| |
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
87.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|
5.0 %Introduction and Problem Statement
|
An introduction with problem statement is not present.
|
An introduction with problem statement is present but incomplete.
|
An introduction with problem statement is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
An introduction with problem statement is present, clear, and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
An introduction with problem statement is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
5.0 %Brief Literature Review
|
A brief literature review is not present.
|
A brief literature review is present but incomplete.
|
A brief literature review is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A brief literature review is clearly present in full. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A brief literature review is clearly present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Description of the Case, Situation, or Conditions Explained From a Theoretical Perspective.
|
A description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical perspective is not present.
|
A description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical perspective is present but incomplete.
|
A description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical perspective is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical perspective is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical perspective is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Detailed Explanation of the Synthesized Literature Findings
|
A detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is not present.
|
A detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but incomplete.
|
A detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Case Summary
|
A case summary is not present.
|
A case summary is present but incomplete.
|
A case summary is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A case summary is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A case summary is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Proposed Solutions to Remedy Identified Gaps, Inefficiencies, or Other Issues From a Theoretical Approach
|
Proposed solutions from a theoretical approach are not presented.
|
Proposed solutions from a theoretical approach are presented but are incomplete.
|
Proposed solutions from a theoretical approach are presented but are rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
Proposed solutions from a theoretical approach are clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
Proposed solutions from a theoretical approach are clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful, forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Identification of a Research Instrument to Evaluate the Proposed Solution Along With a Description of How the Instrument Could Be Evaluated
|
Identification of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of how the instrument could be evaluated is not present.
|
Identification of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of how the instrument could be evaluated is presented but is incomplete.
|
Identification of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of how the instrument could be evaluated is presented but is rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
Identification of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of how the instrument could be evaluated is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
Identification of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of how the instrument could be evaluated is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful, forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
10.0 %Conclusion
|
A conclusion is not presented.
|
A conclusion is presented but is incomplete.
|
A conclusion is presented but is rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 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.
|
|
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
|
|
