Topic: Evangelize Young Adults in the Age of Secularization Part of this

Topic: Evangelize Young Adults in the Age of Secularization
Part of this assignment will require that consisting of
1) a single thesis statement,
2) a description (an abstract),
4) a bibliography.
The paper will give you the opportunity to probe deeper into an aspect of church renewal and evangelism that has particularly intrigued you.
As for the paper itself, refer to the form Evaluation Criteria for Research Paper below in order to see how your paper will be assessed and graded.
The paper needs to reflect interaction with at least 5 sources—at least one of them being a journal article and another being a credible Internet source.
The flexible due date reflects the possibility that you have already thought extensively about a certain aspect of renewal and/or evangelism and that you are ready to articulate your thoughts sooner than later in the semester.
CRITERIA
EXCELLENT
GOOD
BELOW EXPECTATIONS
UNACCEPTABLE
Content
(quality of the information and ideas, as well as the sources and details used to support them)
– has clarity of purpose
– has depth of content
– displays insight or originality of thought
-demonstrates quality and breadth of resources
– has clarity of purpose
– has substantial information and sufficient support
– contains some originality of thought
– uses quality resources
– has clarity of purpose
– lacks depth of content and may depend on generalities or the commonplace
– has little originality of thought
– uses mostly quality resources
-has unclear purpose
– is superficial in content
– has no originality of thought
-uses resources of poor quality
– includes factual or logical errors
-may not follow the instructions for content or length
Structure
(logical order or sequence of the writing)
– is coherent and logically developed
– uses very effective transitions
– is coherent and logically developed
– uses smooth transitions
– logically (but not fully) developed
– has some awkward transitions
-has inadequate,
irrelevant, or illogical development and transitions
Style
(appropriate attention to audience; effective word choice, sentence variety, voice; appropriate level of formality for academic writing vs. informal text messages and email)
– is concise, eloquent, and rhetorically effective
– has nicely varied sentence structure
– is engaging throughout and enjoyable to read
– displays concern for careful expression
– has some variation in sentence structure
– is generally enjoyable to read
– has some personality but lacks imagination and may be stilted
– has little variation in sentence structure
– is not very interesting to read
– is simplistic
– includes frequent inappropriate word choice, ineffective sentence style
– is frustrating and not enjoyable to read
– is clearly below expectations for seminary (graduate level) students
Conventions
(adherence to grammar rules: usage, mechanics)
– has well-constructed sentences, makes virtually no errors in grammar and spelling, and uses words that are accurate
– usually has well-constructed sentences, makes minimal errors in grammar and spelling, and generally uses accurate words
– does not always have well-constructed sentences, makes several errors and word choices that distract the reader, and frequently uses jargon and clichés
– does not have well-constructed sentences, confuses readers with many errors, uses limited vocabulary with jargon and clichés
Source Integrity
(appropriate Chicago Manual Style-based acknowledgment of sources used in research)
– has sources for all quotations
– has credible paraphrases, cited correctly
– has reference page
– has virtually no errors in documentation style
– has sources for all quotations
– has credible paraphrases, usually cited correctly
– has reference page
– has minimal errors in documentation style
– has sources for all quotations
– most paraphrases credible, sometimes cited correctly
– has reference page
– has several errors in documentation style
– does not have sources for all quotations
– paraphrases are less than credible, often not cited correctly
-little to no evidence of source usage
– no reference page (or is very weak)
– many errors in documentation style