Rubric Made Using:

RubiStar ( http://rubistar.4teachers.org )

CATEGORY

A paper

B paper

C paper

D paper

F paper

Title

Title is interesting, attention-catching, and/or punning, and conveys a good image of what the research will deal with. Great titles often have a colon or a dash in between two phrases, or use a rhetorical question. Puns can be used by employing texting slang for essays about texting lingo. Outstanding examples would be: "Girls Rock and Boys Roll? - About a Possible Impact of Gender on Grammar Skills." Or: "The Gr8 Db8 -- does Txting Affect Students' Grammar Skills?"

Title is interesting, and predicts what the paper will deal with. Very good examples use NOUNS. A very good example would be: "The Impact of Slang on Grammar Skills."

Title predicts what the paper will deal with, but lacks originality. Average examples often don't use NOUNS; instead, they contain a simple question in non-academic language. Average examples would be: "Texting and Grammar," or "Who is Better at Grammar, Boys or Girls?"

Title is not inviting to read any further, and/or does not predict what the research will be about. Bad examples are: "ENGL290 Essay," "Dr. Lyons Essay," "Research Essay," etc.

Has no Title.

Abstract (4 components)

The Abstract contains all 4 required components: The Abstract contains 1) the motivation/problem statement, 2) the methods/procedure/approach/participants, 3) the results/findings, and 4) the conclusion/implications, a statement that the findings are not generalizable due to the small sample size and other limitations, and recommendations for the practice and future research. It is extremely well written. It does not go over 250 words.

The Abstract contains all 4 required components: The Abstract contains 1) the motivation/problem statement, 2) the methods/procedure/approach/participants, 3) the results/findings, and 4) the conclusion/implications, a statement that the findings are not generalizable due to the small sample size, and recommendations for the practice and future research. It is very well written. It does not significantly go over 250 words.

The Abstract contains 3 of the 4 required components: The Abstract contains 1) the motivation/problem statement, 2) the methods/procedure/approach/participants, 3) the results/findings, and 4) the conclusion/implications, and recommendations for the practice. It is well written. However, it goes a little over 250 words, or is too short. It might miss the main limitations, or the recommendation for practice and future research.

The Abstract contains 2 of the 4 required components, but it is not well written. It goes significantly over or under the 250 words required.

The Abstract is missing, contains fewer than 2 of the 4 required components, and is violating the 250-words rule gravely.

Introduction

The Introduction has an outstanding attention catcher, gives an excellent overview of the status quo of current research by mentioning the major findings of 4 researchers and their shortcomings, and justifies the present study.

The Introduction has an attention catcher, gives a good overview of the status quo of current research by mentioning the major findings of 3 researchers and their shortcomings, and justifies the present study.

The Introduction gives an overview of some of the current trends with regard to the topic by mentioning at least 2 of the 3 researchers, but without their shortcomings. It does not justify fully why this study needed to be written.

The Introduction does not talk about the status quo and current trends regarding the topic, and does not mention the 4 required researchers. Instead, it is very general. It fails to justify the necessity for the present study.

Has no Introduction, or it does not introduce the topic. Does not mention prior research at all.

Purpose

The purpose of the research paper is its research question, and it is clearly stated under the corresponding header. It will be answered in the Conclusion.

The purpose of the research paper is its research question, and it is stated under the corresponding header. It will be answered in the Conclusion.

No clear research question stated; or multiple questions stated. The Conclusion answers it only partly, or insufficiently.

No research question stated. No research question answered in the Conclusion. Or, the title/topic of the essay is different from the purpose statement (due to change of topic later in the semester, and lack of updating old parts).

No research question stated. No research question answered in the Conclusion.

Participants

The description of the demographics of the participants is outstanding, with lots of data (gender, age, race, profession, experience, income, region, etc.).

The description of the demographics of the participants is good, and contains most of the necessary data.

The description of the demographics of the participants is satisfactory, but falling short of some necessary data.

The description of the demographics of the participants is insufficient; the reader does not gain a good overview of the subjects and their backgrounds.

Not described.

Literature Review

The Literature Review is outstanding in every way. It contains up to 3 quotes (in correct MLA style) from each of 4 different, peer-reviewed research articles from either JSTOR, ERIC, or Google Scholar, and has exciting transitions between them.

The Literature Review is very good. It contains at least 2 quotes each (in correct MLA style) from 4 different, peer-reviewed research articles from either JSTOR, ERIC, or Google Scholar, and has meaningful transitions between them.

The Literature Review has flaws. It contains 1 quote per source (but the MLA style is not always correct) from 4 different, peer-reviewed research articles from either JSTOR, ERIC, or Google Scholar. It does not always have meaningful transitions between them, but rather starts each paragraph with the review of a new article.

The Literature Review is very faulty. It contains only 2 quotes (and if 3 or more are present, they are not in correct MLA style) from fewer than 4 different, peer-reviewed research articles from either JSTOR, ERIC, or Google Scholar, and has no meaningful transitions between them.

Has no Literature Review, or it is so faulty it is not recognizable as one (no quotations, references, MLA style, etc.). Has fewer than 2 sources/quotes overall, or uses quotes from unscientific writings. Or, student committed plagiarism.

Methods

The methods (online survey created by Surveymonkey; emailed out to participants; what kind of questions asked) are formulated in a clear, concise, brief way. Outstanding.

The methods are described in a clear, short way. Some information could be added.

The methods are described roughly, but not in detail.

The description of the methods falls short in every way.

Not described.

Results

The results of ALL CONTENT QUESTIONS are given in chronological order; not only of the graphs. Student might have two additional, voluntary graphs about the other CONTENT questions. There are suitable transitions between the two required graphs. The Results chapter does not start with an image, but with a meaningful introduction before the images. The three graphs are aesthetic, flawless, easy to understand, diverse, and constitute a strong visual support for the written analysis. The written analysis is outstanding, and contains all the peaks and even the averages. The written analysis can be understood without seeing the graphs, and it says just as much as the graphs. The qualitative results from the comment/essay boxes are correctly reported and very well written.

The results of MOST CONTENT QUESTIONS are given in chronological order; not only of the graphs. There are transitions between the two graphs. The two graphs are flawless, easy to understand, and constitute a visual support for the written analysis. The written analysis is very good, and contains all the peaks. The written analysis can be understood without seeing the graphs, and it says almost as much as the graphs. The qualitative results from the comment/essay boxes are correctly reported and well written.

Only very few CONTENT QUESTIONS are discussed in addition to the three graphs, or they are not arranged in chronological order. There are no meaningful transitions between the graphs. The two graphs are mostly without error, and are easy to understand. They do not very well support the written analysis. The written analysis is satisfactory, and contains most of the necessary data. The written analysis can hardly be understood without seeing the graphs, though. The qualitative results from the comment/essay boxes are reported with minor flaws.

No CONTENT QUESTIONS except for those with the graphs are discussed. There are no transitions whatsoever between the graphs. They are just glued behind one another. The two graphs are with many flaws, hard to understand, and constitute no support whatsoever for the written analysis. The written analysis is very flawed, too short, and/or does not contain all the peaks. The written analysis cannot be understood without seeing the graphs at all. The qualitative results from the comment/essay boxes are reported with lots of flaws.

Graphs and statements are missing, or do not go together. Results are confusing. No introduction, no transitions. No CONTENT QUESTIONS discussed at all, or, the student created graphs for DEMOGRAPHIC questions (forbidden; they are already analyzed under Participants). The qualitative results from the comment/essay boxes are not reported at all.

Conclusion

The Conclusion refers back to the 4 researchers and compares your findings with theirs; it contains all the important findings, and includes recommendations for future research and the teaching practice. Outstanding.

The Conclusion refers back to the 4 researchers and compares your findings with theirs; it contains all the important findings, and makes recommendations for future research and the teaching practice. Very good.

The Conclusion does not refer back to the three researchers, but it contains most of the important findings; however, no recommendations for future research or the teaching practice were made. Satisfactory.

The Conclusion is just a summary, and says nothing at all. It does not refer back to prior researchers. No explicit numbers of findings, and no recommendation for future research or teaching practice.

There is no Conclusion. It does not refer back to prior research, contains no findings, and does not make any recommendations for future research and the teaching practice.

Limitations

The Limitations honestly describe many shortcomings (e.g., imbalance between males and females who partook in the survey; imbalance of gender; imbalance of location; imbalance of age; imbalance of educational background, etc.). Outstanding.

The Limitations honestly describe several shortcomings (e.g., imbalance between males and females who partook in the survey; imbalance of gender; imbalance of location; imbalance of age; imbalance of educational background, etc.). Very good.

The Limitations describe some shortcomings (e.g., imbalance between males and females who partook in the survey; imbalance of gender; imbalance of location; imbalance of age; imbalance of educational background, etc.). Good.

The Limitations describe very few shortcomings (e.g., imbalance between males and females who partook in the survey; imbalance of gender; imbalance of location; imbalance of age; imbalance of educational background, etc.). Needs improvement.

no Limitations

Annotated Bibliography

The Annotated Bibliography contains the citation line, 2-3 sentences of summary per source, and 2-3 sentences of personal statement per source. It contains 4 sources in correct MLA style. The content is outstanding.

The Annotated Bibliography contains the citation line, about 2 sentences of summary and personal statement per source. There are 4 sources. The MLA style might not always be correct. The content is very good or good.

The Annotated Bibliography contains the citation line, and about 2 sentences of summary and personal statement per source. There are 3 sources. The MLAstyle has some flaws. The content is satisfactory.

The Annotated Bibliography contains a citation line and less than 2 sentences of summary and personal statement per source. There are only 2 sources, or prohibited sources (like unscientific websites, blogs, newspapers, etc.) have been used. The MLA style is not correct. The content is very poor.

No Annotated Bibliography, or wrong format (1 citation line, 2-3 sentences per summary and per personal response). Wrong MLA style. Barely any content there.

3 Annexes (List of Terms; Proposal; Forum Analysis)

The LIST OF TERMS is outstanding, and student explains very well how these terms are being used in the essay. The student cited very well from a dictionary or a research article. Proposal form is filled in correctly and is very well formulated. Forum Analysis contains a review of 4 articles and talks very well about the conventions of the chosen journal.

The LIST OF TERMS is very good, and student explains well how these terms are being used in the essay. The student cited well from a dictionary or research article. Proposal form is filled in correctly and is well formulated. Forum Analysis contains a review of 4 articles and talks well about the conventions of the chosen journal.

The LIST OF TERMS is good, and student explains how these terms are being used in the essay. The student cited from a dictionary or research essay, but there are some mistakes in the citations (e.g., a missing page number or "n.p."). Proposal form is filled in correctly and is satisfactorily formulated. Forum Analysis contains a review of 4 articles and talks about the conventions of the chosen journal.

The LIST OF TERMS is flawed, or uses terms that are too easy and considered common knowledge, and student doesn't explain how these terms are being used in the essay. The student cited from a dictionary or research essay, but forgot the page numbers. Forum Analysis and Proposal are flawed and don't follow the prompts.

There is no LIST OF TERMS, or it is very poorly written with no explanations whatsoever about how these terms are used in the essay. The student plagiarized or invented the list of terms definitions, instead of citing from a dictionary or research essay. Forum Analysis and Proposal are missing or so badly done that they are not recognizable.

Grammar and Mechanics

The Research Essay is flawless in every aspect.

The Research Essay contains only minor grammatical or spelling mistakes.

The Research Essay contains several grammatical or spelling mistakes which interfere with an agreable reading of the paper.

The Research Essay contains lots of grammatical and spelling mistakes, which makes the reading a hard job.

Full of errors.

Format

13 out of 13 components are there. Layout is as required (single-spaced, black lines over and under the Abstract, keywords in one line, bold-printed headings, etc.). Follows the prompt perfectly.

12 out of 13 components are there. Layout with only very minor faults. Followed the prompt almost perfectly.

10 out of 13 components are there. Layout has some faults. Generally, followed the prompt.

Fewer than 10 components are there. Several layout faults. Didn't follow the prompt in several instances.

9 or fewer components present, and lots of layout issues. Mostly, didn't follow the prompt.

Academic Language

No personal "I," "you," "we," etc. is used (except for in the Annotated Bibliography, where you are allowed to use the "I" in the part of the personal statement; not in the summary part). No personifications are used ("this article talks about"). No first names of authors are used. The words/phrases "it is a fact that," "it is the truth that," "it proves/is a proof of" are not used. Insecure statements are carefully formulated ("it can be suggested that," "it might be concluded that"). The entire paper is written in the passive voice. Nice, long sentences with lots of commas and semi-colons. Readability level is 16+. The MLA style is used correctly in the citations (Miller 1999, 58). Quotes longer than 4 lines are indented, without quotation marks. Quotes under 4 lines are integrated in the text flow, and have quotation marks.

Most of the rules for the A paper requirement are observed correctly. Long sentences. Readability level is 14+. The MLA style is mostly used correctly in quotations.

Some of the rules for the A paper requirement are observed correctly, but there are lots of infiltrations of non-academic language. Short sentences, few commas and semi-colons. Readability level is 12+. The MLA style is often used incorrectly in quotations.

No academic language used. Short, choppy sentences. Readability level is below 12. The MLA style is faulty in citations.

No academic language used. Very inappropriate language used. Readability level is below 9. MLA style is wrong throughout. Quotations are not referenced (plagiarism).