Assessment Rubric

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC FOR INTS 4391: CAPSTONE PAPER

Value: 100 Points Relationship to Learning Outcomes:  Students will be able to write an interdisciplinary research essay.

Deadline and Format:  See Syllabus/Calendar for due date.  For this paper, we require MLA citation format. Consult the information at this web site: < http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html#Works-Cited >  The IRP Prospectus is to be typed on the form provided. Keep copies of all materials for your own records.  NOTE: YOU WILL WRITE THE INTRODUCTION, DEVELOP YOUR FIRST POINT (AND SUB POINTS), IDENTIFY YOUR SECOND AND THIRD POINTS AND SUB POINTS (YOU ARE NOT DEVELOPING THESE), AND WRITE YOUR INTEGRATIVE CONCLUSION.  Content: the IRP will be 6-7 pages of text (Introduction, first major point, second and third major points and sub points, and conclusion), a separate page of Endnotes, and a separate page of Select Bibliography). The cover sheet(s) will be the same form used for the Prospectus.  Format: standard 1” margins, double spacing, 12 point font. The Assessment Rubric

POSITIVE SOURCE ELEMENTS NEGATIVE Possible POINTS SOURCE ELEMENTS Points EARNED Drawing on  Over-reliance on 1-2 sources 10 Disciplinary  Poor quality of sources Sources:  Excessive direct quotations  Failure to credit source(s)  Primary sources included  Source paraphrased  Sources come from recent publications inappropriately  Sources come from professional literature  Important claims/facts not supported by a source(s) Critical  Misunderstanding of key 20 Argumentation: concepts  Failure to define key terms  Scope of problem/topic/issue clearly defined  Irrelevant facts or arguments  Empirical evidence, textual evidence or direct experience cited to support major assertions  Assertions presented in illogical order  Reflections on the limitations or merits of a source(s) presented  Ideas presented in inappropriate context  Shortcomings or merits of a disciplinary approach identified  Fallacious reasoning  Undeveloped or insufficient analysis  Scope of problem too broad or narrow  Argument inconsistent with thesis or fails to adequately support the action the thesis is demanding  Insufficient content to adequately develop major point

1 Topic/Thesis:  Topic too broad 5  Superficial thesis  Problem or issue clearly stated in the introduction  Thesis not researchable  Thesis statement clearly stated in the introduction  Thesis poorly stated  Thesis lacks sufficient specificity  Thesis does not appear in the introduction Sentence Outline/Structure:  Major point(s) not logical 15 /supportive development of  Sentence outline of case (3 major points and a thesis minimum of 2 sub points under each)  Major point(s) not stated in  Main points of outline are supportive of complete sentence(s) action/remedy/solution proposed by thesis  Sub points under major point(s)  Main points of argument/case allow for integration missing of various disciplinary perspectives  Only 1 sub point under a major point  Each main point is limited to a single discipline, not allowing for integration of various disciplinary perspectives  Main point(s) is/are wordy and/or lack(s) clarity Interdisciplinary Perspective and  Rationale for taking an 20 Integration: interdisciplinary approach is missing or is poorly worded  Clear rationale for taking interdisciplinary  Disciplines and disciplinary approach stated in introduction perspectives not stated in text  Disciplinary perspectives of sources identified  Assumptions of disciplines used  Assumptions of disciplines used in study made in study missing or defective. explicit and compared in text  Disciplinary perspectives not  Disciplinary perspectives compared and compared and contrasted in text contrasted in text  Disciplinary perspectives of  Integration occurs within each major section of persons or sources cited in text paper not identified  Conclusion is integrative of disciplinary  Integration of two or more perspectives used and voice is given to minority disciplinary perspectives fails to viewpoints occur within in one or more major sections of paper.  Uneven coverage of disciplinary perspectives  Integrative conclusion lacking Other:  Endnotes not reflective of 10  Endnotes reflective of disciplinary research used disciplinary research used in body of paper.  Endnotes conform to MLA  Select Bibliography contains minimum of 3  Select Bibliography contains 10 sources for each of 3 required disciplines less than minimum of 3 sources for each of three disciplines  Writing is free from major errors  Numerous spelling errors 10  Numerous grammatical errors  Numerous syntax errors  Overall structure of paper is not clearly delineated (clearly reflective of sentence outline)  Internal structure of major section lacks clarity  Introduction too long  Topic sentence introducing major point/section does not correspond to sentence outline  Definition of key terms needed