| |
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00% |
3
Satisfactory
79.00% |
4
Good
89.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
Points
Earned |
| 80.0 %Content |
ORDER A CUSTOM-WRITTEN PAPER NOW |
| 10.0 % Introduction |
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. |
7.90/10 |
| 20.0 % Comparison of Research Questions |
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. |
15.80/20 |
| 20.0 % Comparison of Sample Populations |
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. |
15.80/20 |
| 20.0 % Comparison of the Limitations of the Study |
No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. Graded Literature Review Rubric |
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. |
15.80/20 |
| 10.0 % Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research |
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. |
10.00/10 |
| 15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 5.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose |
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. |
3.95/5 |
| 5.0 % 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. Graded Literature Review Rubric |
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. |
3.95/5 |
| 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 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. |
5.00/5 |
| 5.0 %Format |
|
| 2.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
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. |
2.00/2 |
| 3.0 % 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. |
2.25/3 |
| 100 % Total Weightage |
Graded Literature Review Rubric |
82.45/100 |