Psychology assignment help

Cognitive Mapping Worksheet - Rubric

Cognitive Mapping 12 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of cognitive mapping.

5. Target 12 points

An explanation of cognitive mapping is thorough and accurate.

4. Acceptable 10.2 points

An explanation of cognitive mapping is present with few errors.

3. Approaching 9 points

An explanation of cognitive mapping is present but lacks detail.

2. Insufficient 7.8 points

An explanation of cognitive mapping is inaccurate or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

An explanation of cognitive mapping is missing.

Collapse All

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Positive Effects in Daily Life 12 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily life.

5. Target 12 points

An explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily

life is thorough and accurate.

4. Acceptable 10.2 points

An explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily

life is present with few errors.

3. Approaching 9 points

An explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily

life is present but lacks detail.

2. Insufficient 7.8 points

An explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily

life is inaccurate or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

An explanation of at least two positive effects of using cognitive mapping in daily

life is missing.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Benefits of Memory Strategy 12 points

Criteria Description

Analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why.

5. Target 12 points

An analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why is

thorough and accurate.

4. Acceptable 10.2 points

An analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why is

present with few errors.

3. Approaching 9 points

An analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why is

present but lacks detail.

2. Insufficient 7.8 points

An analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why is

inaccurate or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

An analysis of who might benefit from using this memory strategy and why is

missing.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Current Metacognitive Trends 12 points

Criteria Description

Description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and evaluation

of the current metacognitive trends used in the field.

5. Target 12 points

A description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and

evaluation of the current metacognitive trends used in the field is thorough and

accurate.

4. Acceptable 10.2 points

A description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and

evaluation of the current metacognitive trends used in the field is present with few

errors.

3. Approaching 9 points

A description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and

evaluation of the current metacognitive trends used in the field is present but lacks

detail.

2. Insufficient 7.8 points

A description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and

evaluation of the current metacognitive trends used in the field is inaccurate or

incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A description of how mind mapping can be used as a metacognitive tool and

evaluation of the current metacognitive trends used in the field is missing.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Cognitive Mind Map 16 points

Criteria Description

Includes a cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey.

5. Target 16 points

A cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey is thorough

and accurate.

4. Acceptable 13.6 points

A cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey is present with

few errors.

3. Approaching 12 points

A cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey is present but

lacks detail.

2. Insufficient 10.4 points

A cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey is inaccurate or

incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A cognitive mind map that relates to the student’s academic journey is missing.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Evidence 8 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance purpose; considers other

perspectives.

5. Target 8 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are

clearly considered. Four scholarly sources applied to support relevant perspectives.

4. Acceptable 6.8 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Approaching 6 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or

integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Insufficient 5.2 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is

superficial or incorrect. Using less than four scholarly sources.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Evidence to support the purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the

perspective of the writer.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Mechanics of Writing 4 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence

structure, etc.

5. Target 4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence

structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable 3.4 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence

structure are used.

3. Approaching 3 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally

appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient 2.6 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language

choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language

choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Format/Documentation 4 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;

documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,

appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target 4 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable 3.4 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching 3 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious

errors.

2. Insufficient 2.6 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors

in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

Total 80 points

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.