to follow and most factual details are correct.

3.0 The paper appears more superficial. The topics discussed are not connected to each other. There is no significant geological explanation of the features described or the description suggests the issues are not well understood. Organization not as good. There may be factual errors.

2.7 Similar to 3.0 but writing is less clear. Grammar and style need some attention.

2.3 Paper does not illustrate a good understanding of the topic. It may make a number of generalizations without backing them up with evidence. Few sources and these are of a very general nature as opposed to relating to the geological details of the topic.

2.0 Looks rushed, poorly written and poorly proofread. Relies on only a few sources and treats the material very superficially. Still there is an indication that the author has an idea of the issues involved.

1.7 and below. As with 2.0 but the author appears not to have found out or not to understand the geological issues involved. Apparently thrown together at the last moment with little thought or written with very little attention.