Analyzing

1 No submission 0.00%

2 Insufficient 65.00%

3 Approaching 75.00%

4 Acceptable 85.00%

5 Target 100.00%

100.0 %Content

35.0 % Text Analysis

Not addressed.

Text analysis does not use the 10 guidelines mentioned in the article to evaluate a piece of children's literature for bias.

Text analysis uses the 10 guidelines mentioned in the article to evaluate a piece of children's literature for bias. Evaluation takes a general stance regarding the inclusion of or lack of bias.

Text analysis uses the 10 guidelines mentioned in the article to evaluate a piece of children's literature for bias. Evaluation takes a clear stance regarding the inclusion of or lack of bias. Examples are provided to reinforce the analysis.

Text analysis uses the 10 guidelines mentioned in the article to evaluate a piece of children's literature for bias. Evaluation is thorough and takes a firm stance regarding the inclusion of or lack of bias. Thoughtful, compelling examples are provided to reinforce the analysis.

35.0 % Placement of Text on the Cultural Competence Continuum

Not addressed.

Response incorrectly places text on the Cultural Competency Continuum and fails to include a reasonable rationale.

Response may incorrectly place text on the Cultural Competence Continuum. Provides general rationale regarding the placement.

Response appropriately places text on the Cultural Competence Continuum with a clear rationale regarding the placement.

Response clearly and accurately describes where the text falls on the Cultural Competence Continuum with a convincing and thoughtful rationale regarding the placement.

10.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose

Not addressed.

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, reflective of the arguments, and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

10.0 % Paragraph Development and Transitions

Not addressed.

Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident.

Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.

A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose.

There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless.

5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Not addressed.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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.

5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

Not addressed.

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Appropriate template is used, and 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.