research paper
Term Paper Grading Rubric Miami Regional University
|
Dimension |
Competent |
Needs Improvement |
Unacceptable |
|
Introduction 25% |
Provides a clear and concise response to the assigned/selected topic. Organization of the topic is completely and clearly outlined and implemented. Does not contain superfluous information. 25% |
Introduction is too broad or too narrow for the assigned/selected topic. Organization of the topic is difficult to follow, and superficially implemented. Provides too much unnecessary information. 15% |
Fails to present topic OR capture reader’s attention. Organization of topic is missing, vague, or not consistently maintained. 0% |
|
Body Paragraphs 35% |
All main points are well-developed; directly related to the topic. Supporting examples are concrete and detailed. There is a logical flow to the topics/arguments. 35% |
Most main points are present, but not consistently pertinent to the topic. Supporting examples are unclear or missing. 20% |
Main points are poorly developed or not pertinent to the topic. Missing supporting examples. 0% |
|
Research (literature review) 10% |
Research selected is highly relevant to the topic, and is properly incorporated into the body paragraphs. Relationship between research and theory is clearly articulated and accurate. The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources; minimum “required” sources published within the last 5 years. 10% |
Research is relevant to the topic, yet incomplete, vague and/or is poorly incorporated into the body paragraphs. Unclear components. Connection between theory and research is unclear/inaccurate. Some evidence does not come from valid sources: minimum “required” sources published within the last 5 years. 5% |
Research selected is not relevant to the topic, and is not properly incorporated into the body paragraphs. Components are missing, inaccurate or unclear. Relationship between theory and research is unclear/inaccurate, major errors in the logic are present. The evidence seldom comes from valid sources: minimum “required" sources published within the last 5 years. 0% |
|
Conclusion 10% |
Conclusion is clearly stated, and connections to the research and position are clear and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit. 10% |
Conclusion is unclear. Partially connected to research. Significant errors in logic. 5% |
Conclusion is unclear. Connections to research are incorrect/unclear, or just a repetition of the findings without explanation. Underlying logic has major flaws. 0% |
|
Writing/ Mechanics 10% |
Paper is coherently organized. Writing is clear and concise. Writing is fluid and free from spelling and grammatical errors. Terminology is clearly defined. Writing uses appropriate voice (active/passive). APA formatting appropriate. 10% |
Paper is poorly organized. Writing often contains spelling and grammatical errors. Writing inconsistently switches voices (active/passive). APA formatting appropriate. 5% |
Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are consistent spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing does not use appropriate voice (active/passive). APA formatting inappropriate. 0% |
|
References 10% |
References are precisely listed in APA format. In-text citations are used correctly for all quotations and paraphrasing. 10% |
References are listed in APA format with frequent errors. In-text citations are missing, or contain frequent errors. 5% |
References are not listed in the correct APA format. In-text citations are missing. PLAGIARISM will be addressed as per MRU’s policy. 0% |