Rubric Collapse All Part 1: Label Each Case Study with Relevant Theorist/Stages

Rubric

Collapse All

Part 1: Label Each Case Study with Relevant Theorist/Stages

20 points

Criteria Description

Part 1: Label Each Case Study with Relevant Theorist/Stages

5. Excellent

20 points

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

4. Good

17.4 points

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates a basic understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14.8 points

Some of the case studies are labeled with the relevant theorist/stages or are labeled incorrectly.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

None of the case studies are labeled with the relevant theorist/stages.

Part 1: Length of Each Case

10 points

Criteria Description

Part 1: Length of Each Case Study is at Least 250 Words

5. Excellent

10 points

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

4. Good

8.7 points

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a basic understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Some of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

None of the case studies are at least 250 words in length.

Part 1: Plan to Work with Someone at Identified Stage (B)

20 points

Criteria Description

Part 1: Plan to Work with Someone at Identified Stage (C3.4)

5. Excellent

20 points

The case studies demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of how the student, as a counselor, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

4. Good

17.4 points

The case studies demonstrate an advanced understanding of how the student, as a counselor, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

The case studies demonstrate a basic understanding of how the student, as a counselor, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14.8 points

The case studies demonstrate a minimal understanding of how the student, as a counselor, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The case studies did not demonstrate how the student, as a counselor, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

Part 2: Case Study Summary

20 points

Criteria Description

Part 2: Case Study Summary

5. Excellent

20 points

The summary demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Erickson’s theories.

4. Good

17.4 points

The summary demonstrates an advanced understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Erickson’s theories.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

The summary demonstrates a basic understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Erickson’s theories.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14.8 points

The summary demonstrates a minimal understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Erickson’s theories.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The assignment omitted a summary statement that explains the similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Erickson’s theories.

Thesis Development and Purpose

7 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

7 points

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

4. Good

6.09 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. Satisfactory

5.53 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5.18 points

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

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

8 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

8 points

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

4. Good

6.96 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. Satisfactory

6.32 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. Less Than Satisfactory

5.92 points

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

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.

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

5 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Excellent

5 points

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

4. Good

4.35 points

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.

3. Satisfactory

3.95 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.7 points

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.

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)

5 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Excellent

5 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good

4.35 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

3.95 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.7 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

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

Documentation of Sources

5 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Excellent

5 points

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

4. Good

4.35 points

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

3. Satisfactory

3.95 points

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

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.7 points

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

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.