Assignment 2-1

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%

2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00%

3 Satisfactory 75.00%

4 Good 85.00%

5 Excellent 100.00%

70.0 %Content

20.0 %Literature Review and Supporting Argument

References are not categorized in an appropriately logical manner. Little or no information is given regarding the value of the references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.

Presentation does an incomplete job of categorizing project references. Review does a superficial or incomplete job of describing the value of references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.

Presentation categorizes information from project references appropriately and incorporates the supporting evidence into an argument that validates the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.

Presentation clearly categorizes and incorporates applicable information from project references and applies the basic research well towards validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project. Collection of references covers most aspects of the project in adequate depth.

Presentation utilizes the categorized information from the references in a clear and comprehensive manner to clearly validate and support the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project; Collection of references is comprehensive and supports all aspects of the project.

20.0 %Critical Analysis of Supporting Data

Argument is more of a literature review than a supporting, critical analysis of the reference contributions to the project.

Argument does not utilize reference information adequately to provide support for why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Argument is somewhat vague or incomplete.

Argument uses relevant findings from supporting references to present a basic position as to why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.

Argument uses reference material in an appropriate manner to convince the reader that the problem, purpose, and possible solution are clearly valid. Subject knowledge appears to be good.

Argument is convincing and clearly articulated with adequate supporting references to validate the problem, purpose, and solution of the project. Argument demonstrates thorough subject knowledge and understanding.

20.0 %Incorporation of a Valid Theory to Support the Project

A valid theory to be incorporated in support of the project is not identified or explained, or a theory is improperly stated. Subject knowledge is not demonstrated or is poorly demonstrated.

Identification and explanation of a valid theory to incorporate in support of the project is somewhat vague or incomplete.

A valid theory is identified and a basic explanation is provided of how the theory is incorporated in support of the project. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.

A detailed presentation of the chosen theory is provided. How this theory will be incorporated in support of the project is clearly explained.

A detailed explanation of why the selected theory is the most applicable is provided. Clear plans are provided with supporting examples for incorporating the theory in support of the project.

10.0 %Research Sources (Sources are appropriate, relevant, etc. Also, sources meet assignment quantity and type specifications, including evidence-based resources.)

Sources are not used or cited as required in the assignment instructions. Noncredible sources are used.

Source relevance is vague and/or inconsistent. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are not used. Literature review does not meet required minimum references: 15.

Source relevance is mostly applicable and appropriate. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.

Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.

Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances as well as sparking interest in the reader to pursue further investigation. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

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.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. 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.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

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

Does not meet minimum assigned length; numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in three or more of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure (incomplete sentences; run-on sentences; incorrect subject-verb agreement, etc.).

Does not meet minimum assigned length; repeated specific types of errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar (e.g., paper consistently has subject-verb disagreement); Inappropriate in two of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.

Meets assigned length criteria; Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in one of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.

Meets assigned length criteria; few errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; appropriate in all of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.

Meets assigned length criteria; no major errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; professional appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), professional tone, word choice, and sentence structure; Uses headings to organize paper.

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 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

100 %Total Weightage