|
1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%
|
2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00%
|
3 Satisfactory 79.00%
|
4 Good 97.00%
|
5 Excellent 100.00%
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
10.0 %Comparison Table: Table Compares Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Method Articles
|
A comparison table is not included.
|
A comparison table is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A comparison table is included but lacks details.
|
A comparison is complete and includes sufficient detail.
|
A comparison is complete. The comparison is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Types of Study
|
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is not included.
|
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is included but lacks detail.
|
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail.
|
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Statistical Tests
|
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is not included.
|
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is included but lacks detail.
|
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail.
|
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Parametric vs. Nonparametric Tests
|
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is not included.
|
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is included but lacks detail.
|
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests is present. Discussion of the types applied in the articles is complete and includes sufficient detail.
|
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests is clearly present. Discussion of the types applied in the articles is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Applicability of Statistical Tests
|
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is not included.
|
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is included but lacks detail.
|
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail.
|
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Evaluation of Reliability and Validity Factors
|
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is not included.
|
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is incomplete or incorrect.
|
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is included but lacks supporting details.
|
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is complete and includes supporting details
|
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail.
|
10.0 %Summary
|
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is not included.
|
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is incomplete or incorrect.
|
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is included but lacks supporting details.
|
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is complete and includes supporting details
|
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose
|
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style
|
Sources are not documented.
|
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
|
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|