| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| NRS-493 |
NRS-493-O503 |
| Literature Review |
50.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) |
3: Satisfactory (79.00%) |
4: Good (89.00%) |
5: Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
80.0% |
Literature Review
|
| 10.0% |
An introduction is not present. |
An introduction is present, but it does not relate to the body of the paper. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. There is nothing in the introduction to entice the reader to continue reading. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction provides incentive for the reader to continue reading. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading. |
| Comparison of Research Questions |
|
| 20.0% |
No comparison of research questions is presented. |
A comparison of research questions is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of research questions is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of research questions is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented. |
| Comparison of Sample Populations |
20.0%
No comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A comparison of sample populations is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented. |
| Comparison of the Limitations of the Study |
20.0%
No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A comparison of the limitations of the study is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
| Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research |
10.0%
No conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented, but they are not valid. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid, but they are cursory. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid and moderately thorough. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful. |
| Organization and Effectiveness |
1
|
|
|
| 5.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
5.0%
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
5.0%
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. |
| Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they 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 5.0%
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
2.0% |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
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) |
3.0% |
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% |
