|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Criterion 1 - Topic selection & approval (Full credit: 20 pts)
|
20 points
Proposed topic submitted on time and covered one of the assigned issues: description of a current issue, its solution, its economic implications, or impact on ecosystems.
(20-18 pts)
|
17 points
Proposed topic submitted on time but weak coverage of the assigned issues: description of a current issue, its solution, its economic implications, or impact on ecosystems.
(17-14 pts)
|
13 points
Proposed topic submitted late and/or and weak coverage of the assigned issues: description of a current issue, its solution, its economic implications, or impact on ecosystems.
(13-0 pts)
|
|
Criterion 2 - Scientific Content and Synthesis (Full credit: 100 pts)
|
100 points
Facts, organization, and conclusions follow a clear, logical sequence that supports the thesis statement. Citations of scholarly references support scientific content. Accurate scientific information. No text has been copied verbatim without proper source recognition. Outstanding treatment of applicable course outcome.
(100-90 pts)
|
75 points
Nearly all directions followed. Although the writing is essentially well organized, the audience analysis, the statement of purpose, or the handling of the content is flawed. Occasional vague wording hinders precise communication. Contains one to two science content errors. One to two statements (or significant phrases) have been copied verbatim without proper source recognition. Superior treatment of applicable course outcome.
(89-70 pts)
|
60 points
Unsatisfactory or incorrect content. Many content errors; content is largely unsupported generalities. Points are inadequately developed; few specifics. Poorly organized; difficult to follow. Substantial text (e.g., more than six statements or significant phrases) has been copied verbatim without proper source recognition. Significant overdependence on one to two references. Did not satisfy applicable course outcome.
(69-0 pts)
|
|
Criterion 3 - Scholarly APA References (Full credit: 40 pts)
|
40 points
All references were in APA-style and were properly cited using in-text and reference listings. Used 6 or more references. Many different, reputable types of references are used (e.g., textbook, scientific articles, encyclopedia, reputable Internet sources).
(40-36 pts)
|
35 points
Most references were in APA-style and were properly cited using in-text and reference listings. Used 3-5 references. Many different, reputable types of references are used (e.g., textbook, scientific articles, encyclopedia, reputable Internet sources).
(35-25 pts)
|
20 points
Improper use of APA-style and/or in-text citations. Used 3 or fewer references and/or consulted unreliable resources (blogs, Wikipedia, etc.).
(24-0 pts)
|
|
Criterion 4 - Effective Writing (Full credit: 30 pts)
|
30 points
No writing or grammatical errors. Words are chosen and sentences are constructed to make the information understandable.
(30-27 pts)
|
26 points
Contains a few grammatical, spelling, or syntactic errors, which sometimes interfere with reading and comprehension.
(26-21 pts)
|
20 points
Contains several grammatical, spelling, or syntactic errors, which significantly distract the reader from the content. Language is used inaccurately.
(20-0 pts)
|
|
Criterion 5 - Format (Full credit: 10 pts)
|
10 points
Met all formatting guidelines: was 5-7 pp (min-max), including all figures/tables; used 12-pt font, 1-in margins all around, and was double-spaced.
(10-9 pts)
|
8 points
Met most of the formatting guidelines: was 5-7 pp (min-max), includes figures/tables; used 12-pt font, 1-in margins all around, and was double-spaced.
(8-7 pts)
|
6 points
Met few of the formatting guidelines: was 5-7 pp (min-max), includes figures/tables; used 12-pt font, 1-in margins all around, and was double-spaced.
(6-0 pts)
|
|
Overall Score
|
Level 3
180 or more
|
Level 2
140 or more
|
Level 1
0 or more
|
|
|
|
|
|
iikotu
written_assingment_nsci.docx
