| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| CNL-525 |
CNL-525-O500 |
Marginalized Group Career Counseling Paper (Course Obj.) |
200.0 |
| 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% |
| Population and Why They Should Receive Career Counseling (CACREP 2.F.4.e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10.0% |
Paper does not include an explanation of the population as well as a discussion about why it is important they should receive career counseling. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes an explanation of the population as well as a discussion about why it is important they should receive career counseling. Only briefly mentions the population of interest without explanation of the importance of career counselingPaper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic explanation of the population as well as a discussion about why it is important they should receive career counseling. Population of interest is mentioned as well as the importance of career counseling with this population.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough explanation of the population as well as a discussion about why it is important they should receive career counseling. Thorough discussion of the population, and specific problems that may be resolved with career counseling are included.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive explanation of the population as well as a discussion about why it is important they should receive career counseling. Thorough discussion of the population, and specific problems that may be resolved with career counseling are well supported with scholarly resources.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Statistics on the Group (CACREP 2.F.4.c) |
10.0%
Paper does not include statistics on the selected group. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes statistics on the selected group. Almost no statistics are mentioned on the group of interest.Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic statistics on the selected group. Two primary statistics are mentioned but not explained in depth.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides thorough statistics on the selected group. Three or more statistics are mentioned and explained in depth.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides comprehensive statistics on the selected group. Three or more statistics are mentioned and explained. Resources for statistics are evaluated as scholarly.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Career Counseling Theory (CACREP 2.F.4.a) |
10.0%
Paper does not include a discussion about the career counseling theory to be used with the selected group. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes a discussion about the career counseling theory to be used with the selected group. Theory is mentioned but not explained.Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic discussion about the career counseling theory to be used with the selected group. Theory is mentioned and explained.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough discussion about the career counseling theory to be used with the selected group. Theory is mentioned and explained thoroughly.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive discussion about the career counseling theory to be used with the selected group. Theory is mentioned and explained thoroughly, supported by statistics regarding the application to this specific group.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Plan for Counseling the Group (CACREP 2.F.4.a, CACREP 2.F.4.i) |
10.0%
Paper does not include a discussion about a basic plan for counseling the group that utilized the chosen theory. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes a discussion about a basic plan for counseling the group that utilized the chosen theory. A plan is mentioned but undeveloped. Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic discussion about a basic plan for counseling the group that utilized the chosen theory. A plan is mentioned and developed basically.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough discussion about a basic plan for counseling the group that utilized the chosen theory. A plan is developed thoroughly.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive discussion about a basic plan for counseling the group that utilized the chosen theory. A plan is developed thoroughly or the application to this specific group including data supporting plan efficacy.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Environmental/Personal Barriers (CACREP 2.F.4.b, CACREP 2.F.4.g, CACRE 2.F.4.j) |
10.0%
Paper does not include a discussion about the environmental/personal barriers (e.g., disability, substance use history, felony, transportation, limited computer access) that may prevent the client from finding work. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes a discussion about the environmental/personal barriers (e.g., disability, substance use history, felony, transportation, limited computer access) that may prevent the client from finding work. Barriers are mentioned but not analyzed.Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic discussion about the environmental/personal barriers (e.g., disability, substance use history, felony, transportation, limited computer access) that may prevent the client from finding work. Barriers are mentioned and analyzed briefly.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough discussion about the environmental/personal barriers (e.g., disability, substance use history, felony, transportation, limited computer access) that may prevent the client from finding work. Barriers are mentioned and analyzed thoroughly but are general and can apply to any group.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive discussion about the environmental/personal barriers (e.g., disability, substance use history, felony, transportation, limited computer access) that may prevent the client from finding work. Barriers are analyzed thoroughly and appear to apply to this group specifically.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Local Resources Available (CACREP 2.F.4.h) |
10.0%
Paper does not include a discussion about the local resources available (e.g., job center, training programs, support groups) to help the client obtain work. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes a discussion about the local resources available (e.g., job center, training programs, support groups) to help the client obtain work. Resources are mentioned but not explored.Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic discussion about the local resources available (e.g., job center, training programs, support groups) to help the client obtain work. Resources are mentioned but not discussed, contact information is provided.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough discussion about the local resources available (e.g., job center, training programs, support groups) to help the client obtain work. Resources are mentioned and discussed, contact information is provided.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive discussion about the local resources available (e.g., job center, training programs, support groups) to help the client obtain work. Resources specifically target for this group are mentioned and discussed, contact information is provided.Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. |
| Feasibility of the Plan (CACREP 2.F.4.f) |
10.0%
Paper does not include a discussion about the feasibility of the plan and whether you think it can work. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic. |
Paper only vaguely or incompletely includes a discussion about the feasibility of the plan and whether you think it can work. Opinion is provided but does not reflect the information provided in the paper.Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a basic discussion about the feasibility of the plan and whether you think it can work. Opinion is provided and is supported by the work in the body of the paper.Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic. |
Paper provides a thorough discussion about the feasibility of the plan and whether you think it can work. Opinion is provided, supported by the paper and is reasonably accurate with regard to potential efficacy.Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic. |
Paper provides a comprehensive discussion about the feasibility of the plan and whether you think it can work. Opinion is provided and includes both supports and limitations as outlined in the body of the paper.Paper 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument 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% |
