5

Connects and extends knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline to civic engagement and to one’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

4

Analyzes knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline making relevant connections to civic engagement and to one’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

3

Begins to connect knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline to civic engagement and to tone’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

2

Begins to identify knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline that is relevant to civic engagement and to one’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

1

There Is some evidence that knowledge is identified (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline that is somewhat relevant to civics engagement and to one’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

0

There is little to no evidence that knowledge is identified (facts, theories, etc.) from one’s own academic study/ field/ discipline that is somewhat relevant to civics engagement and to one’s own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

5

Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.

4

Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement, thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed

3

Begins to demonstrate the ability to construct a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.

2

Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement or related contextual factors.

1

Demonstrates the ability to explain contextual facts but does not provide a defined statement.

0

There is no evidence of a defined statement.

5

Evaluates materials for scholarly significance and relevance within and/or across the various disciplines, evaluating them according to their contributions and consequences.

4

Examines materials for scholarly significance within and/or across the various disciplines to explore contributions in relation to important questions.

3

Uses materials in the context of scholarship to develop a foundation of disciplinary knowledge and to raise and explore important questions.

2

Engages materials with the intention and expectation of building topical and world knowledge.

1

Approaches materials in the context of assignments with the intention and expectation of finding right answers and learning facts and concepts to display for credit.

0

There is little to no evidence of engagement with outside materials used in a scholarly manner.

5

Conclusions (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect informed evaluation and the ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

4

Conclusions are logically tied to and reflect studentâ€s informed evaluation in priority order and are clearly identified.

3

Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information and are identified clearly.

2

Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion).

1

Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed and oversimplified.

0

Conclusion is either not present, unclear, or does not reflect the information presented.

5

The paper exhibits an excellent command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

4

The paper exhibits a good command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, or spelling and minor error do not impair the flow of communication.

3

The paper exhibits an acceptable command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

2

The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.