QEP Faculty Resources
Faculty Document Repository
This collection of Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) faculty resources is a diverse repository of “best practice” sample writing artifacts. Faculty will find archival samples of FAMU and non-FAMU derived writing assignments with appropriate prompts, a variety of differentially-styled rubrics, as well as various tools for assessing writing proficiency.
Summary Paper Assignment
Resume Assignment
Expository Essay Assignment
Expository Essay Assignment # 1 (with rubric)
Expository Essay Assignment # 2
Expository Essay Assignment # 3 (with rubric)
Book Report
External Writing Examples
Narrative Essay
Descriptive Essay
Process Essay
External Writing Rubric
Writing Essay Rubric
Argument Essay Rubric
Expository Essay Rubric
Critical Analysis Essay Rubric
Resume Rubric
External Argument Paper Checklist
Are you interested in helping both colleagues and students? Consider submitting your own original writing for consideration to become a part of this archive!
Faculty resources that can assist with research, writing and instruction.
WEC Requirements
Written Communication Rubric
Score of 5 (Excellent)
• Organization—Well-focused or creative expression of central idea (implied or explicitly stated based on genre). Problem/focus and plan are easy to understand.
• Support—Ideas are extensively elaborated, showing evidence of critical thinking, insight, creativity. Locates, evaluates, synthesizes, and documents primary & secondary sources (as necessary).
• Revision— Each draft folds in critical feedback from peers and/or instructor. Writer reflects upon semester's writing with ability to evaluate own work and that of community.
• Language— Intentional, purposeful use of appropriate words for the writing context.
• Coherence—Analyzes and responds to diverse writing genres exceptionally well. Each paragraph connects effortlessly with the other with sophistication.
• Mechanics—Little to no grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Errors do not hamper reader's comprehension of writer's message.
Score of 4 (Above Average)
• Organization— Mostly focused or mostly creative expression of central idea (implied or explicitly stated based on genre). Problem/focus and plan are identifiable.
• Support— Ideas are effectively elaborated, showing evidence of critical thinking, insight, creativity. Mostly locates, evaluates, synthesizes, and documents primary & secondary sources (as needed).
• Revision— Each draft integrates critical feedback from peers and instructor. Writer reflects upon semester's writing with ability to evaluate own work and that of community.
• Language— Mostly intentional, purposeful use of words for the diverse writing contexts
• Coherence— Analyzes and responds to diverse writing genres effectively
• Mechanics— Some grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors only slightly hampers reader's comprehension of writer's message.
Score of 3 (Average/Competent)
• Organization— Moderately focused or moderately creative expression of central idea (implied or explicitly stated based on genre). Problem/focus and plan are vaguely identifiable.
• Support— Ideas are moderately, showing evidence of critical thinking, insight, creativity. Mostly locates, evaluates, synthesizes, and documents primary & secondary sources (as needed).
• Revision— Each draft takes into consideration critical feedback from peers and instructor. Writer reflects upon semester's writing with some ability to evaluate own work and that of community.
• Language— Moderately intentional, purposeful use of words for the diverse writing contexts
• Coherence-- Analyzes and responds to diverse writing genres moderately effectively
• Mechanics— Some grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors moderately hampers reader's comprehension of writer's message.
Score of 2 (Below Average/Developing)
• Organization— Less focused or less creative expression of central idea (implied or explicitly stated based on genre). Problem/focus and plan are unclear.
• Support— Ideas are less elaborated, showing little evidence of critical thinking, insight, creativity. Does not consistently locate, evaluate, synthesize, or documents primary & secondary sources (as needed)
• Revision— Each draft lacks integration of critical feedback from peers and instructor. Writer reflects on semester's writing with minimal ability to evaluate own work and that of community.
• Language— Mostly unintentional, careless use of words for the diverse writing contexts
• Coherence— Analyzes and responds to diverse writing genres less effectively
• Mechanics—Grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors only slightly hampers reader's comprehension of writer's message.
Score of 1 (Beginning/Underdeveloped)
• Organization—Unfocused or lacks creative expression of central idea (implied or explicitly stated based on genre). Problem/focus and plan are not identifiable.
• Support—Ideas are not elaborated, showing no evidence of critical thinking, insight, creativity. Does not consistently locate, evaluate, synthesize, or documents primary & secondary sources (as needed).
• Revision— Each draft, if provided, lacks integration of critical feedback from peers and/or instructor. Writer reflects on semester's writing with little to no ability to evaluate own work and that of community.
• Language— Little to no intentional, purposeful use of words for the diverse writing contexts
• Coherence— Analyzes and responds to diverse writing genres ineffectively
• Mechanics—Grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors hampers reader's comprehension of writer's message.
