Print| 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 reader gains insights through geospatial analysis. The project is directed towards and meets the needs of a defined audience ( is persuasive, argumentative or informational). Provides compelling supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Proficient (15 pts) Shows some originality, creativity, or genuine engagement with issues at hand. Is directed towards and meets the needs of a defined audience (is persuasive, argumentative or informational). Provides adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Marginal (10 pts) Geospatial analysis is basic or general. The purpose is not always clear. Completes rather than engages in the assignment. Does not provide adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) Analysis is vague or not evident. The project has no rhetorical position. The project does not provide adequate supporting arguments, evidence, examples and details. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Content Demonstrated mastery of the subject matter: Support for thesis is complex, complete, and in-depth. Writer involved with subject, not merely doing an assignment. Very interesting to read. |
Exemplary (20 pts) Responds fully to the assignment. Information clearly and effectively supports a central purpose or thesis and displays a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of a sufficiently limited topic. The use of supporting detail is embedded in a context of discussion. |
Proficient (15 pts) Responds in a competent manner to the assignment. Information provides firm support for a central purpose or thesis and displays -evidence of a basic analysis of a sufficient limited topic. Demonstrates overall competency. The use of supporting detail is embedded in a context of discussion. |
Marginal (10 pts) Responds adequately to the assignment. Information supports thesis at times. The rhetorical position of the project (either persuasive, argumentative or informational) is not clear. |
Unacceptable (5 pts) The project does not adequately respond to the assignment. The project does not successfully identify thesis. Paragraphs may "string together" quotations without a context of discussion. |
Missing (0 pts) Not submitted. |
20 pts |
| Format 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 |
| Total Points: 130 | ||||||