Economics
Commentary Rubric
Sept. 2004
|
Points Earned |
2-3 |
4 |
5 |
Score |
|
Organization
& Presentation |
Commentary is significantly over/under required word count. Article is not attached or cited properly. |
Commentary is within 10% of word count or does not identify word count. Article may not be attached or cited properly. |
Commentary is typed (DS) is between 350-450 words with word count noted on page. Article is attached and cited in proper format. |
|
|
Points Earned |
5-6 |
7-8 |
9-10 |
|
|
Economic
Terminology |
Economic terminology is not used or used ineffectively. Important terms are not defined. |
An attempt has been made to use economic terminology but some terms may be used inappropriately. Some definitions are included but may not be accurate or the terms selected do not help the reader understand the specific economic theory examined. |
Important economic terminology is used effectively and appropriately. Two to five economic terms are defined. Terms defined are selected to help the reader understand the economic theory being discussed. |
|
|
Points Earned |
12-14 |
15-17 |
18-20 |
|
|
Applying
Economic Theory |
Commentary does not establish a link between theory and the example found in the article. Graph is missing or is inappropriate for this example. |
Both economic theory and examples from the articles are discussed, but the link between them may not be clearly established or explained. Graph may be included but may be mislabeled or not effectively discussed. |
Issues found in the article are used to clearly illustrate the economic theory being discussed. Theory and examples are skillfully integrated to create one single narrative. A graph is included and discussed to help the reader understand how your article illustrates the economic theory. |
|
|
Points Earned |
2-3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Critical
Reasoning |
Little or no attempt has been made to critically examine the author's analysis or the economic issues discussed in the article. |
Writing does raise an alternative economic view but theory may be misapplied or not adequately explained. |
Author’s views are effectively evaluated or critiqued. Student may offer an alternative economic analysis than that raised in the original article. |
|