Draft Workshop Rubric

(Peer or Instructor Feedback)

Focuses on higher-order concerns (e.g., thesis, organization, and argumentation), using “They Say, I Say” principles to promote clear argumentation and engagement with sources.

Category	Excellent (5)	Proficient (4)	Developing (3)	Needs Improvement (2–1)
Thesis Statement	Clearly responds to “What they say” by presenting a nuanced, arguable thesis (“I say”) that engages the reader.	Thesis is clear and arguable, but it could better connect “They say” to “I say.”	Thesis is present but either does not respond clearly to “They say” or lacks focus in the “I say” portion.	Thesis is unclear, missing, or fails to engage with any identifiable “They say” perspective.
Organization	Ideas flow logically, with transitions that demonstrate a clear connection between “They say” and “I say.”	Generally well-organized, though some transitions between “They say” and “I say” could be smoother.	Organization is uneven, with unclear or missing connections between “They say” and “I say.”	Lacks clear structure; little to no connection between “They say” and “I say” is evident.
Evidence & Support	Effectively introduces “They say” sources and offers insightful “I say” analysis that connects evidence to claims.	Introduces appropriate “They say” sources, though “I say” analysis could be more detailed or persuasive.	Uses some evidence, but the “They say” is underdeveloped or the “I say” weakly connects evidence to claims.	Minimal or no engagement with “They say” sources, or analysis (“I say”) is missing or irrelevant.
Engagement with Feedback	Revises draft meaningfully, responding to “They say” perspectives from peers and instructor feedback.	Revises draft partially; some “They say” feedback is addressed but not fully integrated.	Attempts revisions but with limited attention to “They say” feedback or connections to the thesis.	Minimal evidence of engaging with feedback; draft shows little to no meaningful revision.

Category	Excellent (5)	Proficient (4)	Developing (3)	Needs Improvement (2–1)
Thesis Statement	Clearly responds to “What they say” by presenting a nuanced, arguable thesis (“I say”) that engages the reader.	Thesis is clear and arguable, but it could better connect “They say” to “I say.”	Thesis is present but either does not respond clearly to “They say” or lacks focus in the “I say” portion.	Thesis is unclear, missing, or fails to engage with any identifiable “They say” perspective.
Organization	Ideas flow logically, with transitions that demonstrate a clear connection between “They say” and “I say.”	Generally well-organized, though some transitions between “They say” and “I say” could be smoother.	Organization is uneven, with unclear or missing connections between “They say” and “I say.”	Lacks clear structure; little to no connection between “They say” and “I say” is evident.
Evidence & Support	Effectively introduces “They say” sources and offers insightful “I say” analysis that connects evidence to claims.	Introduces appropriate “They say” sources, though “I say” analysis could be more detailed or persuasive.	Uses some evidence, but the “They say” is underdeveloped or the “I say” weakly connects evidence to claims.	Minimal or no engagement with “They say” sources, or analysis (“I say”) is missing or irrelevant.

---

1. Draft Workshop Rubric (Peer or Instructor Feedback)

Focuses on higher-order concerns (thesis, organization, and argumentation) and provides actionable feedback during workshops.

Category	Excellent (5)	Proficient (4)	Developing (3)	Needs Improvement (2–1)
Thesis Statement	Clearly and concisely presents a compelling, arguable thesis that guides the paper.	Presents an arguable thesis, though it may lack clarity or nuance.	Thesis is present but vague, unclear, or lacks focus.	Thesis is missing, overly general, or does not match the content of the paper.
Organization	Logical, well-structured paper with clear transitions and coherent paragraphs that support the thesis.	Generally well-organized, though transitions or some paragraph focus may be inconsistent.	Organization is present but unclear; some paragraphs may be off-topic or lack transitions.	Lacks clear structure, with disorganized ideas and little to no use of transitions.
Evidence & Support	Provides strong, relevant evidence to support claims, with clear explanations of how evidence relates to the thesis.	Uses appropriate evidence, though explanations of its relevance could be clearer or more detailed.	Includes some evidence, but it may be insufficient, irrelevant, or poorly explained.	Evidence is weak, irrelevant, or missing, with little to no connection to the thesis.
Engagement with Feedback	Addresses feedback thoughtfully and revises meaningfully between drafts.	Partially addresses feedback, but some suggestions are not fully explored.	Attempts to address feedback, though revisions may not significantly improve the draft.	Little evidence of incorporating feedback; draft is nearly identical to earlier versions.