| |
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less Than Satisfactory
80.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
88.00%
|
4
Good
92.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|
5.0 %Summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied
|
A summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.
|
A summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied is presented but is disjointed. The research cited is outdated.
|
A summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied is thoroughly presented and includes all necessary elements. Some research cited in is outdated.
|
A summary of the problem including the potential middle-range theory that could be applied is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.
|
|
5.0 %Description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem
|
A description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.
|
A description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. The research cited in the definition is outdated.
|
A description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem is thoroughly presented and includes all necessary elements. Some research cited in the definition is outdated.
|
A description of a borrowed theory that could be applied to the problem is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.
|
|
15.0 %A history of the borrowed theory’s origins
|
A history of the borrowed theory’s origins is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A history of the borrowed theory’s origins is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.
|
A history of the borrowed theory’s origins is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.
|
A history of the borrowed theory’s origins is present and thorough. The description is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.
|
A history of the borrowed theory’s origins is present, thorough, and well-detailed. The description is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
|
|
15.0 %Discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied
|
A discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.
|
A discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.
|
A discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied is present and thorough. The description is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.
|
A discussion of how the borrowed theory has been previously applied is present, thorough, and well-detailed. The description is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
|
|
15.0 %Discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem
|
A discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem is present, but incomplete or illogical.
|
A discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.
|
A discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem is present and thorough. The description is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.
|
A discussion of the application of the borrowed theory to the identified problem is present, thorough, and well-detailed. The description is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
|
|
15.0 %Discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory
|
A discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
A discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory is present, but incomplete or illogical.
|
A discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory is present, but cursory. The research used for support is outdated.
|
A discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory is moderately well supported though some sources of support are outdated.
|
A discussion of the integration of the borrowed theory and the middle-range theory is present, thorough, and well-detailed. The description is well supported with current and/or seminal research.
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
|
5.0 %Research Citations (in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
|
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
|
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
|
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
|
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
