5Th Edition Paper Language Acquisition

By /

5Th Edition Paper Language Acquisition

3 page

Please choose to answer only one of the following questions for your writing assignment. In your answer, please provide an opening statement, three arguments in support of your opening statement (opinion), three pieces of empirical research (i.e., studies) as support for your arguments, and a closing statement.

You may use any empirical, rigorous scientific research as support however, do not use anecdotal evidence, or unpublished work. You should use 3 journal articles that report original data/studies as evidence. If you do not know what this means or what kinds of papers to look for then you must ask me or your TA. Do not use textbooks, websites, chapters of edited books, review papers or meta-analyses as evidence. Please be sure to provide references for your empirical support (APA-format; with reference list and paper citations in text). Your paper must adhere to a 5-paragraph format that is detailed in writing assignment instruction link below.

Option 1: In your opinion and based on scientific evidence, do you think scientific evidence supports a formalist view or a functionalist view on the relation between language and communication? That is, do you think that the need to communicate and/or the act of communication plays a role in the development of language form (i.e., syntax; morphology)?

What, if any, properties of children’s early communicative experience support their development of communicative skills and their development of language? How important is early communicative experience to later language development? Some argue that communication and early communicative experience is the primary driver or force behind later language development. That is, some theories explain language development as motivated by the urge to communicate. Others argue for a more moderate position saying that communicative interaction contributes to language development but is not the sole reason or purpose for language development. Both of these positions would be akin to the functionalist view of the relation between communication and language, that is, language is a system shaped and/or supported by the communicative functions it serves. Still, others argue for the formalist view of the relation between communication and language, that is, the structure and development of language has nothing to do with its communicative role. In your answer to the proposed question, you will want to consider whether you think there is evidence to link early communicative skill to later language development. You may want to consider research by Jean Berko-Gleason, Anne Fernald, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Michael Tomasello, Erika Hoff, Catherine Snow, Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker.

Option 2: In your opinion and based on scientific evidence, what mechanisms/biases/experiences/assumptions do you believe are important for a typical infant’s/children’s (0-5 years) lexical development (first/native language only)?

What mechanisms support infants’ ability to learn the meanings of words? Some argue that that infants use word-learning assumptions, like mutual exclusivity (e.g., Ellen Markman), the whole-object assumption (e.g., Ellen Markman and Sandra Waxman) or the shape bias (e.g., Linda Smith). Others argue that children use the syntax of a sentence to guide word meaning (Syntactic Bootstrapping Hypothesis; e.g., Leticia Naigles, and Roger Brown). Some place a particular importance on pragmatic principles for word learning, such as understanding the communicative intentions of the speaker (e.g., Dare Baldwin and Amanda Woodward). Finally, there are some theories of word learning that suggest that all of these mechanisms have a role, but that some are more important to the beginning word learner, while others are used by only children who have some words already in their lexicon (e.g., Emergentist Coalition Model; Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek and Roberta Golinkoff). You may want to consider research discussed in the section of your textbook called “The Process of Word Learning” (pp153-163, 5th Edition).

Paper Format Please format your paper into 5 separate paragraphs – an opening statement, three paragraphs for your three arguments and accompanying description of empirical evidence and a closing statement. • Opening Statement = should include a restatement of the question posed to you in the assignment, your opinion (clearly stated), and a description of the three arguments you will use to support your opinion. For each of three arguments, I suggest a one-sentence summary of the specific findings from the study you will review below in each argument paragraph. Thus, you will have three sentences, each summarizing specific findings (arguments) in support of your opinion. • First Argument = you should start this paragraph with your first argument in support of your opinion. Again, I suggest a one-sentence summary of the specific findings from the study you are about to review in this paragraph. This argument should be the very first sentence of the paragraph. The bulk of the paragraph will then be used to describe research in support of this argument. You should describe at least one empirical study in support of your first argument in some detail. In your description of the study, please include the following information: (1) a description of the question the authors were examining; (2) a description of who and how many participants were used; (3) a description of the stimuli and/or assessments used to gather information on participants; (4) a description of the procedure used to gather this data; (5) the type of data collected (provide information about independent and dependent variables); (6) a summary of specific results of study; (7) a statement of how these specific findings provide support for your opinion. • Second Argument = you should start this paragraph with your second argument in support of your opinion. Again, I suggest a one-sentence summary of the specific findings from the study you are about to review in this paragraph. This argument should be the very first sentence of the paragraph. The bulk of the paragraph will then be used to describe research in support of this argument. You should describe at least one empirical study in support of your first argument in some detail. In your description of the study, please include the following information: (1) a description of the question the authors were examining; (2) a description of who and how many participants were used; (3) a description of the stimuli and/or assessments used to gather information on participants; (4) a description of the procedure used to gather this data; (5) the type of data collected (provide information about independent and dependent variables); (6) a summary of specific results of study; (7) a statement of how these specific findings provide support for your opinion. • Third Argument = you should start this paragraph with your third argument in support of your opinion. Again, I suggest a one-sentence summary of the specific findings from the study you are about to review in this paragraph. This argument should be the very first sentence of the paragraph. The bulk of the paragraph will then be used to describe research in support of this argument. You should describe at least one empirical study in support of your first argument in some detail. In your description of the study, please include the following LIN 4710: Language Acquisition Dr. Shannon Pruden information: (1) a description of the question the authors were examining; (2) a description of who and how many participants were used; (3) a description of the stimuli and/or assessments used to gather information on participants; (4) a description of the procedure used to gather this data; (5) the type of data collected (provide information about independent and dependent variables); (6) a summary of specific results of study; (7) a statement of how these specific findings provide support for your opinion. • Closing Statement = should include a restatement of the question posed to you in the assignment, your opinion (clearly stated), and a description of the three arguments you will use to support your opinion. For each of three arguments, I suggest a one-sentence summary of the specific findings from the study you will review below in each argument paragraph. Thus, you will have three sentences, each summarizing specific findings (arguments) in support of your opinion. Note: All assignments must be typed double-spaced, 12-point Times (or Times New Roman) font. There are no minimum or maximum page limits; but please be sure to review the grading rubric. All assignments will be run through Turnitin Software and I will examine Turnitin results carefully for issues with plagiarism. Any assignment returning a similiarity score of 20% or higher will be carefully examined for plagiarism.

**Some students have requested a little help with journal articles for the required writing assignment. I am including a few here below for links), particularly ones that are in support of a functionalist approach. I am also including a few on how children learn words. You may only use 1 article from this subset for your paper. You must identify two other articles on your own.

How Children Learn Words Articles

Imai, M., Gentner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children’s theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9, 45-75.

Landau, B., Smith, L.B., & Jones, S.S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.

Markman, E.M., Wasow, J.L., & Hansen, M.B. (2003). Use of mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 241-275.

Pruden, S.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hennon, E.A. (2006). The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words through perceptual salience. Child Development, 77, 266-280.

Functionalist/Formalist Debate Articles

Mundy, P., & Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 469-482.

Rowe, M.L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science, 323, 951-953.

Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Bornstein, M.H., Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72, 7488-767.

Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M.J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454-1463.

Rubric

LIN Rubric

LIN Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction:Question PosedRestatement of Question Posed.
2.0 pts

Question that was posed in assignment was restated in introduction. Restatement of question posed was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

“Question that was posed in assignment was restated in introduction, however restatement of question posed was not clear, concise, and/or well-written. “

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no restatement of question was found.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction:Opinion StatedClear Statement of Opinion.
2.0 pts

A clear statement of opinion on the question posed in assignment was provided. Statement of opinion was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

A statement of opinion on the question posed in assignment was provided, however statement was not clear, concise, and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no opinion was stated.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction:Argument 1Summary of Argument 1 Provided.
2.0 pts

First argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

First argument in support of opinion was summarized , however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of first argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction: Argument 2Summary of Argument 2 Provided.
2.0 pts

Second argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Second argument in support of opinion was summarized , however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of second argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction:Argument 3Summary of Argument 3 Provided.
2.0 pts

Third argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Third argument in support of opinion was summarized , however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of third argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction:Evidenced-BasedArguments were Evidenced-Based.
2.0 pts

All three arguments in introduction were based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

 1.0 pts

Only one or two arguments in introduction were based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

 0.0 pts

All three arguments in introduction were not based on empirical on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:First SentenceFirst Sentence of First Argument Paragraph Summarized Argument.
2.0 pts

First sentence of the first argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

First sentence of the first argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was not very clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of argument in first sentence of first argument paragraph was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:Specific FindingsFirst Argument Summarized Specific Findings.
2.0 pts

First argument summarized the specific findings of an empirical journal article. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

“Summary of findings of empirical journal article was very general and/or this summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written. “

 0.0 pts

Summary of specific findings was inadequate and/or missing.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1: Research QuestionDescription of Article’s Research Question Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:ParticipantsDescription of Article’s Participants Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about participants.

 1.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:Stimuli/AssessmentsDescription of Article’s Stimuli/Assessments Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the stimuli/assessments.

 1.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:ProcedureDescription of Article’s Procedure Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of procedure used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the procedure used to gather data.

 1.0 pts

Summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about how data were gathered.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:VariablesDescription of Article’s Independent and Dependent Variables Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the independent and dependent variables.

 1.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about independent and dependent variables.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1: Study ResultsDescription of Article’s Specific Study Results Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of specific study results of empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the specific study results.

 1.0 pts

Summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about specific study results.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 1:Linking StatementA Statement of How Specific Findings Provide Support for Opinion Included.
2.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included. This statement was clear, concise and well-written and detailed how specific findings provide support for opinion.

 1.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included, however statement was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:First SentenceFirst Sentence of Second Argument Paragraph Summarized Argument.
2.0 pts

First sentence of the second argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

First sentence of the second argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was not very clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of argument in first sentence of second argument paragraph was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Specific FindingsSecond Argument Summarized Specific Findings.
2.0 pts

Second argument summarized the specific findings of an empirical journal article. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Summary of findings of empirical journal article was very general and/or this summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Summary of specific findings was inadequate and/or missing.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Empirical DataSecond Argument was Evidenced-Based.
2.0 pts

Second argument was based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal article reporting original data.

 1.0 pts

Second argument was based on meta-analysis and/or a chapter/book/review paper.

 0.0 pts

Second argument was not based on any empirical evidence and/or textbook was used as primary source.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Research QuestionDescription of Article’s Research Question Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:ParticipantsDescription of Article’s Participants Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about participants.

 1.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Stimuli/AssessmentsDescription of Article’s Stimuli/Assessments Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the stimuli/assessments.

 1.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2: ProcedureDescription of Article’s Procedure Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of procedure used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the procedure used to gather data.

 1.0 pts

Summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about how data were gathered.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:VariablesDescription of Article’s Independent and Dependent Variables Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the independent and dependent variables.

 1.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about independent and dependent variables.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Study ResultsDescription of Article’s Specific Study Results Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of specific study results of empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the specific study results.

 1.0 pts

Summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about specific study results.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 2:Linking StatementA Statement of How Specific Findings Provide Support for Opinion Included.
2.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included. This statement was clear, concise and well-written and detailed how specific findings provide support for opinion.

 1.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included, however statement was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:First SentenceFirst Sentence of Third Argument Paragraph Summarized Argument.
2.0 pts

First sentence of the third argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

First sentence of the third argument paragraph summarized argument. This sentence was not very clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of argument in first sentence of third argument paragraph was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Specific FindingsThird Argument Summarized Specific Findings.
2.0 pts

Third argument summarized the specific findings of an empirical journal article. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Summary of findings of empirical journal article was very general and/or this summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Summary of specific findings was inadequate and/or missing.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Empirical DataThird Argument was Evidenced-Based.
2.0 pts

Third argument was based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal article reporting original data.

 1.0 pts

Third argument was based on meta-analysis and/or a chapter/book/review paper.

 0.0 pts

Third argument was not based on any empirical evidence and/or textbook was used as primary source.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Research QuestionDescription of Article’s Research Question Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of research question posed by authors in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:ParticipantsDescription of Article’s Participants Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about participants.

 1.0 pts

Summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of participants included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Stimuli/AssessmentsDescription of Article’s Stimuli/Assessments Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the stimuli/assessments.

 1.0 pts

Summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of stimuli/assessments included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:ProcedureDescription of Article’s Procedure Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of procedure used in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the procedure used to gather data.

 1.0 pts

Summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about how data were gathered.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of procedure included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:VariablesDescription of Article’s Independent and Dependent Variables Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables in empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the independent and dependent variables.

 1.0 pts

Summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about independent and dependent variables.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of independent and dependent variables included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Study ResultsDescription of Article’s Specific Study Results Provided.
2.0 pts

Summary of specific study results of empirical journal article was provided. This summary was clear, concise and well-written and provided detailed information about the specific study results.

 1.0 pts

Summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided, however summary was not clear, concise and/or well-written and/or did not provide detailed information about specific study results.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of specific study results included in empirical journal article was provided.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument 3:Linking StatementA Statement of How Specific Findings Provide Support for Opinion Included.
2.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included. This statement was clear, concise and well-written and detailed how specific findings provide support for opinion.

 1.0 pts

Statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included, however statement was not clear, concise and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no statement linking how specific findings from empirical journal article provide support for opinion was included.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing:Question PosedRestatement of Question Posed.
2.0 pts

Question that was posed in assignment was restated in closing. Restatement of question posed was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Question that was posed in assignment was restated in closing, however restatement of question posed was not clear, concise, and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no restatement of question was found.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing:Opinion Stated Clear Statement of Opinion.
2.0 pts

A clear statement of opinion on the question posed in assignment was provided. Statement of opinion was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

A statement of opinion on the question posed in assignment was provided, however statement was not clear, concise, and/or well-written.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no opinion was stated.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing:Argument 1Summary of Argument 1 Provided.
2.0 pts

First argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

First argument in support of opinion was summarized , however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of first argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing: Argument 2Summary of Argument 2 Provided.
2.0 pts

Second argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Second argument in support of opinion was summarized , however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of second argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing:Argument 3Summary of Argument 3 Provided.
2.0 pts

Third argument in support of opinion was clearly summarized in a separate sentence. Sentence was clear, concise, and well-written.

 1.0 pts

Third argument in support of opinion was summarized, however summary was not clear, concise, and/or written-well.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no summary of third argument.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClosing:Evidenced-BasedArguments were Evidenced-Based.
2.0 pts

All three arguments in closing were based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

 1.0 pts

Only one or two arguments in closing were based on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

 0.0 pts

All three arguments in closing were not based on empirical on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles reporting original data.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar:5-ParagraphUsed 5-Paragraph Format.
2.0 pts

Paper followed 5-paragraph format.

 1.0 pts

Paper had more/less than 5-paragraphs, but contained most of the required components.

 0.0 pts

Paper had more/less than 5-paragraphs, and did not contain most of the required components.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar:SpellingSpelling
2.0 pts

No spelling errors were noted.

 1.0 pts

A few spelling errors were noted.

 0.0 pts

Paper had a lot of spelling errors.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar:SentencesRun-on Sentences.
2.0 pts

No run-on or awkward sentences were noted.

 1.0 pts

A few run-on or awkward sentences were noted.

 0.0 pts

Paper had a lot of run-on or awkward sentences.

2.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitations:Author/Year In-text Citations were Provided.
2.0 pts

All three in-text citations were provided. In-text citations included both author and year.

 1.0 pts

Only one or two in-text citations were provided. In-text citations may have been missing author and/or year information.

 0.0 pts

Required component was missing; no in-text citations were provided.