Criteria 0-1 Unacceptable 2 Developing 3-4 Good 5 Outstanding Statement of the

Criteria

0-1 Unacceptable

2 Developing

3-4 Good

5 Outstanding

Statement of the Problem: In two or three sentences describe the purpose of the research. Are there concrete research questions or hypotheses? If yes, what are they?

Does not describe purpose of the research at all.

Identifies, does not describe purpose of the research, RQs or hypotheses.

Identifies and accurately describes purpose of research, whether RQs or hypotheses are used.

Identifies and accurately describes purpose of the research, whether RQs or hypotheses are used, and how well they are framed.

Literature Review: Summarize the literature. Also cover these topics: How thoroughly did the author(s) review relevant literature? Does the discussion of previous research and theoretical writing clearly connect to the goals of the present research? Did they confirm their argument the research will add to this literature? Was there anything missing or lacking, in your opinion?

Unaware of literature, theoretical writing, connections.

Identifies some literature, theory, and connection to research, does not accurately describe all, and how connected.

Identifies and accurately describes some literature, theoretical writing, and connections to research project.

Identifies and accurately describes some literature, theoretical writing, connection to research, how will add to literature, and addresses missing information.

Research Design: Summarize the research design. What type of study is it, and how was it organized? What theories do the authors use to frame their study, if any (this can be in lit reviews and/or design areas of the paper)? Explain your answer.

No recognition of research design, theoretical framework, research design.

Identifies some of research design, theoretical framework, but not all.

Identifies and accurately describes research design, theoretical framework.

Identifies and accurately describes research design, theoretical framework. Connects to research goals offers compliments/ critiques.

Methods: Summarize the methods, and cover these topics: What methods were used to gather data or information? Were multiple methods employed? Is the selection of methods explained? Are there identifiable dependent and independent variables (if relevant), and what are they? Are variables operationalized? How well do these match the stated goals of the research? How are the samples selected? Did the authors adequately explain the process?

No recognition of methods.

Identifies some methods, but does not break down selection, variables, sampling, and process.

Identifies methods, breaks down selection, variables, sampling and process. Does not discuss connection of goals to research.

Identifies methods, breaks down selection, variables, sampling and process. Connects to goals of research.

Ethics: Did the author(s) describe the ways in which participants were protected? What ethical considerations were discussed? Did you think it was sufficient? What was missing?

No recognition of ethical considerations.

Recognition, does not accurately describe ethical principles.

Recognition and identification of key ethical principles of research found in the study.

Recognition and identification of key ethical principles of research, what’s missing, critical engagement.

Results: What did the researcher(s) find? Are the findings clearly presented? What are the results? Are tables used? If so, are these well-constructed and easy to interpret? How well are the findings explained? Are there apparent threats to validity, either internal or external? If so, were these addressed? How convincing are the results of the study?

No recognition of findings.

Identifies some of the findings presented in this study.

Identifies and accurately describes findings, the use and presentation of tables and explanations for this study.

Identifies and accurately describes findings, the use and presentation of tables and explanations for this study. Discusses threats to validity. Critically considers results quality.

Research Assessment Grading Rubric

Criteria

0-1 Unacceptable

2 Developing

3-4 Good

5 Outstanding

Discussion/Conclusion: Describe/summarize the discussion, making sure to cover these questions: Did the author(s) adequately summarize how their findings fit into what was known on the topic? How are the findings interpreted? Are there plausible alternative explanations? Are limitations discussed? Are the results related back to the general problems and questions addressed in the literature review? Are implications of the results for policy and practice discussed? Did they discuss future directions?

No summary or connection to research topic.

Identifies some of the discussion and limitations of the study.

Identifies and summarizes findings, how they are interpreted, and alternative explanations. Demonstrates author’s connections (or not) back to literature review.

Identifies and summarizes findings, how interpreted, alternative explanations. Demonstrates author’s connections (or not) back to literature review. Discusses implications and future directions as provided by author. Connects back to group research project.

Analysis: What were the strengths of this article? What were the weaknesses? Which is better, and why? Together, in what directions did their findings lead you when thinking about your own research project?

No discussion of strengths and weaknesses or project.

Identifies some, not all strengths and weaknesses.

Identifies some strengths/weakness, connects somewhat to project.

Identifies strengths and weaknesses at length, makes critical clear connection to project.

Used a Microsoft Word document, saved with name; included a PDF of reviewed article. Remove 10 points if this was not done; students gets zero if an unreadable file.

Comments:

Total Grade