Review

Rubric/Guide for Ac/on Research Study … EDG 6920

Level 1

Not Acceptable (< 3 pts)

Level 2

Needs Improvement (4-6 pts)

Level 3

Meets Standards (7-8 pts)

Level 4

Exceeds Standards (9-10 pts)

Candidate included a narrative of results obtained from analyzing data collection.

• Narra$ve includes poor evidence of credibility of findings , objec$vity of the researcher, transferability of evidence to the general popula$on, and triangula$on of data.

• Narra$ve includes some evidence of credibility of findings , objec$vity of the researcher, transferability of evidence to the general popula$on, and triangula$on of data.

• Narra$ve includes sufficient evidence of credibility of findings , objec$vity of the researcher, transferability of evidence to the general popula$on, and triangula$on of data.

• Narra$ve includes strong evidence of credibility of findings , objec$vity of the researcher, transferability of evidence to the general popula$on, and triangula$on of data.

Candidate was able to articulate and develop the Data Analysis, and presentation of findings within the context of the overall action research project.

• Analysis techniques are not appropriate for the data;

• Findings from raw data are not well summarized;

• Findings are not clearly ar$culated;

• Invalid or incomplete interpreta$on of data;

• Trends or paEerns in data not clearly iden$fied;

• Analysis is not reflec$ve in terms of the context and learning & teaching;

• Analysis techniques used are minimally appropriate for the purpose and scope of the project;

• Findings from raw data are summarized but needs a more clear and systema$c format;

• Par$al interpreta$on of data; • Trends or paEerns in data

marginally iden$fied; • Analysis is reflec$ve in

terms of the context or relates to professional and personal development;

• Findings sec$on include graphs or tables without APA style;

• Analysis techniques used are appropriate for the purpose and scope of the project;

• Findings from raw data are summarized in a clear and systema$c format;

• Valid interpreta$on of data;

• Trends or paEerns in the data clearly iden$fied;

• Analysis is reflec$ve in terms of the context and relates to professional and personal development;

• Findings include clearly

• Analysis includes techniques beyond normal scope of ac$on research;

• Interpreta$on of data shows synthesis or previous and current research in the research context;

• Trends or paEerns clearly iden$fied in the data;

• Analysis is deeply reflec$ve in terms of the context and relates to professional and personal development in collabora$on with diverse stakeholders in the area;

• Rela$onships among data are presented graphically;

Candidate effec/vely presented and discussed the ac/on research project with a diverse set of stakeholders.

• Inadequate descrip$on of meaning of findings.

• Interpreta$on of impact of interven$on is missing;

• Findings not $ed to research;

• Discussion does not relate findings to the context or to learning and teaching;

• Marginal descrip$on of meaning of findings;

• Interpreta$on of impact of interven$on is valid but minimally explained;

• Findings not $ed well to research

• Discussion relates findings to the context or to learning and teaching;

• Adequate descrip$on of meaning of findings;

• Interpreta$on of impact of interven$on is valid;

• Findings confirm or refute previous research;

• Discussion relates findings to the context and to learning and teaching;

• Descrip$on of meaning of findings pushes knowledge and understanding of the subject;

• Discussion includes a thick descrip$on of the rela$onship between the findings and the context and to learning and teaching within the context of the learning environment;

Rubric/Guide for Ac/on Research Study … EDG 6920

Candidate effec/vely provides the reader and stakeholders with an Overall Reflec/on and Conclusion that if implemented will benefit the overall educa/onal community.

• LiEle or no reflec$on; • Reflec$on offered is

superficial; • Limita$ons are not

recognized;

Reflec$on on ac$on research process address some of these or does not adequately explain:

• what the study has shown, how the problem or issue has been resolved;

• limita$ons of the study; • ways the research study

could be improved; • sugges$ons for future

research; • ways your future teaching &

prac$ce is informed;

Reflec$on on ac$on research process includes:

• what the study has shown, how the problem or issue has been resolved;

• limita$ons of the study; • ways the research study

could be improved; • sugges$ons for future

research; • ways your future teaching/

prac$ce is informed; • how the ac$on researcher

was transformed to be a wiser and more effec$ve prac$$oner through the research experience;

• how the ac$on researcher benefited from collabora$ng with other professionals in the field;

Reflec$on $es the study to new poten$al direc$ons in the field Reflec$on on ac$on research includes:

• how the ac$on researcher was transformed to be a wiser and more effec$ve prac$$oner through the research experience;

• how the ac$on researcher could ini$ate leadership in the field;

• cri$cal reflec$on of the transforma$ve experience at personal, social, and cultural levels;

• how the ac$on researcher benefited from collabora$ng with other professional in the field and intends to con$nue the collabora$on in her/his professional life;

• Implica$ons Candidate provides the instructor/s with a graduate level action research project that follows all academic Writing standards for research (APA Style 7th edition).

• Cita$ons not correct; • Academic language not

used; • Poorly organized; • Unclear;

Some but not all of the following:

• use of proper cita$ons; • demonstrates ability to use

academic language; • clear focus, well organized; • conceptual clarity;

• Use of proper cita$ons; • Demonstrates ability to use

academic language; • Clear focus, well organized; • Conceptual clarity;

Clearly developed analysis and argument that shows rela$onships between all the components of the research

Ra/ng = /50

Level 1

Not Acceptable (< 3 pts)

Level 2

Needs Improvement (4-6 pts)

Level 3

Meets Standards (7-8 pts)

Level 4

Exceeds Standards (9-10 pts)

Rubric/Guide for Ac/on Research Study … EDG 6920

Total points = 32/50 ______________

Level 1

Not Acceptable (< 3 pts)

Level 2

Needs Improvement (4-6 pts)

Level 3

Meets Standards (7-8 pts)

Level 4

Exceeds Standards (9-10 pts)

Qualitative Summary:

Rubric/Guide for Ac/on Research Study … EDG 6920

Please explain the above overall rating of your peer’s action research paper. Make sure to also include what you appreciate about their research and what specific suggestions you have to improve it.

I found the research topic to be interesting and pertinent to today’s educational environment. The merging of SEL and gaming educational technology is an important topic since school spend a vast amount of money on computer programs and it is important to show its efficacy. The lit review was well developed. The studies used were current and relevant to the topic.

In my opinion, the standard set by the rubric was met in all criteria with the exception of the fourth: Candidate effectively provides the reader and stakeholders with an Overall Reflection and Conclusion that if implemented will benefit the overall educational community.

Overall, I had a few questions about the data analysis: 1. There is a graph labeled Exercise, but I am not sure that that refers to. The x and y axis are not labeled, so I am unsure what that data

represents. 2. I did not see a section on the limitations of the study or the reflection offered by the author. 3. How are attentiveness and engagement observed and analyzed in the study?