research paper

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%