Rvised Synthesis - Rsearch Skills

bigcord

RES-820Rubric-RevisedSynthesisPaper-ResearcherSkills.pdf

Home >Education homework help >R*vised Synthesis - R*search Skills

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 1 of 11about:srcdoc

Revised Synthesis Paper - Researcher Skills - Rubric

Reflection 25 points

Criteria Description

Reflection

5. 5: Excellent 25 points

A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful

insight.

4. 4: Good 22.75 points

A reflection is present and reasonable.

3. 3: Satisfactory 20.5 points

A reflection is presented, but cursory and lacking depth of insight.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 18.25 points

A reflection is present, but illogical.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader.

Collapse All

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 2 of 11about:srcdoc

Introduction 25 points

Criteria Description

Introduction

5. 5: Excellent 25 points

An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the

topic.

4. 4: Good 22.75 points

An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic.

3. 3: Satisfactory 20.5 points

An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 18.25 points

An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 3 of 11about:srcdoc

Support of Common Themes 37.5 points

Criteria Description

Support of Common Themes

5. 5: Excellent 37.5 points

Support of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.

4. 4: Good 34.13 points

Support of common themes is present and thorough.

3. 3: Satisfactory 30.75 points

Support of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in

depth.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 27.38 points

Support of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

Support of common themes is either missing or not evident to the

reader.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 4 of 11about:srcdoc

Discussion of Conclusions 25 points

Criteria Description

Discussion of Conclusions

5. 5: Excellent 25 points

A discussion of the conclusions is thoroughly presented including an

overall summary of themes found in the articles and is strongly

connected to the thesis statement.

4. 4: Good 22.75 points

A discussion of the conclusions is presented and includes an overall

summary of themes found in the articles and reasonably connects to the

thesis statement.

3. 3: Satisfactory 20.5 points

A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but it does not include an

overall summary of themes found in the articles or does not connect well

to the thesis statement.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 18.25 points

A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

A discussion of the conclusions is not presented.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 5 of 11about:srcdoc

Integration of Instructor Feedback 37.5 points

Criteria Description

Integration of Instructor Feedback

5. 5: Excellent 37.5 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is

seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor

comments and suggestions are addressed.

4. 4: Good 34.13 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well

incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments

and suggestions are addressed.

3. 3: Satisfactory 30.75 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a

disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and

suggestions are addressed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 27.38 points

Integration of instructor feedback is vaguely attempted, but does not

address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the

reader.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 6 of 11about:srcdoc

Synthesis and Argument 50 points

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 7 of 11about:srcdoc

Criteria Description

Synthesis and Argument

5. 5: Excellent 50 points

Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is

clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and

compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. 4: Good 45.5 points

Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument

shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.

Most sources are authoritative.

3. 3: Satisfactory 41 points

Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. 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.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 36.5 points

Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent

unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have

questionable credibility.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is

not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support

the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 8 of 11about:srcdoc

Thesis Development and Purpose 25 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. 5: Excellent 25 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of

the paper is contained within the thesis.

4. 4: Good 22.75 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the

paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and

appropriate to the purpose.

3. 3: Satisfactory 20.5 points

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 18.25 points

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague;

purpose is not clear.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 9 of 11about:srcdoc

Mechanics of Writing 12.5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing

5. 5: Excellent 12.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good 11.38 points

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.

3. 3: Satisfactory 10.25 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly

distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-

appropriate language are used.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.13 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or

word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede

communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence

construction are used.

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 10 of 11about:srcdoc

APA Format 12.5 points

Criteria Description

APA Format

5. 5: Excellent 12.5 points

The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference

page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is

free of error.

4. 4: Good 11.38 points

Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and

direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources.

Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory 10.25 points

Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g.

font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is

included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately

documented though some errors are present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.13 points

Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with

formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text

citations are inconsistently used.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points

Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is

included. No in-text citations are used.

Total 250 points

© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

https://www.gce.com/

2/11/24, 3:00 PM

Page 11 of 11about:srcdoc

https://www.gce.com/