Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% |
3
Satisfactory
79.00% |
4
Good
87.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 10.0 %Comparison Table: A Comparison of Methodology |
A comparison of the methodology used in each study is not included. |
A comparison of the methodology used in each study is incomplete or incorrect |
A comparison of the methodology used in each study is included but lacks detail. |
A comparison of the methodology used in each study is complete and includes supporting detail. |
A comparison of the methodology used in each study is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Comparison Table: A Comparison of Design |
A comparison of the design used in each study is not included. |
A comparison of the design used in each study is incomplete or incorrect. |
A comparison of the design used in each study is included but lacks detail. |
A comparison of the design used in each study is complete and includes supporting detail. |
A comparison of the design used in each study is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail |
| 15.0 %External and Internal Validity Issues |
A description of the external and internal validity issues associated with each methodology and design is not included. |
A description of the external and internal validity issues associated with each methodology and design is incomplete or incorrect. |
A description of the external and internal validity issues associated with each methodology and design is included but lacks supporting detail. |
A description of the external and internal validity issues associated with each methodology and design is complete and includes supporting detail. |
A description of the external and internal validity issues associated with each methodology and design is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail. |
| 15.0 %Methodology and Design Benefits |
A description of how a different methodology or design might have been beneficial for each study is not included. |
A description of how a different methodology or design might have been beneficial for each study is incomplete or incorrect. |
A description of how a different methodology or design might have been beneficial for each study is included but lacks supporting detail |
A description of how a different methodology or design might have been beneficial for each study is complete and includes supporting detail. |
A description of how a different methodology or design might have been beneficial for each study is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail. |
| 15.0 %Summary |
A summary of the paper is not included. |
A summary of the paper is incomplete or incorrect. |
A summary of the paper is included but lacks supporting detail. |
A summary of the paper is complete and includes supporting detail. |
A summary of the paper is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail. |
| 5.0 %Two Additional Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations |
The required elements (two topic-related scholarly research sources and two in-text citations) are not present. |
Not all required elements are present. One or more element is missing or included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, but the source and quality of one reference is questionable. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from reputable professional sources. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 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. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 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 or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they 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 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
|
