Points Range:0 (0%) – 14.39(11.99%)
Did not submit or incompletely summarized the article in one (1) or more paragraphs, using your own words. Did not submit or incompletely identified the article using an in-text citation in the body of the paper, as well as a reference in the reference section.
Points Range:14.4 (12%) – 16.79(13.99%)
Insufficiently summarized the article in one or more paragraphs, using your own words. Insufficiently identified the article using an in-text citation in the body of the paper, as well as a reference in the reference section.
Points Range:16.8 (14%) – 19.19(15.99%)
Partially summarized the article in one (1) or more paragraphs, using your own words. Partially identified the article using an in-text citation in the body of the paper, as well as a reference in the reference section.
Points Range:19.2 (16%) – 21.59(17.99%)
Satisfactorily summarized the article in one (1) or more paragraphs, using your own words. Satisfactorily identified the article using an in-text citation in the body of the paper, as well as a reference in the reference section.
Points Range:21.6 (18%) – 24 (20%)
Thoroughly summarized the article in one (1) or more paragraphs, using your own words. Thoroughly identified the article using an in-text citation in the body of the paper, as well as a reference in the reference section.
Points Range:0 (0%) – 14.39(11.99%)
Did not submit or incompletely explained how the article relates to this course. Did not submit or incompletely identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Did not submit or incompletely discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:14.4 (12%) – 16.79(13.99%)
Insufficiently explained how the article relates to this course. Insufficiently identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Insufficiently discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:16.8 (14%) – 19.19(15.99%)
Partially explained how the article relates to this course. Partially identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Partially discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:19.2 (16%) – 21.59(17.99%)
Satisfactorily explained how the article relates to this course. Satisfactorily identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Satisfactorily discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:21.6 (18%) – 24 (20%)
Thoroughly explained how the article relates to this course. Thoroughly identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Thoroughly discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:0 (0%) – 14.39(11.99%)
Did not submit or incompletely explained why the article caught your attention. Did not submit or incompletely related the article to your life and to issues that are important to you. Did not submit or incompletely discussed how or if the scientific knowledge about the topic covered in the article affects you directly or indirectly.
Points Range:14.4 (12%) – 16.79(13.99%)
Insufficiently explained why the article caught your attention. Insufficiently related the article to your life and to issues that are important to you. Insufficiently discussed how or if the scientific knowledge about the topic covered in the article affects you directly or indirectly.
Points Range:16.8 (14%) – 19.19(15.99%)
Partially explained why the article caught your attention. Partially related the article to your life and to issues that are important to you. Partially discussed how or if the scientific knowledge about the topic covered in the article affects you directly or indirectly.
Points Range:19.2 (16%) – 21.59(17.99%)
Satisfactorily explained why the article caught your attention. Satisfactorily related the article to your life and to issues that are important to you. Satisfactorily discussed how or if the scientific knowledge about the topic covered in the article affects you directly or indirectly.
Points Range:21.6 (18%) – 24 (20%)
Thoroughly explained how the article relates to this course. Thoroughly identified which biological concepts from the course and / or text are relevant to the topic covered in the article. Thoroughly discussed the ways in which this course does (or doesn’t) provide background information to help you understand the article and the larger issues surrounding it.
Points Range:0 (0%) – 10.79(8.99%)
Did not submit or incompletely discussed your opinion on how research on this topic should be funded. Did not submit or incompletely stated whether you think taxpayer monies should support research on this topic or whether such research in this area should be funded by the private sector. Did not submit or incompletely rated the importance of research on this topic, relative to other areas of research.
Points Range:10.8 (9%) – 12.59(10.49%)
Insufficiently discussed your opinion on how research on this topic should be funded. Insufficiently stated whether you think taxpayer monies should support research on this topic or whether such research in this area should be funded by the private sector. Insufficiently rated the importance of research on this topic, relative to other areas of research.
Points Range:12.6 (10.5%) – 14.39(11.99%)
Partially discussed your opinion on how research on this topic should be funded. Partially stated whether you think taxpayer monies should support research on this topic or whether such research in this area should be funded by the private sector. Partially rated the importance of research on this topic, relative to other areas of research.
Points Range:14.4 (12%) – 16.19(13.49%)
Satisfactorily discussed your opinion on how research on this topic should be funded. Satisfactorily stated whether you think taxpayer monies should support research on this topic or whether such research in this area should be funded by the private sector. Satisfactorily rated the importance of research on this topic, relative to other areas of research.
Points Range:16.2 (13.5%) – 18(15%)
Thoroughly discussed your opinion on how research on this topic should be funded. Thoroughly stated whether you think taxpayer monies should support research on this topic or whether such research in this area should be funded by the private sector. Thoroughly rated the importance of research on this topic, relative to other areas of research.
Points Range:0 (0%) – 3.59 (2.99%)
Never uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas
Points Range:3.6 (3%) – 4.19(3.49%)
Rarely uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas
Points Range:4.2 (3.5%) – 4.79(3.99%)
Partially uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas
Points Range:4.8 (4%) – 5.39(4.49%)
Mostly uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas
Points Range:5.4 (4.5%) – 6 (5%)
Consistently uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
Points Range:0 (0%) – 3.59 (2.99%)
Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation
Points Range:3.6 (3%) – 4.19(3.49%)
Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation
Points Range:4.2 (3.5%) – 4.79(3.99%)
Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation
Points Range:4.8 (4%) – 5.39(4.49%)
Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation
Points Range:5.4 (4.5%) – 6 (5%)
Free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation
Points Range:0 (0%) – 3.59 (2.99%)
Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism or failure to use in-text citations.
Points Range:3.6 (3%) – 4.19(3.49%)
Sources are rarely integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations
Points Range:4.2 (3.5%) – 4.79(3.99%)
Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations
Points Range:4.8 (4%) – 5.39(4.49%)
Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations
Points Range:5.4 (4.5%) – 6 (5%)
Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations
Points Range:0 (0%) – 3.59 (2.99%)
Lack of citations and/or lack of reference section and/or citations don’t correspond to listed references
Points Range:3.6 (3%) – 4.19(3.49%)
In-text citations and references are given, but not in APA format
Points Range:4.2 (3.5%) – 4.79(3.99%)
Partially shows correct (or approximately correct) use of in-text citations, with matching references using APA-format
Points Range:4.8 (4%) – 5.39(4.49%)
Mostly shows correct use of in-text citations with matching references using APA-format
Points Range:5.4 (4.5%) – 6 (5%)
Consistently shows correct use of In-text citations with matching references using APA-format
Points Range:0 (0%) – 3.59 (2.99%)
Quantity and/or quality of sources are unacceptable
Points Range:3.6 (3%) – 4.19(3.49%)
Target article and/or supporting citations are of poor quality
Points Range:4.2 (3.5%) – 4.79(3.99%)
The target article is of good quality, but the quality of other sources cited is questionable.
Points Range:4.8 (4%) – 5.39(4.49%)
The target article is of good quality and any other resources are of sufficient quality.
Points Range:5.4 (4.5%) – 6 (5%)
The target article selected is of good quality and any other resources used are quality.
