Writing Standards

Professional
Writing
Standards


Critical
Thinking
 CRITERIA

• • • • Audience
 Purpose
 Context
 Frame
 Strategic
approach


Logic
and
Reasoning

• • • • Logical
units
of
discourse
 Claim
or
assertion
 Idea
unity
and
integrity
 Supporting
evidence


Structural
Coherence

• • • • Coherent
“whole”
 Internal
logic
 Section
unity
&
integrity
 Transitions
 Language
use


Information
Design

• • • Format
and
channel
 Visual
design
 Readability/accessibility
 Professionalism


Error
interference

• • • • Disruptive
errors
 Credibility
errors
 Etiquette
errors
 Accent
errors


•

•

•

• Demonstrates
sophisticated
 understanding
of
audience,
 purpose,
and
context
 through
framing
and
 strategic
approach,
 including,
not
limited
to:

 



 • Demonstrates
exceptional
 logic
and
reasoning
through
 1. claims/assertions
that
are
 logically
sound,
clear,
 credible,
valid,
and
 substantiated;
 2. unity,
integrity,
and
 thoroughness
of
ideas
and
 reasoning
provided
to
 support
claims
and
 assertions;

 3. supporting
evidence,
 information,
and
data
that
 are
accurate,
concrete,
 explicit,
relevant,
well
 explained,
varied,
and
 engaging.

 



 • Demonstrates
integrity
of
 structural
coherence
 through
 1. 
the
development
of
a
 meaningful
“whole”;
 2. well‐structured,
logical
 flow
of
ideas;
 3. cohesive
development
 within
sections
(sections
 can
“stand
alone”);
 4. seamless
transitions;

 5. precise,
concise,
and
 accurate
language
 patterns.



 • Demonstrates
mastery
of
 information
design
through
 1. optimal
format
and
 channel
choice;
 2. sophisticated
visual
 design
strategy;
 3. compression
of
complex
 information
into
clear
 visual
patterns
for
rapid
 intake
and
high
skim
 value;
 4. enhanced
reader
 comprehension
of
 complex
material
through
 clear,
concise,
visual
and
 verbal
elements.
 
 


•

No
etiquette
or
 credibility
errors.
 Although
minimal
 disruptive
or
accent
 errors
may
be
present,
 no
error
interference.
 Document
is
client‐ready
 and
professional.


Exceeds
 Expectations


1. purpose
statement
that
is
 articulate,
coherent,
 overreaching,
 encompassing
higher
 view;
 2. forecasting
that
provides
 structural
cohesion
and
 unity
and
acknowledges
 and
informs
audience
of
 guiding
structure;
 3. professionalism
that
 acknowledges
relational
 value
and
confirms
 audience
status
and
 knowledge
base.

 


Critical
Thinking
 CRITERIA

• • • • Audience
 Purpose
 Context
 Frame
 Strategic
approach


Logic
and
Reasoning

• • • • Logical
units
of
discourse
 Claim
or
assertion
 Idea
unity
and
integrity
 Supporting
evidence


Structural
Coherence

• • • • Coherent
“whole”
 Internal
logic
 Section
unity
&
integrity
 Transitions
 Language
use


Information
Design

• • • Format
and
channel
 Visual
design
 Readability/accessibility
 Professionalism


Error
interference

• • • • Disruptive
errors
 Credibility
errors
 Etiquette
errors
 Accent
errors


• 


•

•

• Demonstrates
clear
 understanding
of
audience,
 purpose,
and
context
 through
framing
and
 strategic
approach,
 including,
not
limited
to:

 

1. purpose
statement
that
is
 clear
and
coherent;
 2. forecasting
that
provides
 basic
structural
unity
 (often
as
a
list);
 3. professionalism
that
 employs
established
 protocol
for
specific
 audience
and
context.

 



 • Demonstrates
clear
logic
 and
reasoning
through
 1. claims/assertions
that
are
 explicitly
stated,
logical
and
 credible;
 2. evident
ideas
and
 reasoning
provided
to
 support
claims
and
 assertions;

 3. supporting
evidence,
 information,
and
data
that
 are
relevant
and
varied.
 
 


• Demonstrates
clarity
of
 structural
coherence
 through


• Demonstrates
effective
 information
design
through
 1. appropriate
format
and
 channel
choice;
 2. professional
visual
design
 strategy;
 3. use
of
common
strategies
 (bullets,
headings,
 graphics)
to
promote
 clarity
and
readability;
 4. improved
reader
 comprehension
of
 complex
material
through
 clear,
concise,
visual
and
 verbal
elements.
 
 


•

Meets

 Expectations



 1. 
an
overall
sense
of
 meaning
evident
in
the
 text;
 2. general
flow
of
ideas;
 3. clear
section
 development;
 4. effective
transitions;
 5. clear
language.
 




 Minimal
etiquette
or
 credibility
errors.
 Although
occasional
 disruptive
errors
and
 frequent
accent
errors
 may
be
present,
there
is
 no
serious
error
 interference.
 Document
needs
minimal
 revision
before
submission
 to
client.
 
 


Professional
Writing
Standards
 Breault/Sauers


Critical
Thinking
 CRITERIA

• • • • Audience
 Purpose
 Context
 Frame
 Strategic
approach


Logic
and
Reasoning

• • • • Logical
units
of
discourse
 Claim
or
assertion
 Idea
unity
and
integrity
 Supporting
evidence


Structural
Coherence

• • • • Coherent
“whole”
 Internal
logic
 Section
unity
&
integrity
 Transitions
 Language
use


Information
Design

• • • Format
and
channel
 Visual
design
 Readability/accessibility
 Professionalism


Error
interference

• • • • Disruptive
errors
 Credibility
errors
 Etiquette
errors
 Accent
errors


• 


•

•

Does
Not
 Meet
 Expectations
 



 • Demonstrates
rudimentary
 understanding
of
audience,
 purpose,
and
context
 through
framing
and
 strategic
approach,
 including,
not
limited
to:

 

1. purpose
statement
that
is
 awkward
or
absent;
 2. forecasting
that
is
absent
 or
irrelevant
to
the
 message;
 3. lack
of
professionalism
 that
results
in
erratic
and
 inappropriate
statements
 or
language
use.

 
 



 • Demonstrates
poor
logic
 and
reasoning
through
 1. claims/assertions
that
are
 vague,
inadequate,
 unsubstantiated
or
 incomplete;
 2. underdeveloped
or
absent
 ideas
and
reasoning
 provided
to
support
claims
 and
assertions;

 3. insufficient,
irrelevant,
 vague,
or
absent
evidence,
 information,
and
data
 provided
to
back
claims.
 
 


• Demonstrates
lack
of
 structural
coherence
 through



 • Demonstrates
ineffective
 information
design
through
 5. inappropriate
format
and
 channel
choice;
 6. unpolished
visual
design
 strategy;
 7. interference
or
absence
 of
clarity
and
readability
 through
use
of
common
 strategies
(bullets,
 headings,
graphics;
 8. reader
comprehension
of
 complex
material
is
 impaired
by
visual
and
 verbal
elements
of
the
 text.
 
 
 


•

1. 
lack
of
coherence,
unity
 and
cohesion
in
the
text;
 2. inconsistent
flow
of
 ideas;
 3. erratic
section
 development;
 4. design
strategies
(i.e.
lists,
 visuals)
used
as
 compensation
for
lack
of
 cohesion,
logic,
and
 meaning;
 5. poor
transitions;
 6. imprecise,
unclear
 language.
 
 



 Errors
damage
message
 comprehension
and
 writer
credibility.

 Document
needs
 substantial
revision
before
 submission
to
client.
 
 


Professional
Writing
Standards
 Breault/Sauers



 Error
Interference
Definition:
 

Disruptive
Errors:
Disruptive
errors
can
be
recognized
in
unintelligible
sentences,
omitted
words/phrases,
unclear
pronoun
references,
incorrect
verb
forms,
run‐on
sentences,
 wrong
words.

This
type
of
error
tends
to
make
the
reader’s
task
more
difficult,
even
intruding
on
the
reading
process.

Disruptive
errors
may
also
interfere
with
communication,
 preventing
the
reader
from
comprehending
what
the
writer
means.
 
 Credibility
Errors:
Credibility
errors
can
be
recognized
in
faulty
subject/verb
agreements,
some
punctuation
errors,
spelling
errors
–
while
these
do
not
usually
disrupt
 communication
they
tend
to
reflect
negatively
on
the
writer’s
credibility,
reducing
the
readers’
confidence
in
what
a
writer
has
to
say.

Credibility
errors
become
serious
if
they
 cause
the
reader
to
judge
a
writers’
character
or
management
ability
by
the
frequency
of
mere
presence
of
certain
violations
of
Standard
English.
 
 Etiquette
Errors:

Many
readers
(but
not
all)
hardly
notice
etiquette
errors,
especially
if
reading
quickly
for
the
moment.

Etiquette
errors
include:
substituting
“I”
for
“me”
after
 prepositions;
substituting
“someone
left
their
report”
instead
of
his/her;
misplacing
apostrophes
(team’s
/teams’);
confusing
it’s
and
its;
excessive
use
of
passive
voice.

 However,
etiquette
errors
can
reduce
the
writer’s
credibility,
especially
with
those
readers
who
are
concerned
about
professional
image
or
those
who
believe
that
critical
 thinking
is
reflected
in
the
observance
of
grammar
rules.
 
 Accent
Errors:
Commonly
found
in
the
writing
of
non‐native
speakers
–
(which
are
nearly
impossible
for
non‐native
speakers
to
correct
in
the
short
term)
–
these
are
often
 overlooked
and
ignored
by
readers,
particularly
if
they
are
cognizant
of
the
status
of
the
writer.

Accent
errors
rarely
interfere
with
communication,
and
they
usually
do
not
 seriously
damage
the
writer’s
credibility.

These
include
missing
or
incorrect
articles,
wrong
prepositions,
or
incorrect
use
of
idioms.


Professional
Writing
Standards
 Breault/Sauers