Assessment Description For literally thousands of years, people have discussed the answers to questions about reality and the nature of being. The 350 years surveyed thus far in this course have inclu
5. Excellent
84 points
A comparison of the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul is clearly presented. The comparison contains rich detail and is discerning. Research is from scholarly, and original, and/or highly respected, current sources.
4. Good
76.44 points
A comparison of the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul is clearly presented. The comparison is thorough and detailed. Research is from scholarly sources. Most are authoritative but some may be outdated.
3. Satisfactory
68.88 points
A comparison of the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul is present but explanation is cursory and lacks depth.
2. Less than Satisfactory
61.32 points
A comparison of the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul in the Golden Age of Greek philosophy is present but incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A comparison of the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul is either not present or not evident to the reader.
Contrast the Nature of Introspection From the Vantage Points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant
84 points
Criteria Description
Contrast the Nature of Introspection From the Vantage Points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant
5. Excellent
84 points
A contrast of the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant is clearly presented. The comparison contains rich detail and is discerning. Research is from scholarly, and original, and/or highly respected, current sources.
4. Good
76.44 points
A contrast of the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant is clearly presented. The comparison is thorough and detailed. Research is from scholarly sources. Most are authoritative but some may be outdated.
3. Satisfactory
68.88 points
A contrast of the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant is present but explanation is cursory and lacks depth.
2. Less than Satisfactory
61.32 points
A contrast of the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant is present but incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A contrast of the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant is either not present or not evident to the reader.
Synthesis and Argument
24 points
Criteria Description
Synthesis and Argument
5. Excellent
24 points
Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good
21.84 points
Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. 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
19.68 points
Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. 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
17.52 points
Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. 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
No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.
Thesis Development and Purpose
24 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent
24 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
4. Good
21.84 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Satisfactory
19.68 points
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less than Satisfactory
17.52 points
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Mechanics of Writing
12 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing
5. Excellent
12 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
10.92 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. Satisfactory
9.84 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
2. Less than Satisfactory
8.76 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
APA Format
12 points
Criteria Description
APA Format
5. Excellent
12 points
The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
4. Good
10.92 points
Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
3. Satisfactory
9.84 points
Required correctly format is used, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
2. Less than Satisfactory
8.76 points
Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Required format is rarely followed correctly. An appropriate number of topic-related scholarly research sources and related in-text citations is not present. No reference page is included. No citations are used.