literature analysis essay rubric

• Generating Ideas
• Drafting and Revision
• Sources and Evidence
• Style and Grammar
• Specific to Creative Arts
• Specific to Humanities
• Specific to Sciences
• Specific to Social Sciences
• CVs, Résumés and Cover Letters
• Graduate School Applications
• Other Resources
• Hiatt Career Center
• University Writing Center
• Classroom Materials
• Course and Assignment Design
• UWP Instructor Resources
• Writing Intensive Requirement
• Criteria and Learning Goals
• Course Application for Instructors
• What to Know about UWS
• Teaching Resources for WI
• FAQ for Instructors
• FAQ for Students
• Journals on Writing Research and Pedagogy
• University Writing Program
• Degree Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Brandeis Online
• Summer Programs
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Financial Aid
• Summer School
• Centers and Institutes
• Funding Resources
• Housing/Community Living
• Clubs and Organizations
• Community Service
• Brandeis Arts Engagement
• Rose Art Museum
• Our Jewish Roots
• Mission and Diversity Statements
• Administration
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families
• Campus Calendar
• Directories
• New Students
• Shuttle Schedules
• Support at Brandeis

Writing Resources

Grading rubric for an essay in a literature class.

The A Essay makes an interesting, complex—even surprising—argument and is thoroughly well-executed.   It both engages the text closely and sheds light on relevant contexts (historical, theoretical, or critical).

• Thesis and Motive . The major claim of the essay is complex, insightful, and unexpected.   The thesis responds to a true question, tension or problem.   It is stated clearly at the outset and evolves throughout the paper.   The introduction has a clear motive that outlines the stakes of the argument and demonstrates a meaningful context for the author’s claims. Ideally demonstrates familiarity with current critical conversation on relevant issues.
• Evidence & Analysis . The best available evidence is introduced not only to support but also to challenge and complicate the claims and stakes of the essay. It is often drawn from unexpected places, and its nuances are insightfully explored. The argument is sufficiently complex to require an explanation of how the evidence supports the essay’s claims, and evidence, drawn both from close reading and from contextual research, is used to develop new claims.
• Structure . Ideas develop over the course of the essay so that the foundations established early on push the argument toward a more complex conclusion.   The possibility of other ways of approaching the material is explored, and the validity of other arguments about the material is discussed.

Style . The writing is clear and concise, yet sophisticated, demonstrating sentence variety and appropriate vocabulary.   The essay is a pleasure to read.

Revision . The essay does not simply address the comments of the instructor and peer reviewers, but altogether transforms its ideas or use of evidence from the draft.   It is meticulously proofread.

The high B Essay falls into two categories: 1. aims at making an engaging, complex argument but is hindered by a few local problems with structure, analysis, or style (e.g. wide-ranging but not deep; contextual but not textual); 2. has a simpler argument that is thoroughly well-executed (e.g. close reading is present but contexts are lacking, or alternative viewpoints are not engaged). 

Thesis &  Motive . Either the major claim is clear, arguable, and complex but misses opportunities for nuance or subtlety, or else it set out to explore an ambitious idea whose complexity leads to minor errors in articulation.   The introduction suggests some context or stakes for the argument but does not offer strong motivation, or a convincing motive is gestured at but remains implicit. There is limited or no engagement with current scholarship

Evidence & Analysis . All claims are supported with evidence that is integral to the development of the argument, but the link between claim and evidence may be at times unconvincing, unnuanced, or insufficiently explained. The analysis demonstrates several moments of keen insight but also includes arguments that lack subtlety or are insufficiently explained elsewhere in the essay. Only one possible way of approaching the material is fully explored; other perspectives receive limited attention.

Structure . The argument follows a clear logical arc, but small gaps, digressions, or a lack of transitional language interrupt the flow of ideas in a few places.

Style . The writing is mostly clear but may contain a few confusing sentences or mechanical problems. It is mostly engaging.

Revision . The essay has mostly resolved the major concerns of the reviewers, though a few minor issues remain. It has clearly been proofread.

The B Essay addresses the assignment and demonstrates effort to produce a complex argument. However, the essay is hindered by either a lack of nuance in the thesis or by structural, analytical, or stylistic problems in the execution of its ideas.

Thesis & Motive . Either the major claim is clear and arguable but lacks complexity or else sets out to explore an intriguing idea that has not developed into a specific claim. The introduction either unsuccessfully motivates an unexpected claim or weakly and artificially motivates a claim that does not constitute a significant revision of the status quo . No attention is given to alternative ways to approach the material

Evidence & Analysis . Most ideas are supported with well-chosen evidence that is sometimes explored in an insightful way, although nuances are often neglected. The text is treated as a set of unproblematic statements or observations, rather than grappled with as an aesthetic object.   The evidence is often integral to the development of the argument, although there may be gaps in the explanation of how the evidence supports the essay’s claims.

Structure . The argument is interesting and logical, but the structure of the essay is, at times, confusing. The essay’s claims, while complex, are executed in a confusing sequence, or they seem related to the thesis but have a confusing relationship to one another. Transitional language may be present but is unsuccessful or inconsistent. No evidence of engagement with possible alternative ways of approaching material.

Style . The writing is straightforward, mostly clear, and often engaging, but it contains occasional mechanical problems, confusing sentences, or moments of vagueness.

Revision . The essay attempts to address reviewers concerns but only does so in parts of the essay. The changes in the essay are improvements but may not be global changes. There may be a few lapses in proofreading.

The low B Essay demonstrates an effort to address the assignment, but the argument is ultimately too obvious, undeveloped, or obscured by significant structural, analytical, or stylistic problems.

Thesis & Motive . The major claim is logical and would require some evidence to prove, but the stakes are not as high as they should be. The essay’s major claims are somewhat unclear, unspecific or uninteresting. The introduction lacks a clear motive or contains an unspecific or weak motive; it evidences no encounters with any sort of critical interlocutors.

Evidence & Analysis .  Evidence is usually relevant, but the essay often does not consider the most important evidence or will present multiple examples to demonstrate the same idea. The essay makes some effort to explore the subtleties of the evidence and may be occasionally insightful, but it rarely uses evidence to complicate the argument and develop new claims.

Structure .  The argument mostly makes logical sense, but the structure of the essay is confusing—jumping around, missing transitions, or taking on too many ideas at once. Or, the argument itself may be presented simplistically and repetitively, leading to a predictable structure and unnecessary transitional language.

Style .  Though the writing generally makes sense and there may be moments where the diction is appropriate and elegant, it is weak enough in places to obscure the author’s ideas, often as a result of vagueness, verbosity, awkwardness, or a recurrent mechanical problem.

Revision . The essay is either a C paper (or lower) that has been revised to a low B, or it shows no significant revision.

The C Essay has significant problems with argumentation and/or presentation. 

Thesis & Motive . The major claim of the essay is weak—vague, simple, or obvious.   The essay does not respond to a true question, tension, or problem. The introduction usually has no motive.

Evidence & Analysis . Evidence may be lacking or irrelevant.   Instead of using evidence to develop the argument, examples remain undigested and unexplored. The author may simply summarize and simplify evidence, or present it in a confusing or unhelpful way.

Structure . The argument may be too simple and so does not develop over the course of the essay. Or the argument may be incoherent or too broad, without any clear organization or transitions. There is no sense of encounter with other minds and other perspectives to give relevance and engagement to the writing.

Style . The writing is generally confusing, awkward, or too verbose, and probably exhibits numerous mechanical problems.   Its diction may be inappropriate.

Revision . The essay did not change significantly from the first draft to the final draft.   Either the essay does not adequately address the criticism of peers and instructor, or the author missed opportunities for response.

Not Passing . An essay will not pass if it does not meet the minimum page requirement, does not address the assignment, plagiarizes, or does not meet standards for academic writing or argumentation.

Developed at Brandeis University through a grant from the Davis Educational Foundation

• Resources for Students
• Writing Intensive Instructor Resources
• Research and Pedagogy

Rubric – English Grade 10 Literary Analysis Essay

Privacy Overview

• Learn the Alphabet
• Children's Music
• Video Lessons

AI CONVERSATIONS

• AI Homework & Project Helper
• Interview a Historical Figure
• AI Conversation Practice
• AI Book Chat
• AI Country Guide

AI TOOLS FOR STUDENTS

• AI Dictionary
• AI Thesaurus
• AI Sentence Generator
• AI Grammar Correction
• AI Paraphraser
• AI Summarizer
• AI Lyrics Generator
• AI Poem Generator
• AI Ancient Text Translator
• AI Children's Story Generator
• Role-Play Game: Fantasy Quest
• AI Figure of Speech Generators

AI TOOLS FOR TEACHERS

• AI Rubric Generator
• AI Essay Grader
• AI Prompt Optimizer
• AI Lesson Creator
• AI Lesson Plan Creator
• AI Multiple-Choice Quiz Creator
• AI True-False Quiz Creator
• AI Fill-in-the-Blanks Quiz Creator
• AI Book Quiz Creator
• AI Report Card Comments
• AI Comments for English Teachers
• IEP Generator
• AI Homework Helper

Create a Free Account Free Membership

Create a free account on ClassX to enjoy all the benefits we have to offer.

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Literary analysis rubric

Resource type.

One-Pager Text Analysis Project with Rubric - Creative Literary Study Lesson

Literary Analysis & Argumentative Essay Rubrics {EDITABLE}

The Giver Socratic Seminar packets and rubric literary analysis

Writing Rubric for Literary Analysis Essays, High School Essay Writing

Romeo and Juliet Essay 1-Week of Literary Analysis Lesson Plans, Rubric , Etc.

Literary Analysis Writing Rubrics BUNDLE: 6 Editable CCSS "Writer-First" Rubrics

Editable Middle School Literary Analysis Essay Rubrics for 6th 7th and 8th Grade

Dialectical Journals for Literary Analysis and Non-fiction analysis (w/ rubric )

Literary Analysis Essay Prompt & Rubric (Theme)

Literary Analysis Essay Outline Rubric Activities Characterization Worksheet PDF

Literary Analysis Writing Rubric : Theme Development | EDITABLE | CCSS

Six Traits Literary Analysis Rubric

Literary Analysis Paragraph Writing Rubric CCSS

How to Write Literary Analysis Essay - Essay Template & Rubric - AP Prose Essay

Literary Analysis Paragraph Writing Checklist Guide & Rubric FREE

Cited Literary Argument & Analysis Essay Rubric w Sophistication Point (AP/CCSS)

Literary Analysis Essay Rubric

Universal Writing Rubric for Essays - Argument, Expository, Literary Analysis

Literary Analysis Rubric

AP 12 Literary Analysis Paper Evaluation Rubric

Theme Essay Workshop For Any Literary Work – ELA – Analysis , CCSS Rubric

The Outsiders Literary Analysis Essay, Organizer, Checklist, and Rubric

Literary Analysis Essay Prompt & Rubric (Characterization)

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

ChatGPT as an automated essay scoring tool in the writing classrooms: how it compares with human scoring

• Published: 13 July 2024

Cite this article

• Ngoc My Bui 1 &
• Jessie S. Barrot   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-4058 1 , 2  

180 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

With the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool’s remarkable capabilities in understanding and generating meaningful content, intriguing questions have been raised about its potential as an automated essay scoring (AES) system. One such tool is ChatGPT, which is capable of scoring any written work based on predefined criteria. However, limited information is available about the reliability of this tool in scoring the different dimensions of writing quality. Thus, this study examines the relationship between the scores assigned by ChatGPT and a human rater and how consistent ChatGPT-assigned scores are when taken at multiple time points. This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative approach in analyzing 50 argumentative essays from each proficiency level (A2_0, B1_1, B1_2, and B2_0), totaling 200. These essays were rated by ChatGPT and an experienced human rater. Using correlational analysis, the results reveal that ChatGPT’s scoring did not align closely with an experienced human rater (i.e., weak to moderate relationships) and failed to establish consistency after two rounds of scoring (i.e., low intraclass correlation coefficient values). These results were primarily attributed to ChatGPT’s scoring algorithm, training data, model updates, and inherent randomness. Implications for writing assessment and future studies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays

Exploratory study on the potential of ChatGPT as a rater of second language writing

ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays

Data availability.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Almusharraf, N., & Alotaibi, H. (2023). An error-analysis study from an EFL writing context: Human and automated essay scoring approaches. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 28 (3), 1015–1031.

Article   Google Scholar  

An, X., Chai, C. S., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., & Yang, B. (2023). Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning . https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519 . Advance online publication.

Athanassopoulos, S., Manoli, P., Gouvi, M., Lavidas, K., & Komis, V. (2023). The use of ChatGPT as a learning tool to improve foreign language writing in a multilingual and multicultural classroom. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 3 (2), 818–824.

Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57 , 100745.

Barrot, J. S. (2024a). Trends in automated writing evaluation systems research for teaching, learning, and assessment: A bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29 (6), 7155–7179.

Barrot, J. S. (2024b). ChatGPT as a language learning tool: An emerging technology report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29 , 1151–1156.

Beseiso, M., Alzubi, O. A., & Rashaideh, H. (2021). A novel automated essay scoring approach for reliable higher educational assessments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33 , 727–746.

Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Saad, H. B. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: Examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40 (2), 615–622.

Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22 , 1–17.

Gonzalez Torres, A. P., & Sawhney, N. (2023). Role of regulatory sandboxes and MLOps for AI-enabled public sector services. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, 17 , 297–318.

Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29 , 8435–8463.

Han, T., & Sari, E. (2024). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37 (4), 961–985.

Higgins, D., & Heilman, M. (2014). Managing what we can measure: Quantifying the susceptibility of automated scoring systems to gaming behavior. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33 (3), 36–46.

Hussein, M. A., Hassan, H., & Nassef, M. (2019). Automated language essay scoring systems: A literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 5 , e208.

Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, 1 , 91–118.

Google Scholar  

Javier, D. R. C., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2023). Developing secondary school English language learners’ productive and critical use of ChatGPT. TESOL Journal, (e755), 1–9.

Lee, A. V. Y., Luco, A. C., & Tan, S. C. (2023). A human-centric automated essay scoring and feedback system for the development of ethical reasoning. Educational Technology & Society, 26 (1), 147–159.

Liljequist, D., Elfving, B., & Skavberg Roaldsen, K. (2019). Intraclass correlation–A discussion and demonstration of basic features. PloS One, 14 (7), e0219854.

Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education , 10 (2), 2236469.

Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 100050.

OpenAI (2023). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue . Retrieved October 10, 2023, from https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (6), 7893–7925.

Parker, J. L., Becker, K., & Carroca, C. (2023). ChatGPT for automated writing evaluation in scholarly writing instruction. Journal of Nursing Education, 62 (12), 721–727.

Powers, D. E., Escoffery, D. S., & Duchnowski, M. P. (2015). Validating automated essay scoring: A (modest) refinement of the gold standard. Applied Measurement in Education, 28 (2), 130–142.

Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2022). An automated essay scoring systems: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55 (3), 2495–2527.

Ramineni, C. (2013). Validating automated essay scoring for online writing placement. Assessing Writing, 18 (1), 40–61.

Ramineni, C., & Williamson, D. M. (2013). Automated essay scoring: Psychometric guidelines and practices. Assessing Writing, 18 (1), 25–39.

Ray, P. P. (2023). ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3 , 121–154.

Schade, M. (2023). How ChatGPT and our language models are developed . Retrieved October 28, 2023, from https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7842364-how-chatgpt-and-our-language-models-are-developed

Schmidt-Fajlik, R. (2023). ChatGPT as a grammar checker for Japanese English language learners: A comparison with Grammarly and ProWritingAid. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 14 (1), 105–119.

Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126 (5), 1763–1768.

Shermis, M. D. (2014). State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20 , 53–76.

Shermis, M. D., Koch, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Harrington, S. (2002). Trait ratings for automated essay grading. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 (1), 5–18.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57 , 100752.

Suppadungsuk, S., Thongprayoon, C., Miao, J., Krisanapan, P., Qureshi, F., Kashani, K., & Cheungpasitporn, W. (2023). Exploring the potential of chatbots in critical care nephrology. Medicines, 10 (10), 58.

Vo, Y., Rickels, H., Welch, C., & Dunbar, S. (2023). Human scoring versus automated scoring for English learners in a statewide evidence-based writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 56 , 100719.

Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2008). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A correlational study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (4), 310–325.

Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18 (1), 85–99.

Wilson, J., Chen, D., Sandbank, M. P., & Hebert, M. (2019). Generalizability of automated scores of writing quality in grades 3–5. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (4), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000311

Yancey, K. P., Laflair, G., Verardi, A., & Burstein, J. (2023). Rating short L2 essays on the CEFR scale with GPT-4. In E. Kochmar, J. Burstein, A. Horbach, R. Laarmann-Quante, N. Madnani, A. Tack, V. Yaneva, Z. Yuan, & T. Zesch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 576–584). Retrieved November 19, 2023, from https://aclanthology.org/2023.bea-1.49

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16 (1), 1–27.

Download references

This research is funded by the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam

Ngoc My Bui & Jessie S. Barrot

College of Education, Arts and Sciences, National University, Manila, Philippines

Jessie S. Barrot

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessie S. Barrot .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The study has undergone appropriate ethics protocol.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was sought from the participants.

Consent for publication

Authors consented the publication. Participants consented to publication as long as confidentiality is observed.

Competing interests

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bui, N.M., Barrot, J.S. ChatGPT as an automated essay scoring tool in the writing classrooms: how it compares with human scoring. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12891-w

Download citation

Received : 10 January 2024

Accepted : 28 June 2024

Published : 13 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12891-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Generative AI
• Automated essay scoring
• Automated writing evaluation
• Argumentative essays
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research