|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less Than Satisfactory
80.00% |
3
Satisfactory
88.00% |
4
Good
92.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 10.0 %Introduction |
Introduction is either not present or not evident to the reader. |
Introduction is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Purpose is not clear, and paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Introduction is present but lacks clarity and/or depth. |
Introduction is clear, forecasting development of paper. |
Introduction is comprehensive; reader knows exactly what to expect. |
| 25.0 %Summary of Article |
Summary of article is either not present or not evident to the reader. |
Summary fails to paint a clear picture of the article, omits major elements, and is disorganized. |
Summarizes the primary elements and key points of the article; however, summary is cursory and lacks depth. |
Summary of the article is clearly evident to the reader. Themes and details are present and easily identified. |
Thoroughly presents all of the information to portray a clear chronology as well as richness of detail. |
| 25.0 %Application to Practice |
Application to practice is either not present or not evident to the reader. |
Paper describes but fails to address some of the elements, lacks depth/detail, omits major elements, and is disorganized. |
Addresses necessary elements. Arguments lack depth and detail. |
Application to practice is clearly evident to the reader. Arguments are supported. |
Thoroughly presents the application to practice. Arguments are supported with logical and convincing statements. |
| 10.0 %Conclusion |
Conclusion is either not present or not evident to the reader. |
Conclusion is insufficiently developed and/or vague and lacks any discernible purpose. |
Conclusion is present, but statements lack depth of understanding. |
Conclusion is clear and identifies key ideas regarding specific culture and application to practice. |
Conclusion is comprehensive and paints a clear picture of the application of cultural sensitivity to professional communication. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
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. |
| 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 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. |
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
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), 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. |
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 5.0 %Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
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 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) |
No reference page is included. No citations are used. |
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. |
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. |
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. |
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
