Math ED -Literature Review paper -

Unacceptable

Developing

Acceptable

Score

1

Introduction: Problem Statement

Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic, problem or question to be examined. (0)

Readers are aware of the overall problem, challenge, or topic of the article. (1-2)

The topic problem is introduced, and brief background information is provided to re-orient the reader to what the author plans to discuss. (3)

/3

2

Articles Selection

Information is gathered from a limited number of appropriate sources. (0)

Information is gathered from multiple appropriate sources. (1-2)

Information is gathered from multiple, appropriate research-based sources.(3)

/3

3

Critical Thinking/Analysis/Synthesis

There is no indication the author tried to synthesize the information provided. Articles are summarized, but there is little evidence of analysis. (0-1)

The author demonstrated ability to evaluate and analyze information. There is some evidence of analysis, but this analysis is not apparent throughout the paper. (2-3)

The author demonstrates the ability to effectively, evaluate, analyze, and synthesize the information. Collection of studies analyzed for differences and commonalities about the topic. (4-5)

/5

4

Clarity (Structure & Flow)

Written work has weak beginning, development and conclusions. Sections, paragraphs and transitions are deficient. Weakly organized with no logical sequencing or structure. The report appears to have no direction, with subtopics appearing disjointed. (0-1)

Written work has adequate beginning, development and conclusion. Sections, paragraphs, and transitions are adequate. Well organized, but demonstrates illogical sequencing or structure. There is a basic flow from one section to the next, but not all sections or paragraphs follow in a natural or logical order. (2-3)

Written work has clear and appropriate beginning, development, and conclusion. Sections, paragraphs, and transitions are clear and appropriate. Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing and structure. There is a logical flow from general ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie adjacent paragraphs and sections together. (4-5)

/5

5

Clarity (Coverage of content)

Written work does an inadequate job of covering the topic. Assertions are weakly supported by evidence. (0-1)

Written work adequately covers the topic. Assertions are supported by evidence. (2-3)

Written work provides an in-depth coverage of the topic. Assertions are clearly supported by evidence. (4-5)

/5

6

Clarity (Expression of Ideas)

It is difficult to determine what the author is trying to convey. Difficulties with sentence structure, grammar, and/or punctuations are evident. Uses lengthy descriptions and explanations; expresses vague opinions and conclusions. (0-1)

Writing is generally clear, but there are some areas in need of improvement. Summarizes the relevance and significance of cited literature using scholarly language.

(2-3)

Report is well-written. Clarity and precision of the writing conveys exactly what the author intends and leaves little room for semantic confusion or interpretation. Clearly and concisely states the significance and relevance of information using appropriate scholarly terminology. (4-5)

/5

7

Conclusions

There is no indication the author tried to draw conclusions based on the literature under review.

(0-1)

The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the body of the report.

(2-3)

The author was able to make succinct and precise conclusions based on the review. Insights into the problem are appropriate. Conclusions are strongly supported in the review. (4-5)

/5

8

Implications

There is no indication that the identified implications are supported by the literature under review or implications are not provided.(0-1)

The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the implications, however, were not supported in the body of the report.

(2-3)

The author was able to identify implication with direct connections to the review. Insights into the problem are appropriate. Implications are strongly supported in the review. (4-5)

/5

9

Directions for Future Research

No connections are made between the reviewed literature and the areas identified for further research. (0)

Some links are made between the reviewed literature and the areas identified for further research. (1-2)

Clear links can be made between the reviewed literature and the areas identified for further research.(3)

/3

10

APA (Body of Paper)

APA format (i.e., headings, spacing, citations, etc.) is not used appropriately in the body of the paper. (0)

APA format (i.e., headings, spacing, citations, etc.) is used for the majority of the paper, but there are some errors evident. (1-2)

Correct use of APA for the body of the paper. (3)

/3

11

APA (Citations/

References)

Citation for the article did not follow APA format and was missing essential information.

(0)

Citation for the article did follow APA format; however; a few (2) errors in essential information were evident. (1-2)

Citation for the article did follow APA format. Essential information was accurate and complete. (3)

/3