Criminological Theori

Category

Excellent [3 points]

Good [2 points]

Fair [1 point]

Poor [0 points]

Introduction

The introduction engages the reader. It provides an accurate identification of the theory and theorist(s) who developed it along with a substantive discussion of the origins of the theory.

The introduction provides an accurate identification of the theory and theorist(s) who developed it, along with a discussion of the origins of the theory. However, a gap exists in the discussion of the origins of the theory.

The introduction provides an accurate identification of the theory and the theorists, but multiple gaps exist in the discussion of the origins of the theory.

The introduction attempts to identify the theory and the theorist(s) but has some inaccuracy and it fails to cover the origins of the theory. OR The introduction attempts to identify the theory and the theorist(s) but has some inaccuracy, and the information regarding the origins of the theory are minimal, inaccurate or unclear.

Theoretical Provisions

The author provides a comprehensive and accurate discussion of the causal arguments of the theory.

The author provides a discussion of the causal arguments of the theory, but one point is inaccurate or there is a gap in the discussion.

The author provides some discussion of the causal arguments of the theory, but some gaps or inaccuracies exist.

The author attempts to provide a discussion of the causal arguments of the theory, but the points are inaccurate or unclear. OR The author fails to provide a discussion of the causal arguments of the theory.

Theoretical Testing

The author integrates the information from most or all of the sources to discuss the results of empirical tests of the theory comprehensively and accurately in a literature review format. The author addresses all of the questions posed.

The author integrates information from most or all of the sources to discuss the results of empirical tests of the theory in a literature review format. While the information is accurate, the author fails to answer one of the questions posed.

The author relies on a literature review organizational structure for most of the discussion in response to the questions, but has some deviation from this requirement. While most of the information is accurate, some of the information discussed is inaccurate.

The author fails to discuss most or all of the sources in this section or the author fails to discuss the sources in a literature review format. The author neglects to address two or more of the questions posed or the author addresses all of the questions posed but the information is unclear or inaccurate.

Future Research

The author comprehensively, clearly offers a discussion of what future research needs to address. The author links the discussion to points raised in section 3e of the content requirements.

The author offers a discussion of what future research needs to address, but the author fails to address one of the questions posed.

The author offers a discussion of what future research needs to address but the information is inconsistent with points raised in section 2e or the information is unclear.

The author fails to discuss what future research needs to address or the author attempts to address this information but it is unclear.

Conclusion

The author clearly summarizes the main points of the paper without stating them verbatim. The author provides a clear discussion of a policy recommendation grounded in the chosen theory.

The author summarizes the main points of the paper. The author provides a discussion of a policy recommendation grounded in the chosen theory, but some aspect of the discussion is unclear.

The author summarizes the main points of the paper and a policy recommendation grounded in the chosen theory, but the discussion in one of the sections is unclear.

The author provides a summary of the main points of the paper or a policy recommendation grounded in the theory, but not both. OR The author provides a discussion of the main points of the paper and a policy recommendation grounded in the theory, but the information is unclear. OR The author fails to provide a conclusion.

Organization

The author demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs that connect to topic sentences and each other in the section in which they fall and regarding the central focus of the paper.

For the most part, the paper demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas, but some transitions are weak between paragraphs, within sections, and in relation to the central focus of the paper.

The paper has significant disjointedness in transitions internal to and between paragraphs, which affect coherence. The paper shows limited connection to the central focus of the paper.

The paper has no clear organization of ideas. Headings are insufficient, as the material contained within the sections does not clearly relate to the relevant topic of the heading or to the central focus of the paper.

Originality

All information appears in the author’s words. The presentation of information demonstrates a high level of comprehension and ability to apply concepts.

Most of the information appears in the author’s words. The use of quotations does not exceed quotation restrictions imposed and the material quoted is suitable for quoting rather than paraphrasing. The author demonstrates a good understanding and ability to apply concepts.

The author exceeds the quotation restrictions by 1-2 instances. The author demonstrates some weakness in understanding and applying concepts.

The author exceeds the quotation restrictions by three or more instances, thus demonstrating limited comprehension and ability to apply concepts.

Source Types

The author meets the requirements for the types of sources permitted.

The author meets the requirements for the types of sources permitted in most cases (i.e., more than half).

The author meets the requirement for the types of sources permitted in some cases, but not most.

The author fails to meet the requirements for the types of sources permitted.

Citations

Correctly cites all sources in the text and in the references in APA format

Correctly cites most sources in the text and in the references in APA format (i.e., more than half)

Correctly cites some sources in the text and in the references, but not most

Cites none of the sources in APA format.

Mechanics (Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling)

Mechanics and style errors are absent or so minimal that they do not affect the clarity of the author's ideas. Extensive proofreading and editing is evident.

Mechanics and style errors appear occasionally, but they do not disrupt the overall clarity of the author's ideas. A moderate level of proofreading and editing is present.

Mechanics and style errors are frequent and cause the reader to have to reread part of the author's work. However, while it is a struggle to grasp the author's ideas it is not impossible to ascertain most, if not all, of the author's ideas. Minimal evidence of proofreading and editing is present.

Mechanics and style errors are extensive and impair the reader's ability to understand the author's ideas. Evidence of proofreading and editing is absent.

Style

Sentence structure is varied in format, yet focused and organized to retain the reader’s interest; uses formal language (no jargon, clichés, slang, colloquialisms, euphemisms or contractions); has 0-10% passive voice; no redundancy or wordiness; the paper is mindful of the audience. The paper provides a clear recitation of your ideas. Extensive proofreading and editing are evident.

Sentence structure is varied in format, but occasional use of informal language occurs. Has 11-19% passive voice. The problems do not affect the overall clarity of the author’s ideas. A moderate level of proofreading and editing are evident.

Significant use of informal language; limited variation in sentence structure. Has 20-28% passive voice. However, while it is a struggle to grasp the author's ideas it is not impossible to ascertain most, if not all, of the author's ideas. Minimal evidence of proofreading and editing are present.

Excessive use of informal language, such that the paper does not meet the standard of professional writing. Has 29% or more passive voice. The problems impede the reader’s ability to ascertain most if not all of the author’s ideas. Evidence of proofreading and editing are absent.

Formatting

All formatting requirements are met.

Most formatting requirements are met (i.e., > 50%).

Some formatting requirements are met, but not most.

No formatting requirements are met.