3

2

1

Key concepts are defined and their source identified. An issue of clearly presented.

Key concepts are defined, but few citations are provided. Two perspectives on an issue are not clearly presented.

Key concepts are not well defined or their sources

are not acknowledged. An issue is not clearly presented.

3

2

1

Points made, discussion

pertains to the purpose

or issue. Issue presented is clearly relevant to the field.

Relations of paper to the

purpose of the ssignment

is ambiguous. Ideas presented not clearly related to topic.

Points made not clearly related to issue; discussion is peripheral to or unrelated to the purpose or issue

3

2

1

Parts are consistent, make

sense, are connected with one another. Arguments clearly aligned with issue perspectives.

General outline is present, but not all parts are connect to main idea. Positions on issue not clearly defended.

Inconsistencies, internal

contradictions apparent; connections not clear; no clear outline. No support for issue perspective.

3

2

1

Ideas are fully developed; no obvious areas ignored, omitted; encompasses the

full picture, free of systematic bias.

Most key ideas are

presented; difference

perspectives are mentioned, but no attempt to develop more than one perspective.

Addresses only some parts; obvious areas omitted creatinga partial, biased perspective; no attempt to balance perspectives.

3

2

1

Analysis, description moves beyond surface; thoughtful, reflective analysis, explanations,

elaborations, and assessments. Relationships among ideas clearly identified.

Analysis, explanations,

elaborations, assessments,

borrowed intact from

others and are routine,

typical. Weak connection of ideas.

Analysis, explanations,

elaborations, assessments

not present where needed

and when present, are meager. No connection of ideas.

3

2

1

Key literature on the topic included; foundational and

current literature cited; balance between paper-based and web-based citations.

Some key literature included; syllabus readings are primary source of ideas;

foundational or current literature not well represented.

Literature cited does not have a clear relationship to topic; use of foundational or current literature not apparent; excessive use of web-based sources.

3

2

1

Clear outline of ideas is

apparent; headings and

subheadings are used

effectively; well organized

concept map is available.

Organization is depicted by headings and subheadings, but the content in sections

overlaps; concept maps

lacks a clear hierarchy.

Organization is weak; few

headings and subheadings

to guide reading; no

concept map.

Technical aspects of punctuation, spelling, grammar and English style are consistently used correctly; citation style is consistently used correctly. Concept map placed at WebCT site. Paper submitted on time.

Some errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar, and English style detract from

the clarity of the ideas

presented. Bibliographic

style not consistent. Concept map present but not placed at WebCT site. Paper submitted less than three days late.

Consistent errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, or other aspects of English style

detract from clear presentation of the topic. Standard bibliographic style not used. No concept map. Paper more than three days late.