Capstone Rubric

This rubric provides detailed assessment criteria for all three capstone projects. Instructors may weight categories differently depending on course goals, but all categories should be assessed. Students should review this rubric before beginning their capstone work and consult it during revision.

Grading Scale

Grade Descriptor
A (93-100) Exceptional. The project demonstrates sophisticated historical thinking, rigorous use of evidence, polished writing, and genuine intellectual engagement with the material. Work at this level would be worthy of presentation at an undergraduate conference or donation to a community archive.
A- (90-92) Excellent. The project meets all requirements with depth, clarity, and analytical sophistication. Minor issues in one or two categories do not detract from the overall quality.
B+ (87-89) Very good. The project is solid across all categories, with particular strength in some areas. May lack the depth, polish, or analytical sophistication that distinguishes A-level work.
B (83-86) Good. The project meets all requirements competently. Historical accuracy is reliable, sources are used appropriately, and writing is clear. Analysis may be somewhat surface-level, or coverage of some required sections may be thin.
B- (80-82) Adequate. The project meets most requirements but has noticeable weaknesses in one or more categories — thin source use, uneven coverage, or analysis that does not fully engage with the textbook's frameworks.
C+ (77-79) Acceptable. The project addresses the assignment but has significant weaknesses — factual errors, insufficient sources, weak analysis, or writing quality that impedes clarity. Demonstrates basic understanding but limited depth.
C (73-76) Minimally acceptable. The project is incomplete or superficial in multiple categories. It demonstrates some familiarity with the material but does not meet the standards of a capstone-level project.
C- (70-72) Below expectations. The project has substantial deficiencies — missing sections, very limited source use, factual errors, or analysis that does not engage with the course material.
D (60-69) Poor. The project fails to meet most requirements. It is substantially incomplete, inaccurate, or does not demonstrate engagement with the course material.
F (below 60) Failing. The project is missing, plagiarized, or so fundamentally deficient that it does not demonstrate any meaningful engagement with the assignment.

Rubric 1: The Community History Portfolio

Category 1: Historical Accuracy and Depth (25%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) All factual claims are accurate and supported by cited evidence. The history covers all eight required sections with genuine depth — not merely mentioning each era but developing it with specific names, dates, events, and analysis. Chronological arc is complete from geological foundations through the present. Demonstrates knowledge that extends beyond the textbook into independent research.
Good (B) Factual claims are generally accurate with only minor errors. All eight sections are addressed, though some may be thinner than others. Chronological coverage is complete. Most claims are supported by evidence.
Adequate (C) Some factual errors or unsupported claims. One or two required sections may be missing or extremely thin. Chronological gaps are noticeable. The history relies heavily on generalizations rather than specific evidence.
Poor (D/F) Multiple factual errors. Several required sections are missing or perfunctory. Chronological coverage is incomplete. Claims are frequently unsupported.

Category 2: Source Use and Evidence (20%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Exceeds the minimum of five primary and five secondary sources. Sources are diverse (census data, oral histories, newspaper accounts, land records, scholarly monographs, journal articles). Primary sources are analyzed, not merely quoted. Sources are properly cited in Chicago format. The student evaluates source reliability and perspective — noting, for example, when a source reflects an outsider's view or when a government report may undercount a population.
Good (B) Meets the minimum source requirements. Sources are appropriately cited and used to support claims. Some analysis of source perspective is present. Citation format is mostly correct.
Adequate (C) Minimum sources are barely met or one category (primary or secondary) falls short. Sources are cited but not always analyzed. Citation format is inconsistent. Heavy reliance on one or two sources rather than a diverse base.
Poor (D/F) Source requirements are not met. Sources are absent, improperly cited, or irrelevant. No analysis of source reliability or perspective.

Category 3: Narrative Quality (20%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The county history reads as a unified, coherent narrative — not as a series of checkpoint responses stitched together. Transitions between eras are smooth and purposeful. There is a discernible through-line or argument that connects the county's past to its present. Writing is clear, specific, and engaging. The author's voice is confident and consistent. Prose avoids both academic jargon and vague generalizations.
Good (B) The narrative is generally coherent and readable. Most transitions work. Writing is clear and competent. Some sections may read more like standalone checkpoint responses than integrated narrative, but the overall effect is of a continuous story.
Adequate (C) The narrative is choppy or uneven. Transitions between sections are abrupt. Writing quality is inconsistent — some sections are polished while others are rough. No clear through-line connects the sections. The document reads more like a collection of assignments than a unified history.
Poor (D/F) The narrative is incoherent or largely absent. Sections are disconnected. Writing quality significantly impedes comprehension. The document is clearly assembled from unrevised checkpoint responses.

Category 4: Thematic Connections (20%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The history explicitly and substantively engages with the textbook's recurring themes — the extraction pattern, the resistance tradition, diversity and erasure, stereotype construction, Appalachian agency, and living culture. Analytical frameworks (internal colonialism, Gaventa's three dimensions of power) are applied where appropriate and enhance the analysis. The student demonstrates the ability to see their county's specific history as part of a larger regional and national story.
Good (B) The history connects to several of the textbook's themes with some depth. Frameworks are mentioned and applied, though the application may be surface-level in places. The student demonstrates awareness of the larger context.
Adequate (C) Thematic connections are present but thin — the student mentions themes without developing them or applies frameworks mechanically without genuine analysis. The county history feels isolated from the textbook's broader arguments.
Poor (D/F) Thematic connections are absent or perfunctory. The county history makes no meaningful use of the analytical frameworks presented in the textbook.

Category 5: Inclusive Perspectives and Community Engagement (15%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The history actively seeks out and includes the perspectives of Black, Indigenous, immigrant, women, LGBTQ+, and working-class community members. Where these perspectives are absent from the historical record, the student acknowledges the gaps and explains what produced them. The student treats the people of the county as protagonists of their own history, not as objects of study or pity. If the community impact option is pursued, the student demonstrates genuine respect for the community's self-knowledge.
Good (B) The history includes attention to diverse perspectives, though some groups may receive less coverage. Gaps in the record are noted. The overall tone is respectful and engaged.
Adequate (C) Diversity is addressed superficially — a paragraph on Black residents, a sentence on women — without genuine integration into the narrative. The student may default to a single-perspective narrative (typically white, male, working-class) without acknowledging whose stories are missing.
Poor (D/F) Diverse perspectives are absent. The history tells a single-perspective story without acknowledging the omission. The tone may be condescending, sensationalizing, or otherwise disrespectful of the community.

Rubric 2: The Appalachian Oral History Collection

Category 1: Interview Quality (25%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Interviews are substantive (45+ minutes each), well-conducted, and reveal genuine depth of personal experience and historical memory. Questions are open-ended and follow the interviewee's lead. The interviewer demonstrates active listening — following up on important threads, allowing silences, and not dominating the conversation. The interviewee is clearly comfortable and engaged. The interviews are connected by a coherent theme.
Good (B) Interviews meet the minimum length requirement (30+ minutes) and produce meaningful content. Questions are generally open-ended. The interviewer listens well, though some opportunities for follow-up are missed. Thematic connection between interviews is present.
Adequate (C) Interviews are short (close to 30 minutes) or superficial. Questions may be too narrow, too leading, or too dependent on yes/no answers. The interviewer may talk too much or miss opportunities to follow up. Thematic connection between interviews is weak.
Poor (D/F) Interviews are very short, poorly conducted, or fail to produce substantive content. Questions are inappropriate, leading, or unrelated to the project's themes. No discernible connection between interviews.

Category 2: Transcription Accuracy (15%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Transcriptions are complete, verbatim, and accurate. Dialect features are preserved. Non-verbal cues are noted in brackets. Speaker identification is clear. Timestamps are included. The transcript is a reliable primary source document.
Good (B) Transcriptions are mostly complete and accurate. Minor errors or omissions do not significantly affect the usability of the transcript. Dialect features are generally preserved.
Adequate (C) Transcriptions contain noticeable errors, omissions, or normalization of dialect features. Sections may be paraphrased rather than transcribed verbatim. Timestamps or speaker identification may be inconsistent.
Poor (D/F) Transcriptions are substantially incomplete, inaccurate, or clearly not verbatim. Automated transcription has not been reviewed and corrected. The transcript is unreliable as a primary source.

Category 3: Contextual Analysis (30%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Annotations are thorough, accurate, and illuminate the historical context of the interviewees' stories. Analytical essays for each interview (800-1,200 words) engage substantively with the textbook's themes, identifying how the interview confirms, complicates, or contradicts the textbook's narrative. The introduction and synthesis conclusion are thoughtful, well-written, and demonstrate genuine analytical engagement. The student identifies both what oral history reveals and what it cannot.
Good (B) Annotations provide useful historical context. Analytical essays engage with the textbook's themes, though the analysis may be somewhat surface-level. Introduction and conclusion are competent and address the required elements.
Adequate (C) Annotations are sparse or generic. Analytical essays are present but thin — summarizing the interview rather than analyzing it. Connection to textbook themes is superficial. Introduction and conclusion meet minimum requirements but lack depth.
Poor (D/F) Annotations are absent or inaccurate. Analytical essays are missing or perfunctory. No meaningful connection to the textbook's themes. Introduction and conclusion are absent or do not address the required elements.

Category 4: Ethical Compliance (15%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Signed consent forms are obtained for all interviews. Interviewee preferences regarding anonymity and use of materials are respected. Sensitive topics are handled with care. The student demonstrates awareness of the power dynamics inherent in the interview relationship and takes steps to mitigate them. Interviewees have been offered copies of their transcripts.
Good (B) Consent forms are obtained and interviewee preferences are respected. Sensitive topics are handled appropriately. Ethical awareness is present though may not be fully articulated.
Adequate (C) Consent forms are present but may be incomplete. Some ethical issues — handling of sensitive material, interviewee preferences — may not be fully addressed.
Poor (D/F) Consent forms are missing or inadequate. Ethical guidelines have not been followed. Sensitive material is handled carelessly. Interviewee preferences have not been respected.

Category 5: Collection Coherence and Presentation (15%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The collection is professionally organized, with clear headers, consistent formatting, and logical flow. The thematic thread connecting the interviews is visible throughout. Audio files are submitted, clearly labeled, and of acceptable quality. Methodology appendix is complete. Bibliography is properly formatted. The collection as a whole feels like a curated archival contribution, not a random set of recordings.
Good (B) The collection is well-organized and complete. Most formatting requirements are met. Audio files are submitted. The thematic connection is apparent.
Adequate (C) The collection is disorganized or incomplete. Formatting is inconsistent. Audio files may be missing or poorly labeled. The thematic connection is weak.
Poor (D/F) The collection is substantially incomplete or disorganized. Required components are missing. No audio files submitted. No discernible organizational principle.

Rubric 3: The Comparative Extraction Analysis

Category 1: Analytical Rigor (30%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The analysis is genuinely comparative — moving between the two regions throughout, using each to illuminate the other. The thesis is specific, arguable, and sustained across the essay. All five comparison dimensions (extraction mechanism, dispossession, human cost, cultural stigmatization, resistance) are addressed with depth and specificity. The analysis goes beyond description to explain why similar patterns emerged in different contexts. Structural mechanisms are identified and analyzed.
Good (B) The analysis is comparative, though some sections may describe one region at length before turning to the other. The thesis is clear and supported. All five dimensions are addressed, though some may be thinner than others. Structural analysis is present.
Adequate (C) The paper describes both regions but does not fully integrate the comparison. The thesis is vague or not consistently supported. Some comparison dimensions are missing or superficial. The analysis relies on description rather than structural explanation.
Poor (D/F) The paper is two separate descriptions placed side by side rather than a genuine comparative analysis. No clear thesis. Comparison dimensions are largely missing. No structural analysis.

Category 2: Evidence Quality (25%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Exceeds the minimum source requirements (8 scholarly, 3 primary, 2 theoretical). Sources are diverse, authoritative, and well-chosen. Evidence from both regions is specific — dates, names, statistics, quotations — not general. Primary sources from the comparison region are analyzed, not merely cited. Scholarship by members of the communities being studied is prioritized.
Good (B) Meets source requirements. Sources are appropriate and credible. Evidence is generally specific, though some claims may rely on generalizations. Sources from both regions are used effectively.
Adequate (C) Source requirements are barely met. Evidence is frequently general rather than specific. Over-reliance on one or two sources. Comparison region may be under-sourced relative to Appalachia.
Poor (D/F) Source requirements are not met. Evidence is absent, vague, or unreliable. One or both regions lack adequate scholarly support.

Category 3: Framework Application (20%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) At least one theoretical framework (internal colonialism, sacrifice zone, environmental justice, Gaventa's power analysis) is applied substantively to both regions. The student uses the framework as an analytical tool — testing whether it holds, identifying where it illuminates and where it breaks down. The framework enriches the analysis rather than serving as a label applied to pre-existing descriptions.
Good (B) A theoretical framework is applied to both regions, though the application may be somewhat mechanical. The framework adds analytical value to the essay.
Adequate (C) A framework is mentioned but not substantively applied. The student may define the framework without demonstrating how it changes the analysis.
Poor (D/F) No theoretical framework is engaged. The analysis lacks analytical vocabulary and conceptual scaffolding.

Category 4: Treatment of Difference (15%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) The analysis takes differences between the two regions as seriously as similarities. The "Differences and Limits" section is substantive, identifying factors (race, sovereignty, geography, historical period, political context) that complicate the comparison. The student does not conflate parallel structures with identical experiences. If the comparison involves Indigenous communities or communities of color, the student addresses the difference between economic dispossession and dispossession of sovereignty, legal personhood, or cultural autonomy.
Good (B) Differences are acknowledged and discussed, though the treatment may be less thorough than the treatment of similarities. Important distinctions are identified.
Adequate (C) Differences are mentioned briefly but not analyzed. The paper may overstate the similarity between the two regions or minimize important distinctions.
Poor (D/F) Differences are ignored. The comparison treats two profoundly different contexts as interchangeable. Important distinctions (particularly regarding race and sovereignty) are absent.

Category 5: Writing Quality and Originality (10%)

Level Description
Excellent (A) Writing is clear, precise, and well-organized. The essay flows logically from introduction through analysis to conclusion. Prose is free of jargon, cliches, and unnecessary abstraction. The argument demonstrates original thinking — the student has not merely summarized sources but has produced a genuine analytical contribution. Chicago format citations are correct and consistent.
Good (B) Writing is clear and competent. Organization is logical. Some minor issues with jargon, abstraction, or flow. Citations are mostly correct.
Adequate (C) Writing is functional but unpolished. Organization may be unclear in places. Jargon or vague language impedes clarity. Citation format is inconsistent.
Poor (D/F) Writing quality significantly impedes comprehension. Organization is confused. Citation format is absent or seriously deficient.

A Final Note to Students

A capstone project is not a final exam. It is not a test of whether you memorized the material. It is a demonstration of whether you can use the material — whether you can take the frameworks, the evidence, the analytical habits, and the ethical commitments you have developed over an entire semester and apply them to produce something that did not exist before.

The best capstone projects surprise their authors. They reveal connections the student did not expect, complicate stories the student thought were simple, and raise questions the student did not know to ask at the beginning of the semester. If your capstone project confirms everything you already believed about Appalachia without teaching you anything new, something has gone wrong. The history of this region is too complex, too contradictory, and too alive to be reduced to a thesis you already had.

Let the material lead you. Follow the evidence where it goes, even when it goes somewhere uncomfortable. And remember that the people whose stories you are researching, recording, or analyzing are not abstractions. They are people who lived — or live — in a specific place, with specific joys and specific struggles, and they deserve the care and precision that any human life demands.

Capstone Rubric | Part 9: Capstone