| 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. | |
100 %Total Weightage | | | | | | |