Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
87.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|
30.0 %Define Each Parenting Style (authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and uninvolved)
|
Paper omits a definition for each of the parenting styles. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.
|
Paper inadequately defines the parenting styles and/or not all styles are defined. Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.
|
Paper adequately defines each of the four parenting styles. Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.
|
Paper clearly defines each parenting style, and the definition is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claim. Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.
|
Paper expertly defines each parenting style, and the definitions are comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
|
|
40.0 %Describe Each Style’s Effect on Socioemotional Development (a 10-year old child)
|
Paper omits or incompletely describes each style’s effect on the socioemotional development of a 10-year-old child. Paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.
|
Paper inadequately describes each style’s effect on the socioemotional development of a 10-year-old child. Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.
|
Paper adequately describes each style’s effect on the socioemotional development of a 10-year-old child. Paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.
|
Paper clearly describes each style’s effect on the socioemotional development of a 10-year-old child, and description is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claim. Paper demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.
|
Paper expertly describes each style’s effect on the socioemotional development of a 10-year-old child and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
|
|
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.
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
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.
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
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) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
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 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
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.
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
