\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n1 \nUnsatisfactory \n0.00%<\/strong><\/td>\n2 \nLess Than Satisfactory \n74.00%<\/strong><\/td>\n3 \nSatisfactory \n79.00%<\/strong><\/td>\n4 \nGood \n87.00%<\/strong><\/td>\n5 \nExcellent \n100.00%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n70.0 %Content<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n10.0 %Discuss the Practice<\/strong><\/td>\nDiscussion of the practice is not presented.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the practice is presented but is incomplete.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the practice is presented but at a cursory level.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the practice is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the practice is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n15.0 %Assess to what extent the practice is being implemented<\/strong><\/td>\nAssessment of the extent the practice is being implemented is not presented.<\/td>\n | Assessment of the extent the practice is being implemented is presented but is incomplete.<\/td>\n | Assessment of the extent the practice is being implemented is presented but at a cursory level.<\/td>\n | Assessment of the extent the practice is being implemented is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.<\/td>\n | Assessment of the extent the practice is being implemented is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n15.0 %Evaluate the Barriers to Implementation Into Practice<\/strong><\/td>\nEvaluation of the barriers to implementation into practice is not presented.<\/td>\n | Evaluation of the barriers to implementation into practice is presented but is incomplete.<\/td>\n | Evaluation of the barriers to implementation into practice is presented but at a cursory level.<\/td>\n | Evaluation of the barriers to implementation into practice is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.<\/td>\n | Evaluation of the barriers to implementation into practice is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n15.0 %Propose Ways to Overcome the Barriers<\/strong><\/td>\nProposed ways to overcome the barriers are not presented.<\/td>\n | Proposed ways to overcome the barriers are presented but are incomplete.<\/td>\n | Proposed ways to overcome the barriers are presented but at a cursory level.<\/td>\n | Proposed ways to overcome the barriers are clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.<\/td>\n | Proposed ways to overcome the barriers are clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n15.0 %Discuss the Resources Available on the Selected Site to Inform Translation<\/strong><\/td>\nDiscussion of the resources available on the selected site to inform translation is not presented.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the resources available on the selected site to inform translation is presented but is incomplete.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the resources available on the selected site to inform translation is presented but at a cursory level.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the resources available on the selected site to inform translation is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.<\/td>\n | Discussion of the resources available on the selected site to inform translation is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose<\/strong><\/td>\nPaper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.<\/td>\n | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.<\/td>\n | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.<\/td>\n | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.<\/td>\n | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction<\/strong><\/td>\nStatement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.<\/td>\n | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.<\/td>\n | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.<\/td>\n | Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.<\/td>\n | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)<\/strong><\/td>\nSurface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.<\/td>\n | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.<\/td>\n | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.<\/td>\n | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.<\/td>\n | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n10.0 %Format<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)<\/strong><\/td>\nTemplate is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.<\/td>\n | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.<\/td>\n | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.<\/td>\n | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.<\/td>\n | All format elements are correct.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)<\/strong><\/td>\nSources are not documented.<\/td>\n | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.<\/td>\n | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.<\/td>\n | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.<\/td>\n | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n100 %Total Weightage<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |