iRubric: Concepts in Autism Paper Rubric

The paper does not appear to have a clear central idea or does not respond appropriately to the
assignment. Thesis may be too vague or obvious to be developed effectively. Terms are not defined properly.

The paper is adequate but weaker and less effective. The central idea is presented in general terms, often depending on platitudes or cliches. Generally does not acknowledge opposing
views. Shows basic comprehension of sources, perhaps with lapses in understanding. If it defines terms,often depends on dictionary definitions.

The paper fully outlined the concept in Autism being discussed. The well organized paper fully discusses the chosen topic. and underlying theories. Clearly states a central idea, but may have minor lapses in development.
Begins to acknowledge the
complexity of central idea and the possibility of other points of view. Shows careful reading of sources, but may not evaluate them critically.
Attempts to define terms, not always successfully.

The paper thoroughly outlined the concept in Autism being discussed. The well organized paper fully discusses the chosen topic. and underlying theories. Clearly states the central idea and acknowledges the
complexity of the topic and associated concepts. Evaluatio shows careful reading of sources, excellent definition of terms.

Information from leading researchers in the area of differentiation is mentioned in the body of the paper, but not adequately discussed.

Information from leading researchers in the area of Autism is mentioned in the body of the paper, but not adequately discussed. More information could have been included for clarity.

Information from leading researchers in the area of Autism is mentioned in the body of the paper, and adequately discussed, although more information could have been included.

Information from leading researchers in the area of Autism is mentioned in the body of the paper, and fully discussed.

APA not adhered to in the paper. The paper included one peer reviewed articles. Used websites instead of peer reviewed articles.

In-text citations and references are correct with no more than 10 mistakes. The paper included at least three peer reviewed articles. Used some websites instead of peer reviewed articles

In-text citations and references are correct with no more than 5 mistakes. The paper included at least three peer reviewed articles. Used some websites instead of peer reviewed articles.

In-text citations and references are correct with no more than 2 mistakes. The paper included three or more peer reviewed articles. Used no websites instead utilized peer reviewed articles.