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