UNACCEPTABLE

 EMERGING

 DEVELOPING

 PROFICIENT

INTRO

 No thesis
 No context
 No summary of points to be explored in body of paper

 Thesis stated 
 Little or no context 
 And/or no summary of the argument to be explored in the body of the paper
 Or, thesis is unclear

 Thesis clear
 Context addresses what and why
 Summary of argument is included (i.e., overview of points to be discussed in body of paper)

  Introduction engages the reader and signals the intent of the paper 
  Language is fluent and interesting 
  Clear, relevant thesis stated
  Context is clearly developed 
  Concession offered 
  Summary of argument is included

BODY OF PAPER

 Unconnected to prompt
 Unconnected to introduction
 Unsupported opinions used to develop argument
 No use of text references to support claims

 Prompt partially met
 Ideas connected to introduction/ but organization is unclear
 Claims based on texts but ideas not explored
 Or, claims made but do not support an overall argument
 Some use of text references to support claims
 Each text treated separately

 Most points in prompt met
 Each paragraph clearly connected to introduction or to preceding paragraph(s)
 Claims based on text and the ideas are explored and developed
 Claims build an argument
 Good use of text references
 Comparison and contrast of authors' ideas provided

 Prompt fully met
  Parallel construction (paragraph order equals summary in introduction) 
  Appropriate use of text references to support claims 
  Thorough exploration of claims and possible counter-arguments to build argument 
  Language is engaging and fluent
  Comparison and contrast of authors' ideas conceptually developed

CONCLUSION

 No concluding paragraph 
 Or the paragraph introduces new information

 Concluding paragraph reviews some of major points
 Conclusion not related to thesis 

 Concluding paragraph reviews major points
 Conclusion not related to thesis

  Reviews major points in interesting way
  Offers conclusion about thesis

ACCURACY OF CLAIMS

 Most claims indicate lack of understanding of the texts

 Part of the information indicates understanding of text but many gaps in logic or understanding

 Individual theories, models, research understood but connections reveal inaccurate understanding

  All claims demonstrate good understanding of authors' arguments in our texts and relationships of theories, models, research

SYNTHESIS
 
 

 No synthesis.
 Body of paper offers separate summaries of ideas from the texts but no generalizations, explanations, or conclusions.

 Attempts at synthesis indicated through combining ideas from the texts. However, no conclusions or generalizations are offered.

 Conclusions or generalizations offered but not both
  Or conclusions & generalizations drawn directly from texts and do not represent ability to create new ideas

The paper demonstrates
Ability to create new ideas and generalizations based upon previous knowledge and experiences.
Ability to relate knowledge from several areas and draw conclusions

MECHANICS

 Many spelling errors that could have been detected by spell-checker 
 Many grammatical errors

 Spelling or grammatical errors but not both 
 Lack of noun/pronoun agreement 
 Lack of subject/verb agreement
 Or other consistent grammatical errors

 Spelling or grammatical errors that spell check could miss

  Correct spelling 
  No grammatical errors

APA

 Incorrect citation format 
 Incorrect reference format 
 Past tense not used 
 Active voice not used

  Some citations in correct form 
  Some references in correct form 
  Past tense used inconsistently 
  Active voice used inconsistently 

  Most citations in correct form 
  Most references in correct form 
  Past tense used 
  Active voice used

  Correct citations
  Correct reference list format 
  Appropriate use of past and present tense 
  Active voice