Assessment Description The concept and theories of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are important components in the history of psychology. Several key theorists have contributed to thes

Assessment Description The concept and theories of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are important components in the history of psychology. Several key theorists have contributed to thes
5. 5: Excellent 48 points A description of the antecedents of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is clearly presented. Research is current and from authoritative, original, scholarly sources. 4. 4: Good 43.68 points A description of the antecedents of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is clearly presented. Research is from original sources. Most are authoritative but some may be dated. 3. 3: Satisfactory 39.36 points A description of the antecedents of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is present but is cursory and lacks depth. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 35.04 points A description of the antecedents of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is present but incomplete or inaccurate. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A description of the antecedents of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is either not present or not evident to the reader. collapse Contrast of the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection assessment Contrast of the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection 60 points Criteria Description Contrast of the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection 5. 5: Excellent 60 points A contrast of the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is clearly presented. Research is current and from authoritative, original, scholarly sources. 4. 4: Good 54.6 points A contrast of the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is clearly presented. Research is from original sources. Most are authoritative but some may be dated. 3. 3: Satisfactory 49.2 points A contrast of the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is present but is cursory and lacks depth. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 43.8 points A contrast of the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is present but inaccurate or illogical. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A contrast of the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection is either not present or not evident to the reader. collapse How the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection Are Used assessment How the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection Are Used 60 points Criteria Description Discussion of How the Concepts of Functionalism, Structuralism, and Introspection Are Used in the Field of Psychology Today 5. 5: Excellent 60 points A discussion of how the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are used in the field of psychology today is clearly presented. Research is current and from authoritative, original, scholarly sources. 4. 4: Good 54.6 points A discussion of how the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are used in the field of psychology today is clearly presented. Research is from original sources. Most are authoritative but some may be dated. 3. 3: Satisfactory 49.2 points A discussion of how the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are used in the field of psychology today is present but is cursory and lacks depth. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 43.8 points A discussion of how the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are used in the field of psychology today is present but incomplete or inaccurate. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A discussion of how the concepts of functionalism, structuralism, and introspection are used in the field of psychology today is either not present or not evident to the reader. collapse Synthesis and Argument assessment Synthesis and Argument 24 points Criteria Description Synthesis and Argument 5. 5: Excellent 24 points Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 4. 4: Good 21.84 points Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 3. 3: Satisfactory 19.68 points Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. 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. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 17.52 points Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. collapse Thesis Development and Purpose assessment Thesis Development and Purpose 24 points Criteria Description Thesis Development and Purpose 5. 5: Excellent 24 points Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. 4. 4: Good 21.84 points Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 3. 3: Satisfactory 19.68 points Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 17.52 points Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. collapse Mechanics of Writing assessment Mechanics of Writing 12 points Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing 5. 5: Excellent 12 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 4. 4: Good 10.92 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. 3. 3: Satisfactory 9.84 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 8.76 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. collapse APA Format assessment APA Format 12 points Criteria Description APA Format 5. 5: Excellent 12 points The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. 4. 4: Good 10.92 points Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. 3. 3: Satisfactory 9.84 points Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 8.76 points Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.