RUBRIC for ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROJECT

Criteria Expert Proficient Apprentice Novice

Introduction  Clearly identifies and
[Introductory discusses research
paragraph(s), focus/purpose of
literature research
review,  Research focus is clearly
hypotheses or grounded in previous
propositions] research/theoretically
relevant literature
 Significance of the
research is clearly
identified (how it adds
to previous research)
 Hypotheses/propositions
are clearly articulated
 Limited discussion of  Minimal discussion of  Little or no discussion of
research focus/purpose research focus/purpose research focus/purpose
of research of research of research
 Research focus is less  Research focus is not  Research focus not
well-grounded in well-grounded in grounded in previous
previous previous research/theoretically
research/theoretically research/theoretically relevant literature
relevant literature relevant literature  Significance of the
 Significance of the  Significance of the research is not
research is not as research is not clearly identified (how it adds
clearly identified (how it identified (how it adds to previous research)
adds to previous to previous research)  Hypotheses/propositions
research)  Hypotheses/propositions are poorly articulated or
 Hypotheses/propositions are not well articulated are absent altogether
are described but not as
well articulated

Research  Provides accurate,  Description of how the  Description of how the  Description of how the
Methods thorough description of data was collected, data was collected, data was collected,
how the data was what/how many data what/how many data what/how many data
collected, what/how sources were analyzed, sources were analyzed, sources were analyzed,
many data sources were plan of analysis or plan of analysis or plan of analysis or
analyzed, plan of measurement measurement measurement
analysis or instrument, research instrument, research instrument, research
measurement context is adequate but context is somewhat context is very
instrument, research limited. confusing/not clearly confusing/not
context  Reflection on social articulated. articulated sufficiently.
 Reflection on social situatedness/reflexivity  Reflection on social  Reflection on social
situatedness/reflexivity and how it may situatedness/reflexivity situatedness/reflexivity
and how it may influence data collection and how it may and how it may
influence data collection and interpretation is influence data collection influence data collection
and interpretation is adequate but limited and interpretation is and interpretation is
thorough and insightful limited and lacks insight severely limited, lacks
insight, or is absent
altogether
Results  Results are clearly  Results are explained  Results are not very  Results are not clearly
explained in a but not as clearly, level clearly explained, level explained, level of detail
comprehensive level of of detail is not as of detail is insufficient, is severely insufficient,
detail and are well- sufficient, and there and there are more and there are serious
organized are some organizational issues organizational issues
 Tables/figures clearly organizational issues  Tables/figures are not  Tables/figures are not
and concisely convey  Tables/figures are not clear/concise in clear/concise in
the data. as clear/concise in conveying the data. conveying the data.
 Statistical analyses (if conveying the data.  Statistical analyses (if  Statistical analyses (if
used) are appropriate  Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate used) are inappropriate
tests and are accurately used) are appropriate tests and/or are not tests and/or are not
interpreted. tests but are not accurately interpreted. accurately interpreted.
accurately interpreted.

Conclusions  Interpretations/analysis  Interpretations/analysis  Interpretations/analysis  Interpretations/analysis

of results are thoughtful of results are sufficient
and insightful, are but somewhat lacking
clearly informed by the in thoughtfulness and
study’s results, and insight, are not as
thoroughly address how clearly informed by the
they supported, refuted, study’s results, and do
and/or informed the not as thoroughly
hypotheses/propositions address how they
 Insightful discussion of supported, refuted,
how the study relates to and/or informed the
and/or enhances the hypotheses/proposition
present scholarship in  Discussion of how the
this area study relates to and/or
 Suggestions for further enhances the present
research in this area are scholarship in this area
insightful and thoughtful is adequate.
 Suggestions for further
research in this area
are adequate.
of results lacking in
thoughtfulness and
insight, are not clearly
informed by the study’s
results, and do not
adequately address how
they supported, refuted,
and/or informed the
hypotheses/propositions
 Discussion of how the  Discussion of how the
study relates to and/or
enhances the present
scholarship in this area
is limited.
 Suggestions for further
research in this area are
very limited.  Suggestions for further
of results severely
lacking in thoughtful
ness and insight, are
not informed by the
study’s results, and do
not address how they
supported, refuted,
and/or informed the
hypotheses/propositions
study relates to and/or
enhances the present
scholarship in this area
is severely limited
and/or absent
altogether.
research in this area are
severely limited and/or
absent altogether.
 Documentation  Cites all data obtained
of Sources, from other sources. APA
Quality of citation style is
Sources accurately used in both
text and bibliography.
 Sources are all scholarly  Sources are primarily
and clearly relate to the
research focus.
 Cites most data
obtained from other
sources. APA citation
style is used in both text
and bibliography.
 Sources are not
scholarly and relate to
the research focus.
 Cites some data  Does not cite sources.
obtained from other  Sources are
sources. Citation style is disproportionately non-
either inconsistent or scholarly and do not
incorrect. clearly relate to the
research focus.
primarily scholarly and
relate to the research
focus but somewhat
tangentially.

Spelling &  No spelling & grammar  Minimal spelling &  Noticeable spelling and  Excessive spelling
Grammar mistakes grammar mistakes grammar mistakes and/or grammar
mistakes

Manuscript  Title page has proper  Title page  Title page deviates a bit  Title page completely
Format APA formatting approximates APA more from APA deviates from APA
 Used correct headings & formatting formatting formatting
subheadings  Used correct headings  Headings & subheadings  Headings and
consistently & subheadings almost less consistent subheadings completely
consistently deviate from suggested
formatting or are
absent altogether

Additional Comments:

Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (Some elements adapted from vom Saal, F., “Scoring Rubric—Scientific Paper”
http://www.biology.missouri.edu/courses/Bio4984_vomSaal/pdf/Sci_Paper_Critique.pdf and Cornell College/Colorado College., “Figure 1:
Research Paper Rubric” http://www.coloradocollege.edu/library/acmassign/tools.html