Assessment Criteria for Assignments 1 & 2: Effective Research Proposal & Report
(adapted from: http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/criteria.pdf)
Criteria Inadequate
(44–55)
Organization Writing lacks logical
organization. It shows
(O; 20%) some coherence but
ideas lack unity.
Serious errors.
Level of Content shows some
content thinking and reasoning,
including but most ideas are
citation underdeveloped and
unoriginal.
(C; 20%)
Development Main points lack
detailed development.
(D; 20%) Ideas are vague with
little evidence of critical
thinking.
Grammar Spelling, punctuation,
and grammatical errors
(G; 20%) create distraction,
making reading difficult;
fragments, comma
splices, run-ons
evident. Errors are
frequent.
Style Mostly in elementary
form with little or no
(S; 10%) variety in sentence
structure, diction,
rhetorical devices or
emphasis.
Format Fails to follow format
requirements; incorrect
(F; 10%) margins, spacing and
indentation; neatness of
essay needs attention.
Adequate Above average Exemplary
(56–69) (70–80) (>80)
Writing is coherent and Writing is coherent and Writing shows high
logically organized. logically organized with degree of attention to
Some points remain mi transitions used logic and reasoning of
between ideas and points. Unity clearly
splaced and stray from paragraphs to create leads the reader to the
the topic. Transitions coherence. Overall conclusion and stirs
evident but not used unity of ideas is thought regarding the
throughout essay. present. topic.
Content indicates Content indicates Content indicates
thinking and reasoning original thinking and synthesis of ideas, in-
applied with original develops ideas with depth analysis and
thought on a few ideas. sufficient and firm evidences original
evidence. thought and support for
the topic.
Main points are present Main points well Main points well
with limited detail and developed with quality developed with high
development. Some supporting details and quality and quantity
critical thinking is quantity. Critical support. Reveals high
present. thinking is weaved into degree of critical
points. thinking.
Most spelling, Essay has few spelling, Essay is free of
punctuation, and punctuation, and distracting spelling,
grammar correct grammatical errors punctuation, and
allowing reader to allowing reader to grammatical errors;
progress though essay. follow ideas clearly. absent of fragments,
Some errors remain. Very few fragments or comma splices, and
run-ons. run-ons.
Approaches college Attains college level Shows outstanding
level usage of some style; tone is style going beyond
variety in sentence appropriate and usual college level;
patterns, diction, and rhetorical devices used rhetorical devices and
rhetorical devices. to enhance content; tone used effectively;
sentence variety used creative use of
effectively. sentence structure and
coordination.
Meets format Meets format Meets all format
requirements; generally requirements; margins, requirements and
correct margins, spacing, and evidences attention to
spacing, and indentations are detail; all margins,
indentations; essay is correct; essay is neat spacing and
neat but may have and correctly indentations are
some assembly errors. assembled. correct; essay is neat
and correctly
assembled with
professional look.
Scoring Rubric for Assignment 1: Effective Research Proposal
Group being reviewed: Kelompok 13

Reviewer: Kelompok 14

Criteria O (20%) C (20%) D (20%) G (20%) S (10%) F (10%) Sub Total

Abstract Score 70, 60

Feedback 1a. Organisasi ide belum tertata dengan rapi. Masih terdapat ide baru yang muncul di
tengah paragraf, misalnya pada kalimat “adfh adfalkjdf alkdfh alkdfh akjdfha dufh aifh”.
Saran perbaikan: kalimat dapat diubah/dipecah menjadi “afija d;lfja dkfja
l;fjda ;kdfja ;ldfija ;odfija o;difja ;fdilj”.

Context; need (what we have) vs (what we want); task; expectation

1b. Abstrak belum memiliki need (what we have). Saran perbaikan: ditambahkan hasil
studi terkini tentang a, b, c, d, dan e dari jurnal 1, 2, 3, 4, dan 5 (diberi link jurnal).
Misalnya, dapat ditambah dengan kalimat yang merangkum hasil dari studi diatas:
“dadfkjadlkfaj dfjaoief jao;idjf apefioj ;oeifhpa oidjf na;iduhfpq9 r8bha;owfja p9h”.

2. Latar belakang belum didukung oleh data (masih berupa opini). Saran perbaikan:
Data dari www.dlafakdjfadlfaj.com dan jurnal ABC menyatakan bahwa dalfadlkfjaldkfja
ldkfja dadlfkadlfja dan dapat ditambahkan ke dalam kalimat pertama abstrak untuk
memperkuat urgensi dari penelitian yang diusulkan.

3. Argumentasi terkait ide penelitian masih lemah dan perlu dilandasi oleh temuan dari
studi terkini, misalnya: jurnal XYZ, ABC, dan 123. Studi-studi tersebut menyatakan
bahwa dlfakjdkljfa ldkfjaldkfjaldjf alkdfjaldk faldkf aldjkf. Kontradiksi dari studi ABC dan
123 dapat dijadikan dasar untuk melakukan penelitian yang diusulkan.

4. Pada kalimat ke-3 dan ke-4 terdapat kesalahan ketik: “dafakdfaldfj aldfj” dan
“dlakfjaldkfja lfjao;dfj”. Saran perbaikan: sesuai KBBI, ejaan yang tepat adalah
“dlkafjladkfja” dan “dalfjaldkfja ldfkja”.

5. Kalimat masih terlalu datar, perlu diberi intonasi agar lebih dinamis. Misalnya, kalimat
ke-3 dapat diubah menjadi “lkdfakdjflak jfalkdjf ;lakdjf;oairg oqrijg pqadoij na;dklfa oif
apg”.

a. Malnutrisi adalah masalah yang sangat amat penting untuk dipecahkan.

b. Malnutrisi + definisi dan + data (cenderung meningkat).

c. + gap, meskipun telah ada upaya tapi masih terjadi.

d. Setiap tahun, terdapat lebih dari 1 juta balita yang meninggal akibat malnutrisi di
dunia; dari jumlah tersebut, 3% merupakan balita dari daerah perkotaan.

6. Format (margin, font, indentation) telah mengikuti ketentuan yang disarankan.

 Introduction Score

Feedback 1.

2.

3.

Materials and Methods Score

Feedback 1.

2.

3.

Final Score

Scoring Rubric for Assignment 2: Effective Research Report

Student being reviewed:

Reviewer:

Criteria O (20%) C (20%) D (20%) G (20%) S (10%) F (10%) Sub Total

Results Score

Feedback 1.

2.

3.

Discussion Score

Feedback 1.

2.

3.

Conclusion Score

Feedback 1.

2.

3.

Final Score

Assessment Criteria and Scoring Rubric for Peer Review

Group:

Criteria Contribution Score Sub Total

1. Objectiveness in evaluating the work of others 30%

2. Quality and detail of feedback 70%

Final Score