1. COVERAGE & DEPTH OF REFERENCE TO LITERATURE
· Few references to the literature
· Refers to inappropriate literature
· References were made to literature; however, the number of references and their appropriateness is questionable
· Adequate references to the literature
· Refers to appropriate literature
· Explains relevance of the literature to the problem statement
· More than adequate references to the literature
· Uses appropriate literature and explains relevance of each citation
· Relevance of the literature and connection to problem statement is clear and concise
· Exhaustive coverage of literature
· There is no doubt in the reader’s mind as to the relevance of the literature reviewed and the problem statement
2. ANALYSIS/ EVALUATION OF LITERATURE
· The student-writer did not identify how the reviewed studies related to the research problem
· The student-writer failed to deconstruct each study and the description of the results and conclusions was unclear and/or inaccurate
· The student-writer did not demonstrate a thorough evaluation of the literature
· The student-writer failed to express any judgments about the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.
· The relationship of the reviewed studies and the research problem was somewhat vague or unclear
· Some, but not all, of the studies deconstructed
· The description of the results and conclusions of studies may have been either vague or difficult to interpret
· The student-writer expressed judgments about some of the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.
· However, the judgments were not always appropriate
· The student-writer identified how the reviewed studies related to the research problem
· Most of the studies deconstructed
· The description of the results and conclusions of studies were stated
· The student-writer demonstrated a somewhat thorough evaluation of the literature
· The student-writer expressed appropriate judgments about many of the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.
· The student-writer clearly identified how the reviewed studies related to the research problem
· All of the studies were deconstructed
· The description of the results and conclusions of studies were easy to interpret
· The student-writer demonstrated a thorough evaluation of the literature
· The student-writer expressed legitimate judgments about all the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, validity, etc.
· The student-writer clearly and concisely identified how the reviewed studies related the research problem
· All of the studies were clearly and concisely deconstructed
· The student-writer demonstrated a thorough evaluation of the literature
· The student-writer clearly and concisely expressed judgments about all the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.
3. CONCLUSION/ SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS
· The student-writer did not attempt or failed to combine the reviewed studies to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic
· The student-writer attempted to combine the literature to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic
· However, the summary lacked in clarity and cohesiveness
· The student-writer combined the literature to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic
· The summary was mostly clear and cohesive
· The student-writer combined the literature to create a very clear and cohesive summary of the research related to the issue/topic
· The student-writer combined the reviewed studies to create an exceptionally clear and cohesive summary of the research related to the issue/topic
4. PARTICIPANTS
-sampling techniques
-appropriateness of sample
· The sampling techniques described were not accurate and appropriate.
· The sample chosen was not appropriate or relevant given the problem statement.
· The sampling techniques described were mostly accurate and appropriate.
· The sample chosen was not appropriate or relevant given the problem statement.
· The sampling techniques described were mostly accurate and appropriate.
· The sample chosen is appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.
· The sampling techniques described were accurate and appropriate.
· The sample chosen was appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.
· The sampling techniques were clearly described and were undoubtedly accurate and appropriate.
· The sample chosen was appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.
5. PROCEDURES
-clarity of procedures
-appropriateness of methods
-ethically appropriate procedures
· The procedures were either not described or the description was significantly lacking.
· The proposed procedures were not ethical (Informed consent is not mentioned at all)
· The proposed methods were not discussed. Most to all of the descriptions were not accurately named.
· The procedures were described.
· The proposed procedures were somewhat ethical.
· The proposed methods were discussed. Most descriptions were accurately named.
· The procedures were described.
· The proposed procedures were ethical. Informed consent is included.
· The proposed methods were discussed and accurately named.
· The procedures were clearly described.
· The procedures were ethical and informed consent covered all participants.
· The proposed methods were thoroughly discussed and accurately named.
· The procedures were clearly described.
· The proposed procedures were ethical. Informed consent included. Thorough Human Subjects Review information.
· The proposed methods are thoroughly discussed and accurately named. The method described is clear and concise.
6. DATA MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS
–appropriateness of instrument
–findings and expected results
· Means of data collection were not appropriately chosen.
· Instrumentation was not discussed.
· An explanation of proposed analysis and/or the expected results and anticipated outcomes were not discussed
· Means of data collection were mostly appropriate.
· Most, but not all instrumentation was discussed.
· Either an explanation of proposed analysis and/or the expected results and anticipated outcomes were not discussed.
· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.
· All proposed instrumentation was discussed.
· An explanation of proposed analysis was given.
· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.
· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.
· All proposed instrumentation was discussed.
· An explanation of proposed analysis was given and was accurate. Included appropriate statistical analysis.
· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.
· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.
· All proposed instrumentation is thoroughly discussed.
· An explanation of proposed analysis was given and was accurate and as thorough as possible. Included a thorough statistical analysis.
· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.
7. DISCUSSION
-accurate and appropriate limitations and implications
· The discussion was lacking.
· An insufficient number of limitations and implications were offered OR the limitations and implications offered were inaccurate and inappropriate.
· The limitations and implications (if offered) demonstrated a very poor understanding of the study and/or research methods.
· The discussion was lacking.
· The limitations and implication offered were either inaccurate and/or inappropriate and demonstrated a poor understanding of the study and/or research methods.
· The discussion somewhat thorough.
· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.
· Some of the limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a less sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.
· The discussion was thorough.
· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.
· Most, but not all limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.
· The discussion was very thorough.
· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.
· All of limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.
8. APPENDICES
· The student-writer did not include all of the necessary appendices—more than 2 were not included.
· The items that were included were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate OR they were not thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.
· Some, but not all of the necessary appendices were included—2 items were not included.
· The items that were included were either all or mostly thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.
· Some, but not all of the necessary appendices were included—only 1 item was not included.
· The items that were included were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.
· All of the necessary appendices were included.
· Most, but not all items were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.
· All necessary appendices were included.
· All appendices were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.
9. WRITING STYLE
· The paper was difficult to read and understand due to the many errors and unclear writing and organization of thoughts
· Significant (more than 8) spelling and grammatical errors were found throughout the paper
· There were a few areas where the wording was confusing
· Although the main idea of the paper could be understood, readers may have to re-read section so as to understand the writing
· 5-8 errors in spelling, punctuation or word choice
· Overall, writing was clear and easy to understand; no re-reading was necessary
· Most sentences are smooth to make each paragraph understandable
· Ideas were logically organized into paragraphs and supported with references to the literature
· Several (between 3-4) spelling and grammatical mistakes were found
· Most of the paper was clearly organized
· Most sentences were carefully composed for smoothness within each paragraph
· References to the literature were appropriately used and clearly supported the student-writer’s claims
· Few (between 1-2) errors in spelling, punctuation or incorrect word choice
· The student-writer was clear, coherent, and concise
· The writing was compelling, clearly organized, and easy to read
· The thoughts were organized and developed in a logical sequence
· There were no mistakes in grammar, spelling, or punctuation
10. FORMATTING/ (APA, Citations, References, Etc.)
· More than 8mistakes in formatting references, citations, and/or quotations were found
· The cover sheet, text, and/or margins of the paper were incorrectly formatted in APA style
· Some (5-7) errors in formatting of the cover sheet and/or text of the paper (i.e., font requirements/ margins, etc.) formatting of the cover sheet
· Some (5-7) errors in formatting references (i.e., capitalization and punctuation errors)
· References or quotes were properly cited most of time; no more than 4 errors in formatting references, citations, and/or quotes were found
· The cover sheet was formatted in accordance with APA style
· References and quoted material were properly cited and only 1-3 errors were found.
· The cover sheet was formatted in accordance with APA style.
· References and quotations were all properly cited according to APA format.
· The entire paper was formatted correctly according to APA style