1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
89.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
80.0 %Content
|
|
|
10.0 %Introduction
|
An introduction is not present.
|
An introduction is present, but it does not relate to the body of the paper.
|
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. There is nothing in the introduction to entice the reader to continue reading.
|
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction provides incentive for the reader to continue reading.
|
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading.
|
|
20.0 %Comparison of Research Questions
|
No comparison of research questions is presented.
|
A comparison of research questions is presented, but it is not valid.
|
A cursory though valid comparison of research questions is presented.
|
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of research questions is presented.
|
A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented.
|
|
20.0 %Comparison of Sample Populations
|
No comparison of sample populations is presented.
|
A comparison of sample populations is presented, but it is not valid.
|
A cursory though valid comparison of sample populations is presented.
|
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of sample populations is presented.
|
A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented.
|
|
20.0 %Comparison of the Limitations of the Study
|
No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.
|
A comparison of the limitations of the study is presented, but it is not valid.
|
A cursory though valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.
|
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.
|
A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.
|
|
10.0 %Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
|
No conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented.
|
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented, but they are not valid.
|
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid, but they are cursory.
|
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid and moderately thorough.
|
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful.
|
|
15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %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.
|
|
5.0 %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 or sentence construction is used.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they 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 %Format
|
|
|
2.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
|
3.0 %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
|
|
