|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00{0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} |
2
Less than Satisfactory
65.00{0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} |
3
Satisfactory
75.00{0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} |
4
Good
85.00{0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} |
5
Excellent
100.00{0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} |
| 70.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}Content |
|
| 25.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}Comprehension of Pertinent Terms |
The concept of spirituality is not analyzed clearly, and no distinctions are made among possible meanings of the term. Only one meaning for the term spirituality is assumed. There is no discussion or discernible grasp of the concepts of pluralism, scientism, and postmodernism. |
There is surface coverage of the concept of spirituality, with some distinctions, but demonstrating poor or unclear grasp of these distinctions. There is a poor grasp and application of scientism and postmodernism to the concept of spirituality. |
At least two senses of spirituality are distinguished, though the grasp of that distinction may be shallow. Grasp of scientism and postmodernism is limited to its definition, with some demonstration that its full application and significance is grasped, even if minimally. |
At least two senses of spirituality, including from the text, are distinguished. Description of how spirituality is broadly defined in the context of scientism and postmodernism is provided and sufficiently demonstrates a grasp of the meaning of these concepts. |
Several possible definitions of the term spirituality, including from the text, are clearly articulated and distinguished. Description of how spirituality is broadly defined in the context of scientism and postmodernism is provided and clearly demonstrates a grasp of the meaning of these concepts. |
| 45.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} Personal Worldview Analysis |
The analysis does not answer all seven questions and there is no discussion of the interconnection of the questions and their implications. |
The analysis answers all seven questions but with minimal thought and any attempt at interconnection of the questions has little to no relevance. |
The analysis answers all seven questions thoughtfully and in a detailed manner. The analysis hints at the interconnection of the questions and their implications. |
The analysis answers all seven questions thoughtfully and in a detailed manner. The analysis recognizes the interconnection of the questions and their implications. |
The analysis answers all seven questions thoughtfully and in a detailed manner. The analysis thoroughly explains the interconnection of the questions and their implications. |
| 20.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} 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. |
| 8.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} 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 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. |
| 5.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}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) 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 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}Format |
|
| 5.0 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} 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 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119}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 {0e601fc7fe3603dc36f9ca2f49ef4cd268b5950ef1bbcf1f795cc00e94cdd119} Total Weightage |
|
