Corrections of paper mechanics, grammar, and spelling

Peer-editor Rubric for instructor assessment of Peer-editing assignments HLTH 698

CriteriaNovice0-3 pointsCompetent4 pointsProficient5 points
Use of Comment functionThe student made inadequate use of the Comment function of the Review tab of Word.The student underutilized the Comment function of Review tab of Word.The student Peer-Editor appropriately used the Comment function to provide critiques and feedback.
CriteriaNovice0-3 pointsCompetent4 pointsProficient5 points
Use of the Track Changes featureThe student made inadequate use of the Track Changes function of the Review tab of Word.The student underutilized the Track Changes function of Review tab of Word.The student Peer-Editor appropriately used both the Track Changes function to provide corrections to grammar, spelling and general paper mechanics.
CriteriaNovice0-3 pointsCompetent4 pointsProficient5 points
Use of peer-editor rubricThe rubric was either missing or not utilized adequately to assess the paper.The rubric was attached but not fully utilized to provide a grade.The appropriate Peer-Editor rubric was attached and used to assess the submitted paper.
CriteriaNovice0-15 pointsCompetent16-18 pointsProficient19-20 points
Corrections of paper mechanics, grammar, and spellingMuch greater editorial effort is needed to find significant errors in the mechanics, grammar, and spelling. The corrections offered will not adequately improve the paper much toward the profession standard.Many of the mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper were identified and corrected to provide the author of the paper opportunities for improvement in writing skills.A thorough edit of the paper found and corrected the majority of mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper. In situations where recurring errors of the same type are made it is appropriate to fix the first few and provide a comment stating the presence of similar errors throughout the paper to alert the peer of the need for continuing revisions. The quality of the edits are sufficient to improve the overall professionalism of the peer’s paper.
CriteriaNovice0-7 pointsCompetent8-9 pointsProficient10 points
Insightful comments/feedbackThe provided helpful by the Peer-Editor could be improved. The comments provided could be more constructive in nature and lack the insight needed to improve the writing skills or the peer.The Peer-Editor provided feedback to his/her peer when appropriate. The comments provided generally constructive insights to promote a more professional writing style.The Peer-Editor provided helpful positive and negative feedback to his/her peer when appropriate. The comments provided consistently constructive insights to promote a more professional writing style.
CriteriaNovice0-3 pointsCompetent4 pointsProficient5 p