5

Uses in-depth information from relevant sources representing multiple points of views (3 or more) or research aspects (3 or more).

4

Describes in-depth information from relevant sources representing at least two points of view or research aspects.

3

Explains information from relevant sources representing at least two points of view or research aspects.

2

Relates information from relevant and irrelevant sources. No clear point of view(s) of approach(s) are identified.

1

Tells information from irrelevant sources representing a single point of view or does not identify points of view or approaches

0

Information is irrelevant to the topic. No clear point of view/approaches.

5

Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.

4

Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement, thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed

3

Begins to demonstrate the ability to construct a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.

2

Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement or related contextual factors.

1

Demonstrates the ability to explain contextual facts but does not provide a defined statement.

0

There is no evidence of a defined statement.

5

Organizes and compares evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

4

Organizes and interprets evidence to reveal patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

3

Organizes and describes evidence according to patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

2

Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing patterns, differences, or similarities.

1

Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

0

Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

5

The paper exhibits a excellent command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

4

The paper exhibits a good command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, or spelling with minor grammatical errors that impair the flow of communication.

3

The paper exhibits a basic command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

2

The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.