| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| CNL-521 | CNL-521-O500 | Vargas Family Case Study: Fourth Session (Obj. 4.2) | 75.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) | Satisfactory (79.00%) | Good (87.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Two Presenting Problems | 20.0% | The paper does not discuss two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper vaguely discusses two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper fully discusses two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides an advanced discussion of two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research. |
| How Problems are Maintained According to the Structural Family Therapy Perspective | 20.0% | The paper does not discuss how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper vaguely discusses how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper fully discusses how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides an advanced discussion on how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides a comprehensive discussion on how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research. |
| Two Structural Interventions for Next Sessions | 20.0% | The paper does not discuss two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper vaguely discusses two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper fully discusses two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides an advanced discussion of two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research. |
| Role of the Counselor | 10.0% | The paper does not discuss the role of the counselor in the change process according to the structural family therapy perspective and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper vaguely discusses the role of the counselor in the change process according to the structural family therapy perspective and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper fully discusses the role of the counselor in the change process according to the structural family therapy perspective and cognitive-behavioral perspectives and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides an advanced discussion of the role of the counselor in the change process according to the structural family therapy perspective and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research. | The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of the role of the counselor in the change process according to the structural family therapy perspective and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | 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 and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. 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. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | 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. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
olhutto
Rubric_Print_Format9.xlsx
