| Excellent (A) | Good (B) | Adequate (C) | Below college level work (D - E) | |
| Theory and technique | Uses psychological theory and terminology accurately and in a sophisticated manner. Is able to apply theory appropriately and accurately. Paper looks at the implications of the theory, not all of which are discussed in the book or class. | Uses theory in rigid manner. Terms are used accurately, but theory only describes rather than lending insight into person's behavior or motivation. Paper is a good description of theory in the book, but does not include synthesis or original thinking. | Theory is used in a superficial manner, with some minor mistakes in application. Paper is a weak description of theory in the book. | Theory does not apply to person/situation or is used inappropriately. |
| Insight | Insightful about self/other/theory. Recognizes context and exceptions. It makes me go Wow! | Paper is somewhat insightful, but not as much as I would have wished. You tease rather than satisfy! | Paper does not help the reader understand the self/other/theory observed. | Paper is off-track in its conclusions. |
| Divergent thinking | Approaches issue from multiple viewpoints (e.g., views problem from multiple vantages, recognizes multiple contributions to issues, or sees pros and cons of theory). | Approaches problem well, but from only one or two viewpoints. | Issue is approached weakly from a single vantage. | Issue is approached poorly from a single vantage. |
| Respectful and empathic approach | Behavior is described in strength-based rather than judgmental manner. Context is given for observations (e.g., recent death of partner, a court-ordered interview, a poor night's sleep etc.). Paper is respectful of the person. | Paper is neither strength-based nor really judgmental, but tends to focus more on problems and ignore strengths. | Paper is somewhat judgmental. Context for behavior may be overlooked. If you are looking at someone else, I have a difficult time understanding him or her based on your description. | Paper is judgmental. Self/other/theory is not approached in an empathic manner. |
| Technical Style | Paper is well-organized, logical, clear, and written with sophisticated and varied sentences. Spelling, grammar, etc. have been well-proofed. | Paper is organized and logical, but could use a second proofing. | Paper is weak, with a simple and stereotyped style not characteristic of students in a senior level course. Sentences are repetitive, rather than varied in structure. | Paper is illogical, poorly proofed, and poorly thought out; not performed at a college level. |
Last updated January 12, 2004