STAF_RFP_Attachment_9jTechnical Exhibit USAICoE Writing Standards - Analytic Rubric 011.pdf
PDF 781 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-20-R-0004
About this file
This document contains an analytic rubric and holistic scoring guide for evaluating writing standards at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence. The rubric provides behavioral anchors to assess writing on criteria such as analysis, purpose, voice, concision and accuracy at various competency levels ranging from advanced to inadequate. A companion holistic scoring guide describes typical indicators for each competency level across all assessed categories. The document appears to be an internal template for evaluating writing rather than a solicitation for products or services.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
US Army Intelligence Center of Excellence Writing Standards – Analytic Rubric
Analytic Rubric with Behavioral Anchors*
*Rubric Developed By USAICoE Teaching, Learning, and Technology Division
Rubric Overview: Below, each USAICoE criterion has been broken down into levels using behavioral anchors. Many of these categories have overlapping features. For example, demonstrating an argumentative main point is an indicator of strong analysis; similarly, using short, reader-friendly words is a matter of concision but also academic style.
USAICoE Criteria
6 - Advanced 5 - Proficient 4 – Competent 3 – Developing 2 - Inexperienced 1 - Inadequate
Analysis:
Argument Based on Evidence
Argument is issue-focused and analyzes fact/primary sources (roughly 90% analysis and 10% summary/paraphrase)
Argument is issue-focused and analyzes fact/primary sources (roughly 80% analysis and 20% summary/paraphrase)
Argument is issue-focused and analyzes fact/primary sources; paper is between
50 -75% analysis
Argument is issue-focused and analyzes fact/primary sources; paper is roughly
50% analysis, 50% summary/paraphrase
No argument -- paper relies on opinion or speculation instead of analysis (75%);
summarizes secondary sources (10-25%)
No argument -- nearly 100% of the paper is either opinion/speculation or a summary/paraphrase of secondary sources
Purpose:
“Bottom Line Up Front”
Main point is located within the top 2% of the document1
Main point is located in the top 5% of the document
Main point is located in the top 10% of the document
Main point is located in the conclusion, rather than the introduction
Main point is in the middle of the document2
No main point included, or main point is too broad/vague to be recognized
Voice:
Passive or
Active
Uses active voice throughout the paper, only uses passive voice when deliberately stressing the receiver of the action over the doer. Rarely (0-5% of the paper) uses passive voice
Paper employs passive voice less than 10% of the paper and only uses passive voice to clarify the receiver of the action when the subject is known
Paper employs passive voice in less than 25% of the paper; while occasionally distracting, passive voice is necessary to clarify the receiver of the action
Paper displays active voice for less than 50% of the paper; however, there are 3 or more passive instances where active voice is more appropriate
Paper employs passive voice in excess of 75% of the paper; additionally, there are 5 or more passive instances where active voice is more appropriate
Paper fluctuates between passive and active voice throughout without apparent reason or control
Concision:
Keeping
Everything as Short as Possible
All written units (words, sentences, bullet points or paragraphs3) are lean4
One written unit exceeds the proscribed length
Two written units exceed the proscribed length
Three written units exceed the proscribed length
Four written units exceed the proscribed length
Five or more written units exceed the proscribed length
Accuracy:
Reducing Reader
Distractions
Uses standard written English and the conventions of proper spelling, punctuation, grammar, mechanics, and citation without visible mistakes5
Between 1-2 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, mechanics; no errors in citation6
Between 3-4 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or mechanics; no errors in citation
Less than 4 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or mechanics that could have been corrected in proofreading;7 no errors in citation
5 or more errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, or mechanics; 1- 2 mistakes in citation formatting or a single, major mistake8
In excess of 6 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or mechanics; 3 or more mistakes in citation formatting or more than one major mistake
1 This varies by the appropriate convention; for example, a memo or email should include the main point as the first line, whereas an argumentative essay includes it after a short introduction to begin the analysis paragraphs. The clarity of the document’s purpose should defer to the Analysis portion of the assessment, as establishing a document’s “bottom line” requires analytical reasoning.
2 Intermediate writers will generally arrive at conclusions near the end of paragraphs and essays, rather than recognize their conclusion to place earlier in the document. Developmental writers may not have or recognize the main point until the middle of the document, using the final paragraphs and conclusion to support the point rather than draw conclusions.
3 Not all assignments require paragraphs; for this requirement, the principle governs the practice. For whatever written units are required, the student should keep the writing as lean as possible.
4 Determine appropriate length (leanness) by convention; for example, paragraphs are no more than 10 lines for correspondence or 22 lines for academic essays 5 At this level, some stylistic choices may appear to be “errors” at first glance; for example, using passive voice may be appropriate when the “doer” of action is unknown.
6 Count the number of errors by patterns, not instances. For example, misusing commas ten times still counts as a single error, because the multiple instances show a single pattern.
7 For example, the writer displays the convention correctly at times and incorrectly at others – indicating that the author understands the rules but does not apply them uniformly.
8 Major mistakes put the writer’s academic integrity in jeopardy; for example, missing an entire entry on the bibliography or using a “dropped” quote raises questions of plagiarism or gross carelessness. Minor mistakes damage the author’s credibility; these include any formatting error that does not omit, obscure, or ignore authorship and publication information.
US Army Intelligence Center of Excellence Writing Standards – Analytic Rubric
Analytic Rubric with Behavioral Anchors*
*Rubric Developed By USAICoE Teaching, Learning, and Technology Division
Holistic Scoring Guide: Below is the holistic companion to the Analytic Rubric. Each level contains a holistic description for each category along with some typical level-appropriate behavioral indicators. Please note that the list of behavioral indicators for each category is not comprehensive.
6 - Advanced
In addition to the “Proficient” criteria, “Advanced” writing shows clear and consistent mastery of the standards and techniques. Work product is high quality, completely error-free, and generally exceeds all requirements.
Behavioral indicators include:
90 – 100% of the document reflects the overall purpose, minus minimal deviations to quote arguments from primary sources.
Title incorporates the argument or report issue, using key words defined in the paper.
5 - Proficient
Demonstrates the Army writing standard or technique accurately and efficiently. Work product is high quality, nearly error-free – except for minor or debatable mistakes – and addresses the issues of the assignment.
Behavioral indicators include:
Strong analytical reasoning or organization; for arguments, this demonstrates a thorough understanding of all sides of an issue without losing focus of the paper’s argument.
Varied word choice, grammatical constructions, and sentence structure (as appropriate).
Vocabulary appropriate for audience and technical information.
4 – Competent
Fully qualified in the Army writing standard or technique with reliable execution. Work product achieves requirements with less than 3-4 minor errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or mechanics.
Behavioral indicators include:
Establishes a single, sustained focus throughout with logical flow and transitions.
All of the information supports the main idea
Vocabulary appropriate for audience and technical information
3 – Developing
Demonstrates the Army writing standard or technique, though performance may be inconsistent throughout the document. Work product has clean formatting, but the content needs additional development to maintain argument or content focus.
Behavioral indicators include:
Commits several stylistic, rather than grammatical errors (e.g. sentences are grammatically correct, but could be more concise; author uses passive voice correctly, but could rewrite the sentence more clearly in active voice).
A pattern of sloppy execution – usually no more than 2-3 errors executed correctly in parts of the assignment and incorrectly in others.
2 - Inexperienced
Attempts, but does not correctly demonstrate the Army writing standard or technique. Work product shows deviation from the assignment requirements or inability to achieve them between 50-75% of the paper content.
Behavioral indicators include:
Excessive -- but consistent -- errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting or citation.
Missing or does not execute key concepts; for example, relying on opinion and summary rather than analysis in an argument.
1 - Inadequate
In addition to the “Inexperienced” criteria, “Inadequate” writing fails to demonstrate the Army writing standard or technique.
Behavioral indicators include:
Disorganized, erratic errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting or citation.
Internal paragraph or sentence structures lack coherence (for example, switching topics or interjecting new information mid-paragraph, or changing from plural to singular subjects in a sentence)
G o
N
G
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .