PrintNote: This rubric is also available in Canvas in the Lesson 9 module where you will submit your final draft.
| Criteria | Ratings | Points | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geospatial insight Geographic thought is included leading to significant and unique insights with respect to the evidence, analysis, and synthesis. |
Exemplary (20 pts) The project addresses a phenomenon that is clearly geographic and presents a strong geospatial analysis of a human security issue. The project expertly applies theoretical concepts from the course in its analysis. The reader gains new insights through clearly defined analysis. |
Proficient (15 pts) The project addresses a phenomenon that is nominally geographic and presents an adequate geospatial analysis of a human security issue. The project adequately applies theoretical concepts from the course in its analysis. |
Marginal (10 pts) The project addresses a phenomenon that is not clearly geographic and/or presents a basic geospatial analysis of a human security issue. The project applies theoretical concepts from the course in its analysis, but those concepts may be incorrectly used. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) The project addresses a phenomenon that is not geographic and/or presents an analysis of a human security issue that does not use a geospatial perspective. The project does not apply theoretical concepts from the course in its analysis. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Citations Reliance on accurate information and facts: Reliable sources cited in addition to course material. Properly gives credit to other researchers and acknowledges their ideas. |
Exemplary (20 pts) Research depth exceeds expectations. Correctly acknowledges and documents sources in APA style in text citations and works cited pages. |
Proficient (15 pts) Sufficient information provided to support topics. Correctly acknowledges and documents sources in APA style in-text citations and works cited pages. |
Marginal (10 pts) Incorrectly or partially acknowledges and documents sources in APA style in-text citations and works cited pages. Although occasional references are provided, the writer relies on unsubstantiated statements. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) Fails to acknowledges and document sources in APA style in-text citations and works cited pages. Writer relies on unsubstantiated statements. The reader is confused about the source of ideas. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Style Clarity of thought and presentation: Structure of paragraphs clear and easy to follow. Flow of ideas fluid and logical. Organization transparent, logical, and helpful. A pleasure to read. |
Exemplary (20 pts) The project is well organized and unified with ideas and sentences that relate to the main topic. The ideas are arranged logically to support the thesis. Uses appropriate, direct language: the writing is compelling; the sentences are well phrased and varied in length and structure. Paragraphs are well-structured, excellent use of headings, organization and flow. |
Proficient (15 pts) The ideas are arranged logically to support the thesis. Paragraphs are well-structured, excellent use of headings, organization and flow. The sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure. There are occasional violations in the writing, but they do not represent a major distraction or obscure meaning. |
Marginal (10 pts) Has partial or inadequate introduction and conclusion The writing is not organized logically. Ideas fail to make sense and are not expressed clearly. Some sentences are awkwardly constructed, and represent an occasional distraction for the reader. Paragraphs are unstructured, lacks general organization, and flow. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) The project has an inadequate introduction and conclusion. The writing is not arranged logically. Frequently, ideas fail to make sense and are not expressed clearly. Reader cannot identify a line of reasoning. Errors in sentence structure represent a major distraction to the reader. Paragraphs are unstructured, headings are missing, lacks general organization and flow. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Mechanics Consistent and appropriate voice. Sophisticated and precise word choice. Almost no spelling errors, errors in agreement, tense, punctuation or capitalization. |
Exemplary (20 pts) Free of errors in grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and format. |
Proficient (15 pts) Few minimal errors in grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling and format. |
Marginal (10 pts) Writing has numerous errors in grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and format and distracts the reader. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) Errors in grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and format are so numerous that they obscure the meaning of the passage. The reader is confused and stops reading. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Incorporated Feedback | Exemplary (20 pts) Final draft thoroughly incorporates professor's feedback from the rough draft, answering questions, fleshing out details, adding citations, etc. where appropriate. |
Proficient (15 pts) Final draft incorporates most of the professor's feedback from the rough draft, answering questions, fleshing out details, adding citations, etc. where appropriate. |
Marginal (10 pts) Final draft incorporates some of the professor's feedback from the rough draft, answering questions, fleshing out details, adding citations, etc. where appropriate. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) Final draft incorporates a little of the professor's feedback from the rough draft, answering questions, fleshing out details, adding citations, etc. where appropriate. |
Missing (0 pts) Missing, no submission, or final draft incorporates none of the professor's feedback from the rough draft. |
20 pts |
| Number of Sources | Exemplary (10 pts) Research project has 16 or more sources. |
Proficient (8 pts) Research project has 11-15 sources. |
Marginal (6 pts) Research project has 6-10 sources. |
Unacceptable (4 pts) Research project has 1-5 sources. |
Missing (0 pts) Missing, no submission, or research project has 0 sources. |
10 pts |
| Argument | Exemplary (20 pts) Project makes an original, logically consistent, coherent argument. The argument is succinctly captured by a clear thesis statement. The thesis statement answers the research question proposed by the project. The project provides compelling supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Proficient (15 pts) Project makes a logically consistent argument that is expressed in a thesis statement. The thesis statement generally answers the research question. The argument shows some original elements, and/or the thesis statement is verbose. The project provides adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Marginal (10 pts) Project makes an argument that is expressed in a thesis statement. The argument is awkwardly constructed, and/or the thesis statement is unclear, and/or the thesis statement does not adequately answer the question proposed by the project. The project does not provide adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples or details. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) Project makes an argument, but the argument is unoriginal, unclear, or poorly constructed. The thesis statement is either unclear or lacking, and/or does not answer the research question proposed by the project. The project does not provide adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples or details. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Total Points: 130 | ||||||