Capstone Change Project Objectives – Rubric

Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives – Rubric

Collapse All Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives – RubricCollapse All

Objectives

1.25 points

Criteria Description

Objectives

5. 5: Excellent

1.25 points

Three to five objectives are presented.

4. 4: Good

1.11 points

NA

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.99 points

NA

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.94 points

NA

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented.

Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention

1.5 points

Criteria Description

Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention

5. 5: Excellent

1.5 points

Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention.

4. 4: Good

1.34 points

Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.19 points

General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.13 points

Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Rationale for each objective is omitted.

Rationale for Autonomy and Social Justice

1.25 points

Criteria Description

Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5)

5. 5: Excellent

1.25 points

Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established.

4. 4: Good

1.11 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.99 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.94 points

Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted.

Thesis Development and Purpose

0.25 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. 5: Excellent

0.25 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. 4: Good

0.22 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.2 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.19 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

0.25 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. 5: Excellent

0.25 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. 4: Good

0.22 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.2 points

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.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.19 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

0.25 points

Criteria Description

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. 5: Excellent

0.25 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

0.22 points

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.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.2 points

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.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.19 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

0.1 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. 5: Excellent

0.1 points

All format elements are correct.

4. 4: Good

0.09 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.08 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.08 points

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

0.15 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. 5: Excellent

0.15 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

0.13 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0.12 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0.11 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 5 points