Class Work

Conference Presentation Development, Part 3

	1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00%	3 Satisfactory 79.00%	4 Good 87.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
70.0 %Content
30.0 %Justification of the Study	No justification for the study is provided.	A justification for the study is provided, but it lacks validity.	A justification for the study is provided. The rationale presented is valid though cursory.	A justification for the study is provided. The rationale presented is valid, thorough, and adequately supported with research.	A justification for the study is provided. The rationale presented is valid, insightful, and thoroughly supported with current research.
30.0 %Literature Review and Research Question	Neither the literature review nor the potential research question(s) are provided.	The literature review is provided, but it is incomplete or irrelevant to the topic of the study. The potential research question(s) is not presented.	The literature review is provided and accurate though cursory. The potential research question(s) is presented but is not an appropriate research question.	The literature review is provided, accurate, and thoughtful. The potential research question(s) is presented and appropriate.	The literature review is provided, accurate, and insightful. The potential research question(s) is presented and appropriate, and it demonstrates a solid grasp of the topic of the study.
10.0 %Synthesis and Argument	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.	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.	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.	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.	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. The synthesis and argument in the paper are of publication caliber.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
10.0 %Layout	The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.	The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.	The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.	The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.	The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
10.0 %Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)	Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of ?primer prose? indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.	Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately.	Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.	The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.	The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing	Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of structures and effective communication devices are used.	Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English.
5.0 %Evaluating and Documenting Sources (in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, references page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)	Contains no title slide, no references section, and no correctly cited references within the body of the presentation.	Title slide is incomplete or inaccurate. References section includes sources, but many citation errors. Citations are included within the body of the presentation but with many errors.	Title slide has minor errors. References section includes sources, but they are not consistently cited correctly. Citations are included within the body of the presentation but with some errors.	Title slide is complete. References section includes correctly cited sources with minimal errors. Correct citations are included within the body of the presentation.	Title slide is complete. References section includes correctly cited sources. Correct citations are included within the body of the presentation.
100 %Total Weightage