| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| PSY-530 |
PSY-530-O500 |
Self-Esteem and Impression Management |
95.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (87.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
70.0% |
| Essay provides four personal examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories. |
30.0% |
Essay provides no examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories. |
Essay provides less than four personal examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories; few, if any significant supporting details are evident. |
Essay provides at least four personal examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories; pertinent details are included. |
Essay provides at least four personal examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories; pertinent details are clearly integrated. |
Essay provides at least four personal examples to illustrate impression management, social tuning, social comparisons, mindsets, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, or causal theories; examples are well-detailed. Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the assignment. |
| Relevant discussion of face-to-face vs. written communication styles. |
|
| 20.0% |
Example omits a relevant discussion of face-to-face versus written communication styles. |
Example provides an incomplete, inaccurate and/or irrelevant discussion of face-to-face versus written communication styles. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of face-to-face versus written communication styles; some details on measures that can be taken to improve nonverbal communication are included. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of face-to-face versus written communication styles; well- detailed measures that can be taken to improve nonverbal communication are included. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of face-to-face versus written communication styles; thoroughly detailed measures that can be taken to improve nonverbal communication are included. Analysis is thorough and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Relevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc |
20.0%
Example omits a relevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc. |
Example provides an incomplete, inaccurate and/or irrelevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc.; some details and research for each example are included. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc.; examples are well- detailed and supported by relevant research. |
Example provides a relevant discussion of how personal views were shaped by parents, teachers, friends, community, culture, etc.; examples are thoroughly detailed and supported by relevant research. Analysis is thorough and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Organization and Effectiveness |
20.0%
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
7.0% |
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. 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. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
8.0% |
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. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
|
| 5.0% |
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. |
Format
| 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
5.0%
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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
5.0%
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
