| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Content 70% |
|
| 40.0 %
Compare and contrast the competing visions among stakeholders, identifying the areas where they conflict and discussing how those conflicts could be seen in the delivery system. |
Does not demonstrate understanding of the competing visions for health care delivery systems , including the issues and implications. Does not demonstrate critical thinking and analysis of the material. |
Demonstrates only minimal understanding of the competing visions for health care delivery systems, including the issues and implications. Demonstrates only minimal abilities for critical thinking and analysis. |
Demonstrates knowledge of the competing visions for health care delivery systems, including the issues and implications, but has some slight misunderstanding of the implications. Provides a basic idea of critical thinking and analysis. Include examples or descriptions. |
Demonstrates above-average knowledge of the competing visions for health care delivery systems, including the issues and implications (in your own words). Develops an acceptable analysis of the conflicts. Utilizes some examples. |
Demonstrates thorough knowledge of the competing visions for health care delivery systems, including the issues and implications. Clearly develops a strong analysis of the conflicts and implications. Introduces appropriate examples. |
|
| 30.0 %Use references and examples to support main points. |
Does not provide supporting examples. |
Provides some supporting examples, but minimal explanations and no references. |
Supports main points with examples and explanations, but includes few references to support claims and ideas. |
Supports main points with references, explanations, and examples. Analysis and description are direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. |
Supports main points with references, examples, and full explanations of how they apply. Thoughtfully analyzes, evaluates, and describes major points of the criteria. |
|
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Assignment 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 %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 %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), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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. |
|
| 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 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) |
No reference page is included. No citations are used. |
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. |
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present |
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. |
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
|
| Total Weightage 100% |
|
|
