|
|
Source quality
|
Relevance
|
Thoroughness
|
Insight
|
Writing/mechanics
|
|
Exceeds Expectations
|
Psychology Journals only
|
Topic is complex and allows for multiple points of view; topic is clearly related to Human Development
|
Sources represent a variety of points of view, and include the results of scientific research; each is fully described; information from the textbook is integrated into the paper
|
Conclusion demonstrates thought and reflection; a synthesis of information from various sources is evident
|
Consistently follows rules of standard English; Writing is organized, clear and coherent; Sources cited using APA style correctly in text and in Works Cited
|
|
Meets Expectations
|
In-depth articles in the New York Times, news magazines, or Psychology Today and at least 1 Journal article
|
Topic has at least 2 points of view; is related to Human Development
|
Sources represent at least 2 points of view and are of high quality (describe scientific research, provide strong logic and evidence; avoid anecdotes); each source is described; the textbook is used in the analysis
|
Conclusion is logical and follows from information presented in the paper
|
No major errors in English usage; Organized for readability; Sources cited using APA style
|
|
Approaches Expectations
|
Brief articles in the New York Times, news magazines, or Psychology Today
|
Topic is "encyclopedic" (there is only one point of view to have); relation to Human Development is tangential
|
Sources represent only one point of view or are simplistic (simply listing information and not providing sources, logic, or contradictory points of view); the textbook is mentioned, but not used in the analysis
|
Conclusion does not follow from information presented or reflects no new thought
|
Significant errors in English usage; some organizational problems; Citations are inadequate
|
|
Does Not Approach Expectations
(failing grade)
|
.com sources with no author or references
|
Topic is "encyclopedic"; topic is not related to Human Development
|
Sources represent only one point of view and are simplistic; the textbook is not used
|
Conclusion is weak, unclear, or illogical
|
Multiple significant errors in English usage; poorly organized; fails to cite sources; is not stap
|