Synthesizing Personality Theories: An Analysis of Superhero's Personality

Objectives and Outcomes

Objectives and Outcomes Synthesize what you learned about personality theories in Essay 1 and Essay 2, using your chosen superhero as an illustration. Apply concepts that you have learned in the course materials. Practise writing an essay using APA style. Instructions Your third assignment is to tie Essays 1 and 2 together in a discussion of, and conclusion to, them. In Essay 3, you should summarize and analyze the arguments that you developed in your first two essays, and discuss whether one of the two personality theories has more support than the other, or what is limiting about the literature that prevents such a decision. Which of the two theories best fits your superhero? Are these theories still relevant today, or are they best studied as history? Discuss the reliability and validity of the theories. You may include suggestions for further research. Marking Key Discussion and Conclusion Succinct summary of the arguments made for the different theories. Indication of which theory seems to have the best fit with the superhero’s personality. Clear discussion of theories’ relevance. Good form: consistent use of current APA style in body of the essay, citations, and reference list; excellent organization, grammar, spelling, and punctuation; logical order of presentation. 90–100 100 Succinct summary of the arguments made for the different theories. Indication of which theory seems to have the best fit with the superhero’s personality. Clear discussion of theories’ relevance. Fair use of form (see above for description of good form). 80–89 Clear, logical conclusions drawn from the literature review with limited discussion about the relevance of the theories. Evidence presented in a list format. Fair or poor form (see above for description of good form). 70–79 Clear, logical conclusions drawn with no evidence presented. No discussion of theories’ relevance. Poor form (see above for description of good form). 60–69 Unclear or illogical conclusions. No discussion of theories’ relevance. Poor form (see above for description of good form). 50–59 No conclusion. 0–49