70.0 %Content

20.0 %Part 1: Label Each Case Study with Relevant Theorist/Stages

None of the case studies are labeled with the relevant theorist/stages.

Some of the case studies are labeled with the relevant theorist/stages or are labeled incorrectly.

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates a basic understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

All of the case studies are labeled correctly with the relevant theorist/stages. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

10.0 %Part 1: Length of Each Case Study is at Least 250 Words

None of the case studies are at least 250 words in length.

Some of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a basic understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

All of the case studies are at least 250 words in length. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the theorist/stages relate to each case study.

20.0 %Part 1: Plan to Work with Someone at Identified Stage C3.4: Demonstrate understanding of human growth and development and how they impact counseling efforts.

The case studies did not demonstrate how the student, as a therapist, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

The case studies demonstrate a minimal understanding of how the student, as a therapist, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

The case studies demonstrate a basic understanding of how the student, as a therapist, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

The case studies demonstrate an advanced understanding of how the student, as a therapist, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

The case studies demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of how the student, as a therapist, would plan to work with someone at the identified stage.

20.0 %Case Study Summary

The assignment omitted a summary statement that explains the similarities and differences between Piaget?s and Erickson?s theories.

The summary demonstrates a minimal understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget?s and Erickson?s theories.

The summary demonstrates a basic understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget?s and Erickson?s theories.

The summary demonstrates an advanced understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget?s and Erickson?s theories.

The summary demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences between Piaget?s and Erickson?s theories.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

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.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use.)

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

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.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

10.0 %Format

5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

All format elements are correct.

5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

100 %Total Weightage