| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| PSY-866 | PSY-866-O500 | Benchmark - Cognitive Dissonance, Social Attribution, and Learning and Instruction | 270.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%) | Satisfactory (82.00%) | Good (91.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 80.0% |
| Reflection | 5.0% | A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A reflection is present, but incomplete. A list of specific revisions made is not present. | A reflection is presented, but cursory and lacking depth of insight. A list of revisions made is present, but lacks specificity; the revisions noted are not substantive. | A reflection is present and reasonable. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are reasonable. | A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful insight. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are impactful. |
| Integration of Instructor Feedback | 5.0% | Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader. | Integration of instructor feedback is attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. Feedback is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. |
| Revision of Thesis and Argument | 5.0% | No improvements to the thesis and argument are evident. | Thesis and/or main claim remain insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. The argument presented remains disorganized and unclear. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. 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. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. The argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Revision of Writing Mechanics | 5.0% | No improvements to the writing mechanics are evident. | Changes to the writing components are largely cosmetic rather than substantive. Mechanical errors continue to be a distraction to the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice remain present. | Changes to the writing components are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Writer demonstrates command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Discussion of the Theoretical Perspective and Current Research on Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Benchmarks C3.2: Analyze theoretical and empirical approaches to understanding mental processes.) | 15.0% | No discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on cognitive dissonance theory is presented. | A vague discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on cognitive dissonance theory is presented, but information presented is not based on scholarly sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on cognitive dissonance theory is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on cognitive dissonance theory is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on cognitive dissonance theory is presented. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Discussion of the Theoretical Perspective and Current Research on Social Attribution Theory | 10.0% | No discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on social attribution theory is presented. | A vague discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on social attribution theory is presented, but information presented is not based on scholarly sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on social attribution theory is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on social attribution theory is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. | A discussion of the theoretical perspective and current research on social attribution theory is presented. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Discussion of how Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Attribution Theory Could be Applied to Improve Learning and Instruction (Benchmarks C3.4: Apply the theories of cognitive psychology to learning and instruction.) | 15.0% | No discussion of how cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory could be applied to improve learning and instruction is presented. | A vague discussion of how cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory could be applied to improve learning and instruction is presented, but information presented is not based on scholarly sources. | A discussion of how cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory could be applied to improve learning and instruction is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources. | A discussion of how cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory could be applied to improve learning and instruction is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. | A discussion of how cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory could be applied to improve learning and instruction is presented. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Discussion of Personal Worldview as a Means to Countermand Cognitive Dissonance | 10.0% | No discussion of personal worldview as a means to countermand cognitive dissonance is presented. | A vague discussion of personal worldview as a means to countermand cognitive dissonance is presented, but information presented is not based on scholarly sources. | A discussion of personal worldview as a means to countermand cognitive dissonance is presented. Information presented is from both non-scholarly and scholarly sources. | A discussion of personal worldview as a means to countermand cognitive dissonance is presented. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. | A discussion of personal worldview as a means to countermand cognitive dissonance is presented. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Synthesis and Argument | 10.0% | No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. | Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. 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. | Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Synthesis of source information is present and is scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 10.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 10.0% | 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. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Mechanics of Writing | 5.0% | Mechanical 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), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| APA Format | 5.0% | Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used. | Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used. | Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present. | Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Berrioe1
Rubric_Print_PSY866_Wk6.xlsx
