Rubrics for the Stream Study Assignments Assignment 1: Annotated Bibliography Criterion 5 4 3 2 1 Literature Cited All of the cited papers related directly to the assigned topic area; three or more papers were cited Two or three papers were cited, one paper was loosely related to the topic area Two papers were cited, both papers were loosely related to the topic area Two papers were cited, at least one paper was not related to the topic or was from a non-refereed source One or two papers were cited, all of the papers cited were not related to the topic or were from sources 10 8 6 4 2 Annotations Each paper was concisely summarized; the relevance of each paper to the research topic was made evident; cited papers were well compared Each was summarized; attempts were made to discuss the relevance of each paper to the research topic; attempts were made to draw comparisons across cited papers Each paper was summarized; attempts were made to discuss the relevance of each paper to the research topic; cited papers were not discussed relative to each other Each paper was poorly summarized; little attempt was made to discuss the relevance of each paper to the research topic; cited papers were not discussed relative to each other Each paper was poorly summarized; no further discussion of the relevance of each paper to the research topic or comparisons of the papers were included Total [15]
Assignment 2: Research Question Assignment Rubric Criterion 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Title Concise well-written that describes the study Appropriate title that could use some refinement Title describe the study, but is brief or too verbose Title does not describe the study Title is missing or inappropriate Literature Review 10 8 6 4 2 Background Extensive background was provided that presents a context for the question that is being investigated Appropriate background information is provided and is clearly discussed with respect to the study question Moderate background information is provided, but the link to the study question is unclear and/or extraneous information is included Some background information is provided, but the link to the study question is unclear and/or extraneous information is included Only general background information provided, and/or information provided is not relevant to the study question General understanding of topic area The background discussion demonstrated an excellent The background discussion demonstrated a good understanding of the topic The background discussion demonstrated a good general understanding of the The background discussion demonstrated a general understanding of the The background discussion did not demonstrate an understanding of the topic
understanding of the topic topic with minimal evident misinterpretations of the relevant literature topic with some misinterpretations of the relevant literature Proposed Hypotheses 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Testable Study questions are clearly stated, appropriate and testable Study questions are clearly stated and appropriate, but require some refinement to be testable Not all the study questions are clearly stated and/or appropriate, and several require refinement to be testable Few of the study questions are clearly stated and/or appropriate, and most require major refinement to be testable No clear study questions are stated Complexity Study questions are complex and out Study questions are appropriate but could use refinement Study questions lack complexity but have potential to be expanded with respect to the literature discussed Study questions are simplistic but with more literature research could be expanded Trivial research question proposed Presentation 10 8 6 4 2 Organization Excellent organization, few to no grammatical errors Good organization, few grammatical errors or awkward wording Problematic organization, some sections were poorly structured and difficult to follow, some grammatical errors Problematic organization, difficult to follow, awkward wording at times, some grammatical errors Poorly organized, unable to follow progression of thought, many grammatical errors 5 4 3 2 1 or 0
Literature Citations Literature cited correctly, includes more than 5 articles from the primary literature, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with few errors, 5 articles from the primary literature cited, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with some errors, and/or 4 articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Cited in correct format with many errors, and/or 3 or less articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Minimal to no literature and/or improper sources cited, and/or improper citation in the text. Total [50] Assignment 3: Testing Your Hypotheses Assignment Rubric Criterion 10 8 6 4 2 Analysis Plan The planned analyses were appropriate, all variables were well described, sufficient detail was provided. The planned analyses were appropriate, most variables were well described, and/or few details were missing. One proposed analyses was incorrect, most variables were well described, and/or some details were missing. The majority of the planned analyses were incorrect, variables were not described, and/or more details were required. The analysis plan did not provide enough detail to understand how the data would be analyzed. Presentation 10 8 6 4 2 Organization Excellent organization, few to no grammatical errors Good organization, few grammatical errors or awkward wording Problematic organization, some sections were poorly structured and difficult to follow, Problematic organization, difficult to follow, awkward wording at Poorly organized, unable to follow progression of thought, many grammatical errors
some grammatical errors times, some grammatical errors 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Literature Citations Literature cited correctly, includes more than 5 articles from the primary literature, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with few errors, 5 articles from the primary literature cited, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with some errors, and/or 4 articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Cited in correct format with many errors, and/or 3 or less articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Minimal to no literature cited and/or improper sources cited, and/or improper citation in the text. Total [25] Assignment 4: Reporting Your Results and Interpretations Assignment Rubric Statistical Analysis 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Appropriate Use of Statistics All analyses were well executed, all statistics were appropriately reported in the text Most analyses were well executed, minimal errors were evident in the statistics reported in the text At least one inappropriate statistical analysis was conducted, some statistics were inappropriately reported in the text More than one inappropriate statistical analysis was conducted, statistics were inappropriately reported in the text No statistical analyses were performed
(e.g. standard errors were not reported) (e.g. standard errors were not reported) Complexity of Analysis Multiple of analyses were conducted and/or an extensive number of analyses were performed, and/or the complexity of the analyses exceeded the expectations for the course An appropriate number of analyses were reported At least one analyses was missing that would have contributed information to the study Minimal basic analyses were performed No statistical analyses were performed Results Well described Results were concisely and clearly described and highlighted the major findings, no extraneous information was reported nor were results interpreted Results were concisely and clearly described, some extraneous information was reported and/or results were interpreted The description of the results was rambling, extraneous information was reported and/or results were interpreted The description of the results was convoluted, and difficult to follow, extraneous information was reported and/or results were interpreted The description of the results was minimal and unclear Appropriate display of data Appropriate number of informative tables or figures that highlight the key findings, and contain no extraneous Appropriate number of tables or figures were included, data was largely displayed appropriately One table/figure is extraneous or lacking, and/or the data was inappropriately and/or was uninformative More than one table/figure was extraneous or lacking, and/or the data was displayed inappropriately Little to no tables/figures were presented, figures that were presented were incorrect
information were included and/or was uninformative Format of Figures and Tables Tables or figures were well labelled and include well written legends Legends were brief and lack some key details, and/or labels were lacking Legends were brief and/or labels were lacking Legends were too brief or absent, and/or figures were poorly labelled Little to no tables/figures were presented Discussion 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Interpretation of results Clear, concise and logical interpretation of the results, suggests next investigative steps, interpretation extends beyond a discussion of the methods/data reliability and discusses the implication of the results to the broader field, if methodological issues are raised they are discussed in light of their impact on the conclusions Concise and clear interpretation of the results, interpretation briefly discusses the rationale for the study with respect to the broader field, but focuses primarily on the methods/data reliability Discussion of the results is convoluted and fails to clearly discuss the rationale for the study with respect to the broader field and focuses primarily on the methods/data reliability Discussion of the results is minimal ant the interpretation only focuses on the methods/data reliability Little to no discussion of the research findings Synthesis Findings were discussed individually, and synthesized and led Findings were discussed individually, and Findings were discussed individually with a moderate attempt to Findings were discussed individually with little attempt to Findings were discussed individually with no attempt to
to an overall conclusion. synthesized but lacked an overall conclusion. synthesize the findings synthesize the findings synthesize the findings Use of literature Extensive discussion of relevant literature to support acceptance or rejection of hypotheses Good discussion of relevant literature to support acceptance or rejection of hypotheses Moderate discussion of relevant literature, not all literature was appropriate or clearly explained Moderate to little discussion of relevant literature, and/or little explanation of how cited literature related to the findings Little to no discussion of relevant literature, papers were mentioned without further discussion Presentation 5 4 3 2 1 or 0 Organization Excellent organization, few to no grammatical errors Good organization, few grammatical errors or awkward wording Problematic organization, some sections were poorly structured and difficult to follow, some grammatical errors Problematic organization, difficult to follow, awkward wording at times, some grammatical errors Poorly organized, unable to follow progression of thought, many grammatical errors Literature Citations Literature cited in correct format, includes more than 5 articles from the primary literature, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with few errors, 5 articles from the primary literature cited, all papers appropriately cited in the text. Cited in correct format with some errors, and/or 4 articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Cited in correct format with many errors, and/or 3 or less articles from the primary literature cited, some errors in citation of papers in the text. Minimal to no literature cited and/or improper sources cited, and/or improper citation in the text. Total [50]