{"id":3321,"date":"2021-10-16T03:51:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-16T03:51:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-englishcomp2\/?post_type=chapter&p=3321"},"modified":"2022-04-18T23:30:19","modified_gmt":"2022-04-18T23:30:19","slug":"assignment-research-paper-final-draft","status":"web-only","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-englishcomp2\/chapter\/assignment-research-paper-final-draft\/","title":{"raw":"Module 8 Assignment: Research Paper Final Draft","rendered":"Module 8 Assignment: Research Paper Final Draft"},"content":{"raw":"\r\n\r\n\r\n
1. Purpose<\/caption>\r\n
Not Evident<\/th>\r\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\r\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\r\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\r\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Lacks thesis or thesis is missing\r\n\r\nNo attempt at argumentation\r\n\r\nShows little or no logical organization\r\n\r\nDoes not answer \/ match \/ address prompt<\/td>\r\nAttempts thesis statement\r\n\r\nUndeveloped thesis statement; thesis is a fact or question, or is too narrow or too broad to properly address topic\r\n\r\nAttempts organization, but lacks paragraph cohesion or transitions between thoughts\r\n\r\nOrganization of ideas may fail to support initial thesis<\/td>\r\nProper thesis statement present\r\n\r\nThesis may feel \u201cdropped in\u201d at end of introduction but still manages to create a cohesive argument\r\n\r\nIdeas separated into paragraphs which support thesis, but presentation of ideas feels formulaic or fails to move beyond basic five-paragraph theme<\/td>\r\nClear thesis statement which uses key words or ideas related to topic\r\n\r\nIntroduction effectively leads to thesis statement\r\n\r\nIndividual paragraphs all work to reinforce one or more aspects of thesis statement\r\n\r\nTransitions between ideas are seamless and effortless\r\n\r\nConclusion references introduction without simply restating it<\/td>\r\nStrong, unique thesis statement which engages the topic and consistently controls the argument throughout the paper\r\n\r\nParagraph containing thesis is a controlled presentation of information that leads to clear statement of rhetorical purpose and argument\r\n\r\nPaper is cohesive, and no paragraphs feel \u201cout of place\u201d\r\n\r\nConclusion moves beyond introduction and offers a new or final thought<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
2. Audience<\/caption>\r\n
Not Evident<\/th>\r\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\r\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\r\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\r\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Does not address the audience as described in the prompt\r\n\r\nDoes not consider what the audience may or may not know about this subject\r\n\r\nMay use only opinionated, inflammatory, or other insulting language to persuade the audience\r\n\r\nWriter is composing for her or him self without considering any audience<\/td>\r\nMay show some awareness of audience through context and tone\r\n\r\nMay address only part of an audience or readership, creating an unbalanced argument<\/td>\r\nAttempts to address the audience but may not always be successful\r\n\r\nMay sometimes use tone that is not appropriate for the audience\r\n\r\nMay neglect to contextualize or explain evidence to an audience unfamiliar with the information<\/td>\r\nShows an understanding of the audience by considering the knowledge and attitude of readers toward the subject\r\n\r\nUses a tone appropriate for the audience<\/td>\r\nShows a nuanced understanding of the variety of audiences, addressing different readers in the same composition\r\n\r\nMay use persuasive rhetorical techniques crafted for particular readers, especially those who may be hostile to or indifferent to the subject<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
3.\u00a0Conventions and Mechanics<\/caption>\r\n
Not Evident<\/th>\r\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\r\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\r\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\r\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Shows no evidence of proofreading\r\n\r\nHas numerous significant errors that affect understanding of the text\r\n\r\nHas systemic problems with phrasing and word choice\r\n\r\nDoes not meet the minimum requirements in length or format<\/td>\r\nShows little evidence of proofreading\r\n\r\nHas numerous errors that affect understanding of most of the text\r\n\r\nHas significant issues with awkward phrasing and word choice\r\n\r\nMay not meet the minimum requirements in length or format<\/td>\r\nMay have some careless errors\r\n\r\nHas some issues with conventions and mechanics, such as agreement, fragments, and run-on sentences that impede understanding\r\n\r\nMay have some issues with awkward phrasing and word choice\r\n\r\nMeets the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\r\nShows an effort to proofread\r\n\r\nMay have some errors but do not interfere greatly with the text\u2019s meaning\r\n\r\nMay have a few problems with word choice and phrasing but the draft is clearly written\r\n\r\nMeets the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\r\nShows evidence of careful proofreading\r\n\r\nIs generally clear of grammatical errors\r\n\r\nShows an elevated understanding of phrasing and word choice\r\n\r\nMeets (and may exceed) the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
4. Research<\/caption>\r\n
Not Evident<\/th>\r\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\r\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\r\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\r\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Does not use research to support ideas\r\n\r\nDoes not include research from the proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources\r\n\r\nDoes not summarize or quote sources according to appropriate documentation style\r\n\r\nDoes not include a works cited page; or, includes a works cited page with prohibitive errors\r\n\r\nPlagiarizes<\/td>\r\nAttempts to use research to support author\u2019s ideas, but support is often irrelevant to the author\u2019s ideas\r\n\r\nMentions research from some primary\/secondary sources, but sources are overall not appropriate for a scholarly essay\r\n\r\nQuotes or summarizes sources excessively so that the reader loses author\u2019s voice\r\n\r\nNeeds more quoting or summarizing of sources to support author\u2019s ideas\r\n\r\nDocuments sources inconsistently\r\n\r\nIncludes a works cited page with numerous errors<\/td>\r\nUses quotes and\/or summaries from research to generally support author\u2019s ideas, but some support lacks connection to author\u2019s ideas\r\n\r\nUses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources, but includes a source that is not appropriate for a scholarly essay\r\n\r\nShows evidence of using the appropriate documentation style to quote or summarize sources\r\n\r\nPresents a works cited page that corresponds with sources in essay, but it has a few conspicuous errors<\/td>\r\nConvincingly uses research to support author\u2019s ideas\r\n\r\nUses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources, and all sources are appropriate for a scholarly essay\r\n\r\nUses the proper documentation style throughout to quote or summarize sources with few errors\r\n\r\nLists all sources in a works cited page that is mostly formatted correctly<\/td>\r\nUses thorough and relevant research to develop and enhance the strength of the author\u2019s argument\r\n\r\nUses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources and includes sources that show superior research skills\r\n\r\nConsistently uses the proper documentation style to quote or summarize sources while also varying the techniques of integrating the source material\r\n\r\nIncludes a works cited page that has very few minor errors, if any<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
5.\u00a0Argumentation and Exploration<\/caption>\r\n
Not Evident<\/th>\r\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\r\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\r\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\r\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Has an overly superficial\u00a0 argument\r\n\r\nHas no specific awareness of the context and complexity of the issue\r\n\r\nUses a reasoning that is completely undermined by logical fallacies; what is presented as evidence is inappropriate and inadequate\r\n\r\nHas a bias that prohibits competent analysis of counter-arguments or objections<\/td>\r\nHas a thesis that is unclear or its significance is not supported\r\n\r\nExplores an issue\u2019s context and complexity superficially\r\n\r\nUses fallacies where the evidence may be inappropriate and\/or biased, and the conclusion does not obviously follow\r\n\r\nCreates counter-arguments and objections that are \u201cstraw persons\u201d\r\n\r\nShows a bias on the part of the author, acknowledged or otherwise, that is blatant<\/td>\r\nHas a thesis or claim is clearly stated\r\n\r\nProvides some background and context for the issue, but may not explain and\/or explore it fully\r\n\r\nDemonstrates a fallacy or two, the evidence may be inadequate, and the argument may be confused \/ confusing\r\n\r\nRaises counter-arguments and objections but may dismiss them too easily or not explore them deeply\r\n\r\nShows some bias on the part of the author that may be apparent and problematic<\/td>\r\nHas a thesis or claim that is arguable\r\n\r\nExamines the complexity of the subject, addressing the context and significance of the issue\r\n\r\nHas a sound reasoning that is based on a variety of evidential sources, and the reader can easily follow the argument\r\n\r\nConsiders counter-arguments and objections, and synthesizes different points of view\r\n\r\nAcknowledges and addresses any biases on the part of the author<\/td>\r\nHas a thesis or claim that is arguable \/ verifiable \/ testable and demonstrates a deep awareness of the complexity of the subject\r\n\r\nMakes clear the context and significance of the issue\r\n\r\nUses sound reasoning that is based on relevant, credible evidence, some of which may be used creatively to illuminate the subject even further\r\n\r\nHas transitions that are artful and logical\r\n\r\nExplores possible counter-arguments, objections, and any additional considerations sufficiently and thoroughly;\r\n\r\nAvoids bias and considers all pertinent facts fully<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>","rendered":"\n\n\n\n
1. Purpose<\/caption>\n
Not Evident<\/th>\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Lacks thesis or thesis is missing<\/p>\n

No attempt at argumentation<\/p>\n

Shows little or no logical organization<\/p>\n

Does not answer \/ match \/ address prompt<\/td>\n

Attempts thesis statement<\/p>\n

Undeveloped thesis statement; thesis is a fact or question, or is too narrow or too broad to properly address topic<\/p>\n

Attempts organization, but lacks paragraph cohesion or transitions between thoughts<\/p>\n

Organization of ideas may fail to support initial thesis<\/td>\n

Proper thesis statement present<\/p>\n

Thesis may feel \u201cdropped in\u201d at end of introduction but still manages to create a cohesive argument<\/p>\n

Ideas separated into paragraphs which support thesis, but presentation of ideas feels formulaic or fails to move beyond basic five-paragraph theme<\/td>\n

Clear thesis statement which uses key words or ideas related to topic<\/p>\n

Introduction effectively leads to thesis statement<\/p>\n

Individual paragraphs all work to reinforce one or more aspects of thesis statement<\/p>\n

Transitions between ideas are seamless and effortless<\/p>\n

Conclusion references introduction without simply restating it<\/td>\n

Strong, unique thesis statement which engages the topic and consistently controls the argument throughout the paper<\/p>\n

Paragraph containing thesis is a controlled presentation of information that leads to clear statement of rhetorical purpose and argument<\/p>\n

Paper is cohesive, and no paragraphs feel \u201cout of place\u201d<\/p>\n

Conclusion moves beyond introduction and offers a new or final thought<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
2. Audience<\/caption>\n
Not Evident<\/th>\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Does not address the audience as described in the prompt<\/p>\n

Does not consider what the audience may or may not know about this subject<\/p>\n

May use only opinionated, inflammatory, or other insulting language to persuade the audience<\/p>\n

Writer is composing for her or him self without considering any audience<\/td>\n

May show some awareness of audience through context and tone<\/p>\n

May address only part of an audience or readership, creating an unbalanced argument<\/td>\n

Attempts to address the audience but may not always be successful<\/p>\n

May sometimes use tone that is not appropriate for the audience<\/p>\n

May neglect to contextualize or explain evidence to an audience unfamiliar with the information<\/td>\n

Shows an understanding of the audience by considering the knowledge and attitude of readers toward the subject<\/p>\n

Uses a tone appropriate for the audience<\/td>\n

Shows a nuanced understanding of the variety of audiences, addressing different readers in the same composition<\/p>\n

May use persuasive rhetorical techniques crafted for particular readers, especially those who may be hostile to or indifferent to the subject<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
3.\u00a0Conventions and Mechanics<\/caption>\n
Not Evident<\/th>\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Shows no evidence of proofreading<\/p>\n

Has numerous significant errors that affect understanding of the text<\/p>\n

Has systemic problems with phrasing and word choice<\/p>\n

Does not meet the minimum requirements in length or format<\/td>\n

Shows little evidence of proofreading<\/p>\n

Has numerous errors that affect understanding of most of the text<\/p>\n

Has significant issues with awkward phrasing and word choice<\/p>\n

May not meet the minimum requirements in length or format<\/td>\n

May have some careless errors<\/p>\n

Has some issues with conventions and mechanics, such as agreement, fragments, and run-on sentences that impede understanding<\/p>\n

May have some issues with awkward phrasing and word choice<\/p>\n

Meets the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\n

Shows an effort to proofread<\/p>\n

May have some errors but do not interfere greatly with the text\u2019s meaning<\/p>\n

May have a few problems with word choice and phrasing but the draft is clearly written<\/p>\n

Meets the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\n

Shows evidence of careful proofreading<\/p>\n

Is generally clear of grammatical errors<\/p>\n

Shows an elevated understanding of phrasing and word choice<\/p>\n

Meets (and may exceed) the minimum requirements in length and format<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
4. Research<\/caption>\n
Not Evident<\/th>\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Does not use research to support ideas<\/p>\n

Does not include research from the proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources<\/p>\n

Does not summarize or quote sources according to appropriate documentation style<\/p>\n

Does not include a works cited page; or, includes a works cited page with prohibitive errors<\/p>\n

Plagiarizes<\/td>\n

Attempts to use research to support author\u2019s ideas, but support is often irrelevant to the author\u2019s ideas<\/p>\n

Mentions research from some primary\/secondary sources, but sources are overall not appropriate for a scholarly essay<\/p>\n

Quotes or summarizes sources excessively so that the reader loses author\u2019s voice<\/p>\n

Needs more quoting or summarizing of sources to support author\u2019s ideas<\/p>\n

Documents sources inconsistently<\/p>\n

Includes a works cited page with numerous errors<\/td>\n

Uses quotes and\/or summaries from research to generally support author\u2019s ideas, but some support lacks connection to author\u2019s ideas<\/p>\n

Uses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources, but includes a source that is not appropriate for a scholarly essay<\/p>\n

Shows evidence of using the appropriate documentation style to quote or summarize sources<\/p>\n

Presents a works cited page that corresponds with sources in essay, but it has a few conspicuous errors<\/td>\n

Convincingly uses research to support author\u2019s ideas<\/p>\n

Uses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources, and all sources are appropriate for a scholarly essay<\/p>\n

Uses the proper documentation style throughout to quote or summarize sources with few errors<\/p>\n

Lists all sources in a works cited page that is mostly formatted correctly<\/td>\n

Uses thorough and relevant research to develop and enhance the strength of the author\u2019s argument<\/p>\n

Uses research from proper number of primary and\/or secondary sources and includes sources that show superior research skills<\/p>\n

Consistently uses the proper documentation style to quote or summarize sources while also varying the techniques of integrating the source material<\/p>\n

Includes a works cited page that has very few minor errors, if any<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
5.\u00a0Argumentation and Exploration<\/caption>\n
Not Evident<\/th>\nNeeds Substantial Improvement<\/th>\nNeeds Some Improvement<\/th>\nMeets Expectations<\/th>\nExceeds Expectations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Has an overly superficial\u00a0 argument<\/p>\n

Has no specific awareness of the context and complexity of the issue<\/p>\n

Uses a reasoning that is completely undermined by logical fallacies; what is presented as evidence is inappropriate and inadequate<\/p>\n

Has a bias that prohibits competent analysis of counter-arguments or objections<\/td>\n

Has a thesis that is unclear or its significance is not supported<\/p>\n

Explores an issue\u2019s context and complexity superficially<\/p>\n

Uses fallacies where the evidence may be inappropriate and\/or biased, and the conclusion does not obviously follow<\/p>\n

Creates counter-arguments and objections that are \u201cstraw persons\u201d<\/p>\n

Shows a bias on the part of the author, acknowledged or otherwise, that is blatant<\/td>\n

Has a thesis or claim is clearly stated<\/p>\n

Provides some background and context for the issue, but may not explain and\/or explore it fully<\/p>\n

Demonstrates a fallacy or two, the evidence may be inadequate, and the argument may be confused \/ confusing<\/p>\n

Raises counter-arguments and objections but may dismiss them too easily or not explore them deeply<\/p>\n

Shows some bias on the part of the author that may be apparent and problematic<\/td>\n

Has a thesis or claim that is arguable<\/p>\n

Examines the complexity of the subject, addressing the context and significance of the issue<\/p>\n

Has a sound reasoning that is based on a variety of evidential sources, and the reader can easily follow the argument<\/p>\n

Considers counter-arguments and objections, and synthesizes different points of view<\/p>\n

Acknowledges and addresses any biases on the part of the author<\/td>\n

Has a thesis or claim that is arguable \/ verifiable \/ testable and demonstrates a deep awareness of the complexity of the subject<\/p>\n

Makes clear the context and significance of the issue<\/p>\n

Uses sound reasoning that is based on relevant, credible evidence, some of which may be used creatively to illuminate the subject even further<\/p>\n

Has transitions that are artful and logical<\/p>\n

Explores possible counter-arguments, objections, and any additional considerations sufficiently and thoroughly;<\/p>\n

Avoids bias and considers all pertinent facts fully<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>