HSN505HSN505 Personal Academic Success Paper Rubric28Assignment
Worth 28 ptsName:Date:ContentPerformance CriteriaPerformance Level
(Select from drop down menu)PoorFairGoodExcellentYour
ScoreWeightYour ScoreLearning stylesMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.0010%0Time managementMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.0010%0Stress managementMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.0010%0Goal settingMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.0010%0Strategies for academic successMouse over for
Performance Criteria0.0010%0Supporting Sources and EvidenceMouse
over for Performance Criteria0.0010%0Content
Total0.000.0060%0University Writing GuidelinesPerformance
CriteriaPerformance LevelPoorFairGoodExcellentYour ScoreWeightYour
ScoreLengthMouse over for Performance Criteria0.005.0%0Introduction
(Relationship to body of paper, draws reader in)Mouse over for
Performance Criteria0.006.0%0ConclusionMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.006.0%0Thesis (Retained focus)Mouse over for Performance
Criteria0.006.0%0APA FormattingMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.005.0%0Mechanics (Spelling, Grammar, and
Punctuation)Mouse over for Performance Criteria0.006.0%0Style and
Readability (Voice/point of view; variety of word choices and
sentence structureMouse over for Performance
Criteria0.006.0%0Organization, Style, and Mechanics
Total0.000.0040%0Deduction Adjustments (i.e. late
submission)Assignment TotalAssignment Total0.0100%0.00Comments: see
additional comments in the assignment documentPerformance
LevelPointsUnacceptable0Poor1Fair2Good3Excellent4
Excellent: Gives a detailed description of personal learning
style, as determined by "Multiple Pathways". Relates personal
learning style to previous academic experiences. Gives detailed
description of other learning styles. Gives detailed description of
how this learning style can be applied to one's professional
success. Gives detailed description of how this learning style
allows one to interact/understand others with different learning
styles.
Good: Gives a detailed description personal learning style as
determined by "Multiple Pathways" Describes how this learning style
can be applied to ones professional success. Describes how this
learning style allows one to interact/understand others with
different learning styles.
Fair: Gives a description of personal learning style with
minimal connection to "Mutiple Pathways".
Poor: Gives a weak description of personal learning style.
Explains minimal application of their personal learning style to
professional success.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no reference to personal learning
style or mulitple pathways.Excellent: Gives a detailed description
of 3 time management strategies. Provides supportive statements
explaining how strategies will contribute to college/professional
success. Provides specific action plan to institute the
strategies.
Good: Gives a detailed description of 3 time management
strategies. Provides supportive statements explaining how
strategies will contribute to college/professional success.
Fair: Gives a description of time management strategies.
Reflects little or no initiative to institute these strategies.
Poor: Gives a weak description of few time management
strategies. Does not provide supportive statements explaining how
these strategies will contribute to college/professional
success.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no reference to time
management.Excellent: Gives a detailed description of 3 stress
management strategies. Provides supportive statements explaining
how strategies will contribute to college/professional success.
Provides specific action plan to institute the strategies.
Good: Gives a detailed description of 3 stress management
strategies. Provides supportive statements explaining how
strategies will contribute to college/professional success.
Fair: Gives a description of stress management strategies.
Reflects little or no initiative to institute these strategies.
Poor: Gives a weak description of few stress management
strategies. Does not provide supportive statements explaining how
these strategies will contribute to college/professional
success.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no reference to stress
management.Excellent: Gives a detailed description of S.M.A.R.T.
goal setting stratagies. Provides supportive statements explaining
how they have developed 3 S.M.A.R.T. goals for this course and 3
S.M.A.R.T. goals for degree program. Provides specific action plan
to institute the strategies.
Good: Gives a detailed description of S.M.A.R.T. goal setting
strategies and how they will be used to develop 3 S.M.A.R.T. goals
for this course and 3 S.M.A.R.T. goals for degree program.
Fair: Gives a description of S.M.A.R.T. goal setting strategies
and how they will be used to develop S.M.A.R.T. goals for this
course and S.M.A.R.T. goals for degree program.
Poor: Gives a weak description of S.M.A.R.T. goal setting
strategies. Does not provide supportive statements explaining how
these strategies will contribute to college/professional
success.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no reference to goal setting
strategies.Excellent: Gives detailed description of strategies for
academic success: (how to study, set priorities, ask for help,
financial management, use UOPX resources, reading strategies,
research, etc). Discusses implementation of these strategies.
Good: Gives detailed description of strategies for academic
success: (how to study, set priorities, ask for help, financial
management, use UOPX resources, reading strategies, research,
etc)
Fair: Gives a description of general strategies for academic
success with little application to current course work.
Poor: Gives a weak description of strategies for academic
success. Does not apply this knowledge to current course work.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no reference to strategies for
academicExcellent: Gives detailed description of relevant evidence
from quality sources in the discipline which support the assignment
from peer-reviewed sources. Analyzes supporting evidence and
integrates the evidence into the written work. Uses quoted sources
with an explanation relating them to the purpose. Includes a
reference page.
Good: Gives detailed description of relevant evidence from
quality sources related to the discipline. Employs supporting
evidence and integrates the evidence into the written work. Uses
quoted sources with a statement relating them to the purpose.
Includes a reference page.
Fair: Gives a description of relevant evidence related to the
discipline, but evidence may not be from quality sources. States
supporting evidence, but may not integrate the evidence into the
written work. Uses quoted sources, but without relating them to the
purpose. Includes a reference page.
Poor: Gives a weak description of evidence from outside sources.
Attempts to format in-text citations with errors. Attempts to
create a reference page but with errors.
Unacceptable: Gives minimal or no relevant evidence. Does not
use citations. Does not include a reference pageExcellent: 1000
word minimum
Good: 900 word minimum
Fair: 800 word minimum
Poor: 700 word minimum
Unacceptable: Under 700 wordsExcellent: Uses strong, effective
language, expresses clear thought, originality, and has a strong
sense of audience.
Good: Uses clear language, expresses intended thought,
originality, and is aware of audience.
Fair: Uses ordinary language, expresses inconsistent thought,
functional in it's message, and a questionable awareness of
audience.
Poor: Uses monotonous and repetitive language. The message is
unclear or inconsistent. Presenter expresses a distance toward
audience.
Unacceptable: Uses limited vocabulary and lack of message or
subject. Displays inadequate or imprecise wording.Excellent:
Summarizes thesis and leaves reader with complete sense of
closure/resolution.
Good: Restates and evaluates thesis and leaves reader with sense
of closure/resolution.
Fair: Restates thesis but leaves reader with unanswered
questions. Sequencing is inconsistant and displays and abrupt
conclusion.
Poor: Does not make reference to thesis, and leaves reader with
unanswered questions. Makes an attempt at sequencing, and displays
an abrupt conclusion.
Unacceptable: Text is difficult to follow with a vague meaning
and no conclusion.Excellent: States a clear and focused thesis that
is reflected throughout the paper.
Good: Thesis statement is easily identifiable and is well suited
to select details throughout the paper.
Fair: Main idea is understandable but simplistic or too broad.
Provides limited supporting details.
Poor: Provides an unclear thesis statement with minimal
development and provides irrelevant details.
Unacceptable: Displays a lack of a central idea. Provides
limited unclear ideas. Paper is too short to demonstrate a central
idea.Excellent: Formatting fully complies with APA guidelines.
Good: Formatting mostly complies with APA guidelines.
Fair: Formatting generally complies with APA guidelines.
Poor: Some formatting complies with APA guidelines.
Unacceptable: Formatting does not comply with APA
guidelines.Excellent: Uses strong and effective punctuation.
Displays correct spelling, correct and appropriate grammar and
capitalization, and needs little or no editing.
Good: Uses effective punctuation. Displays correct spelling and
or capitalization with minor mistakes, little need for editing.
Fair: Standard use of punctuation, spelling and capitalization
is usually correct, moderate need for editing.
Poor: Little control or punctuation, frequent spelling and
capitalization errors, paragraphs run together, substantial need
for editing.
Unacceptable: Limited skill in using punctuation, frequent and
significant spelling/capitalization errors, irregular paragraph
breaks, extensive editing.Excellent: Exceptionally strong
commitment to topic and audience. Paper is expressive, sincere,
original, and displays appropriate emotion.
Good: Displays commitment to topic. Paper is engaging,
expressive, sincere, and displays varied emotion and
originality.
Fair: Commitment is inconsistent. Sincerity and expressiveness
of paper shifts or disappears.
Poor: Little sense of involvement to topic. Displays limited
engagement. Paper is flat or provides ordinary choice of words.
Unacceptable: No engagement or commitment to paper. There is no
sense of interaction between writer and audience.University Writing
Guidelines
