1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
73.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
82.00%
|
4
Good
91.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
100.0 %Criteria
|
|
|
10.0 %Introduction
|
An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical.
|
An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well.
|
An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic.
|
An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the topic.
|
|
20.0 %Support of Common Themes
|
Support of common themes is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
Support of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical.
|
Support of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth.
|
Support of common themes is present and thorough.
|
Support of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.
|
|
20.0 %Discussion of Conclusions
|
A discussion of the conclusions is not presented.
|
A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical.
|
A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but it does not include an overall summary of themes found in the articles or does not connect well to the thesis statement.
|
A discussion of the conclusions is presented and includes an overall summary of themes found in the articles and reasonably connects to the thesis statement.
|
A discussion of the conclusions is thoroughly presented including an overall summary of themes found in the articles and is strongly connected to the thesis statement.
|
|
20.0 %Integration of Instructor Feedback
|
Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader.
|
Integration of instructor feedback is vaguely attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions.
|
Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
|
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
|
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
|
|
10.0 %Synthesis and Argument
|
No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.
|
Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. 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.
|
Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
10.0 %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. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing
|
Mechanical 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), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
5.0 %APA Format
|
Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.
|
Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.
|
Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.
|
Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
|
The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
