Evaluating Claims

Category

1 - Unacceptable

2 – Developing

3 – Proficient

4 – Exemplary

Weight %

Inquisitiveness

Paper is not topical and addressed ideas that have been well established in the field. Thesis or question is confusing or too vague.

Thesis or question is topical but is very broad or vague and does not address specific variables that address the complexity of the topic.

Thesis or question is specific, clear, and topical. Paper mentions new perspectives on topic but does not develop those ideas.

Paper includes a well developed question or thesis. Paper addresses a new perspective on the topic and the topic is of current interest, paper captures complexity of topic.

6%

1.5x

Ability to Describe Claims from Sources

Mischaracterizes the claims made by the sources, claims described in paper are too vague or simplistic. Not all claims were identified.

Identifies claims for some of the sources, the claims for some sources may not have been accurately captured. Claims are not clearly stated or difficult for the reader to find.

Accurately identifies the claims made in most of the sources used. Provides some description to help reader understand the claim.

Can accurately identify the main point made by the author(s) or organization for each source. Able to clarify the sources' points with definitions of terms and examples

12%

3x

Ability to Describe Evidence Used in Sources

Evidence not described

Evidence not well described

Or

Evidence is described for just some sources

Describes evidence in sources, but is not selective in information presented (too many unimportant details that detract from overall message or overlooks important features of the evidence)

Can accurately identify and describe the evidence/support used by sources to support claim. Description of evidence from source focuses on important features that have an impact on the strength and accuracy of the claim.

12%

3x

Ability to Evaluate Sources and Specify Contributions of Sources to Topic

Very few vague evaluations of sources

Contributions are to be inferred rather than clearly stated

Sources are evaluated based on superficial or unimportant characteristics

Very little explanation for quality of evidence

Descriptions of contributions to topic largely missing

Most sources are evaluated based on how well the evidence supports the claims

Contributions of sources to topic not clearly stated for all sources

All sources are clearly evaluated on how well the evidence supports the claims (strengths and weaknesses)

Provides alternative explanations of evidence

Explains what credible information each source adds to topic

16%

4x

Ability to Evaluate the Different Types of Sources

No comparisons made among scholarly and non-scholarly sources

Comparisons of the claims made by scholarly and non-scholarly sources are vague or incomplete

There is a surface level comparison of the claims made by the scholarly and non-scholarly sources that focuses on style, credibility, or impact on the reader

Explains trends seen among the different types of sources used and the persuasive impact they have on the audience.

Paper provides specific examples to illustrate the above points.

8%

2x

Quality of Sources Selected

Not enough sources used

Many of the sources used do not fit well with the paper topic

Most of the sources used are related to the paper topic in some fashion

Sources do not relate well to one another

Sources used are all clearly related to the paper topic

Most sources relate well to one another

Sources used are all relevant to the paper topic

All sources relate well to one another and have a clear purpose for being included in the paper

4%

1x

Writing Style

Introduction

Introduces topic

Thesis or question is not clearly stated

Introduction does not capture the purpose of paper.

Introduces topic

Thesis or question is vaguely stated

Introduction does not capture the significance of topic

Introduces topic

Explains significance of topic

Clear and specific thesis or question is presented

Background is insufficient to assist reader or is too exhaustive and detracts from the specific focus of paper.

Outline of paper exists but not clearly aligned with sections of paper.

Introduces topic to capture readers interest

Gives brief background of topic to give reader enough information to understand ideas addressed in paper

Explains significance of topic

Clear and specific thesis or question is presented

Outlines sections of paper

4%

1x

Body of Paper

Paper is highly unorganized. Paragraphs are not of appropriate length.

No transitions used to connect ideas and create themes.

Writing appears to rephrase sources rather than deliver ideas in writer's own voice

Paper contains sections, but sections do not connect well with one another to capture the main points writer is trying to make.

Writer demonstrates a bias and presents information from one point of view.

Paper is organized in sections but the sections are not connected well with one another.

An objective writing style is maintained throughout most of the paper.

Writes using own words.

Paper and the sources used are organized by themes.

Transitions are used to connect ideas among paragraphs and to connect ideas among sections of the paper.

Maintains objective/ balanced writing style

Writes using own words

8%

2x

Conclusion and application of information

Little or no summary of the paper

Brief or no mention of a concluding ideas, implications, or future ideas

Summarizes some points of the paper

Conclusions on the topic are not clearly stated

Very brief mention of any implications or unanswered questions

Summarizes the important points of the paper

Makes firm conclusion about topic

Describes how the information and conclusions can be put to practical use

Summarizes important points of the paper

Makes firm conclusion and explains the basis for those conclusions

Describes how the information and conclusions can be put to practical use

Describes unanswered questions and specific future research needs

4%

1x

APA Style

Paper shows disregard to APA style. Contains consistent errors.

Inconsistent use of APA style and format.

Headings and Citations use correct APA style. Few errors in references.

Headings, Citations, and References follow APA style (6th edition). No errors are apparent.

2%

.5x

Grammar

Clear lack of proofreading.

Grammatical errors and typos appear throughout paper and detract from reading.

Some minor grammatical errors but no typos.

Proper sentence structure, use of punctuation, organized paragraphs, no spelling errors or typos

4%

1x

Part 2 - Research Proposal

Rationale for Study

(Inquisitiveness)

Very little rationale provided. Research question/ hypothesis is vague, out of date, and ignores previous literature on topic.

Rationale for proposed study is focused on repeating what has been already done in previous research with little explanation for how the proposed study will add knowledge to the topic.

Rationale for proposed study builds from sources used in paper.

Research Question/ Hypothesis is clear.

Significance of proposed study is not well established

Rationale for proposed study builds off of information from the sources used in the paper.

Research Question/ Hypothesis is interesting and addresses a new variable or methods to bring new knowledge to topic. (Addresses a gap in literature)

Rationale convinces reader that the study is worth conducting.

6%

1.5x

Design & Methods

Design not a good approach to answer research question/ support hypothesis.

Methods are largely lacking information and detail to understand what is being done.

Measures are largely missing or not well thought out to capture constructs.

Methodological decisions lack explanation.

Proposal is too general and demonstrates a surface level understanding of research methods.

Design is appropriate but too simplistic to capture the complexity of the topic.

Not all aspects of methods are described sufficiently but it is clear what is being done in the study.

Methodological decisions lack explanation.

Proposal is too general and demonstrates a surface level understanding of research methods.

Design is appropriate for research question/ hypothesis but other designs could have been stronger

All aspects of methods are described.

Methods are described in some detail but tends to lack explanation for the methodological decisions made.

Proposal demonstrates a strong understanding of research methods.

Design is appropriately selected to answer the specified research question (support hypothesis).

All aspects of methods are described (participants, materials, measures, procedures).

Descriptions of methods are detailed and include explanation for their inclusion.

Measures are clearly described and appropriate.

Proposal demonstrates sophisticated knowledge of course content.

12%

3x

Analysis

Analysis description is not appropriate for design and methods of study.

Analysis description is vague and overly simplistic.

Analysis selected can be used for the data generated from study but would not capture all the data or address all research questions/hypotheses

An appropriate procedure of analysis is selected to fit methods described

Analysis selected would address all research questions/ hypotheses

2%

.5x