This document provides a rubric for evaluating article reviews. It evaluates articles based on their content, reflection on the article, organization and development, and mechanics. For each category, it provides criteria for ratings of highly competent, competent, not quite competent, and inadequate. Point values are assigned to each rating, with highly competent receiving the most points. The rubric evaluates the depth of content analysis, quality of summary, communication of key ideas, demonstration of understanding, organization, grammar, punctuation, and adherence to formatting guidelines.
This document provides a rubric for evaluating article reviews. It evaluates articles based on their content, reflection on the article, organization and development, and mechanics. For each category, it provides criteria for ratings of highly competent, competent, not quite competent, and inadequate. Point values are assigned to each rating, with highly competent receiving the most points. The rubric evaluates the depth of content analysis, quality of summary, communication of key ideas, demonstration of understanding, organization, grammar, punctuation, and adherence to formatting guidelines.
This document provides a rubric for evaluating article reviews. It evaluates articles based on their content, reflection on the article, organization and development, and mechanics. For each category, it provides criteria for ratings of highly competent, competent, not quite competent, and inadequate. Point values are assigned to each rating, with highly competent receiving the most points. The rubric evaluates the depth of content analysis, quality of summary, communication of key ideas, demonstration of understanding, organization, grammar, punctuation, and adherence to formatting guidelines.
This document provides a rubric for evaluating article reviews. It evaluates articles based on their content, reflection on the article, organization and development, and mechanics. For each category, it provides criteria for ratings of highly competent, competent, not quite competent, and inadequate. Point values are assigned to each rating, with highly competent receiving the most points. The rubric evaluates the depth of content analysis, quality of summary, communication of key ideas, demonstration of understanding, organization, grammar, punctuation, and adherence to formatting guidelines.
Developed by Mustafa Harb @Ball State University 2104
Rubric for Article Review
Article Title Your Name: Student ID #: Highly Competent Competent Not quite Competent Inadequate Criteria (100%) (85%) (70%) (60%) In depth analysis of the Comprehensive analysis of Minimal analysis of the No content (missed all major content (all major points the content (most of the content (some of the major points of the content). discussed). major points discussed). points discussed). Incomplete summary. Excellent summary. Adequate summary. Basic summary. Key ideas/themes/findings Communicates the key Communicates the key Communicates the key are not communicated clearly Content of ideas/themes/findings with ideas/themes/findings with ideas/themes/findings and/or missed in analysis. 40% Review a high degree of clarity and considerable clarity, but with little clarity or There is no clear insight. lacks insight. insight. introduction or conclusion. Engaging introduction and Engaging introduction Introduction and conclusion do conclusion, both indicate and conclusion, paper not indicate the overall focus of the overall focus of the focus inconsistently the paper. paper. supported. 24 40 34 28 Demonstrates thorough Demonstrates considerable Demonstrates some Demonstrates little understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the article by understanding of the article Reflection 30% article by listing all key article by listing all of the listing some of the key with few or no key findings findings and reflecting key findings. findings…but documentation reported. upon their implications. 30 25.5 is lacking in completeness. 21 18 Organization Logical development of Logical organization, Logical No evidence of structure or ideas through well- paragraph development organization, organization. & 15% developed paragraphs, not perfected. paragraphs not fully Development good use of transitions. developed. of Ideas 15 12.75 9 10.5 Meets length requirement. Length requirement is Length requirement is not Length requirement is 1-2 grammatical errors. met with adequate content met; minimal content not met; poor content 1-2 punctuation errors. 3-4 grammatical errors. 5-6 grammatical errors Numerous grammatical errors APA/MLA Guidelines 3-4 punctuation errors. 5-6 punctuation errors (distracting) are meticulously Adheres consistently to Demonstrates little ability Numerous punctuation errors Mechanics 15% followed. APA/MLA guidelines, to adhere to APA/MLA Neither style is used Adheres to Font/Spacing however, one error present. guidelines, more than two Does not adhere to Guidelines. Adheres to either Font or errors present Font/Spacing Spacing Guidelines, but Adheres to neither Font Guidelines. not both. nor Spacing Guidelines. 12.75 10.5 15 9
Assignment Score: =Final Score:
Developed by Mustafa Harb @ Ball State University 2014