Signature Project + Major Assignment (A+ Required)

CATEGORY

Unacceptable (0 points)

Revisions Required (3 points)

Target (5 points)

Points

1.Are the focus and purpose clear and ideas are well supported?

Missing thesis; confusion about or misunderstanding

of topic; no sense of purpose; absence of support for main points

Simplistic and unfocused ideas; limited sense of purpose; support is provided, but is not specific; support is only loosely relevant to the main points

Developed thesis; represents sound understanding of the assigned topic; focused; support is provided and is sound, valid, and logical

2. Is the writing structured and well organized?

No paragraph structure; or single, rambling paragraph;

or series of isolated paragraphs

Organization structure is present, but is confusing or disjointed; weak paragraph structure; transitions are missing or inappropriate

Clear organizational structure; easily followed; includes transitions; structured format

3. Did the writer consider audience and tone?

No awareness of appropriate audience for assignment; tone is inappropriate

Awareness of appropriate audience for the assignment, but tone is inconsistent

Awareness of appropriate audience for the assignment; tone is consistent and effective

4. Do appendices include necessary documentation?

Most items required in the appendices are not presented in the appendices; the plan and necessary steps to protect human subjects in research are not clear.

Most required items are presented in the appendices; items and a plan somewhat demonstrate ethical practices in protection of human subjects.

All required items are presented in the appendices; items clearly demonstrate ethical practices in protection of human subjects.

5. Are proper mechanics utilized? Is correct sentence structure utilized?

Numerous errors in spelling and capitalization; intrusive and/or inaccurate punctuation;

communication is hindered. Contains multiple and serious errors of sentence structure: i.e. fragments, run-ons; unable to write simple sentences.

Contains several punctuation, spelling, and/or capitalization errors (up to 6); errors may or may not interfere with meaning. Formulaic sentence patterns or overuse of simple sentences; errors in sentence structure.

Virtually free of punctuation, spelling, capitalization errors (no more than 3); errors do not interfere with meaning. Effective and varied sentences; errors (if present) due to lack of careful proofreading. Complete sentences are present and are written correctly.

6. Are vocabulary and word usage varied and appropriate?

Vocabulary is unsophisticated; or subject specific vocabulary or sophisticated vocabulary used incorrectly

Proper, but simple vocabulary used; subject specific vocabulary used infrequently

Vocabulary is varied, specific and appropriate; uses subject specific vocabulary correctly

7. Is proper evidence and support of original work provided in body of the review?

Turnitin or Safe Assign report indicates match percentage of greater than 25 percent.

Turnitin or Safe Assign report indicates match percentage of 15 to 25 percent.

Turnitin or Safe Assign report indicates a match percentage of less than 15 percent.

8. Is APA format followed?

There are significant format errors present ; multiple (more than 6) of APA formatting errors; in the reference list and/or intext citations

Fewer than 6 APA

format errors are present in the reference list in-text; citations; header; headings; page numbers; etc.

There are virtually no APA format errors present in either reference list in-text; citations; header; headings; page numbers; etc.

Writing Rubric Possible Points 40

Category

Unacceptable (0 points)

Revisions Required (5 points)

Target (10 points)

Points

9. Source of data is credible and data is representative of the scope requirements for the advanced degree

being sought

(InTASC 6, 9; CAEP A1.1)

The source of the data is ambiguous or lacks credibility; data does not allow for

problem/weakness identification appropriate for required project scope

The source of the data is clear and credible; data does not allow for problem/weakness identification appropriate for required project scope

The source of the data is clear and credible; data allows for identification of an of a classroom, multi-classroom, school or district level problem/weakness appropriate to the required project scope

10. Graphical representation of compiled data allows for easy analysis

(CAEP A1.1)

Graphical format does not present the data in a clear manner; data is only partially presented

Graphical format(s) is appropriate and clearly presents all the collected data

Graphical format(s) is appropriate; clearly presents all the collected data; highlights visible patterns or trends

11. Identified problem/weakness is supported by trends or patterns seen in the data (InTASC 6, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Problem/weakness is not clearly identified or does not align with the trends and patterns identified in the data

Problem/weakness is clearly identified; aligns with the type of data collected, but connections between the trends/patterns in the data are not clearly described in the narrative

Problem/weakness is clearly identified; aligns with the type of data collected; clear connections between the trends/patterns are drawn in the narrative

12. Best practices are identified and supported by the literature as viable responses to weaknesses and problems represented by the data (InTASC 8, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Best practice(s) are not clearly identified; literature reviewed does not support the identified best practice(s) as a viable option to improve achievement

Best practice(s) are clearly identified; literature reviewed does not support the identified best

practice(s) as a viable option to improve achievement

Best practice(s) are clearly identified; literature reviewed supports the identified best practices as viable responses to the problem/weakness identified

13. Theories and/or trends are identified and connected with best practices in literature (InTASC 8, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Theory or trend is not identified; theory/trend identified are not connected with the best practice(s) via literature

Theory or trend is clearly identified; literature reviewed does not connect the identified theory/trend with the identified best practice

Theory or trend is clearly identified; literature reviewed connects the identified theory/trend with all identified best practices

14. Proper level of synthesis is achieved in the literature review

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Summaries were given; are not clear or fail to make clear connections with best practice(s) and/or theory/trend(s) identified as viable responses to problem/weakness

Summaries are clear and concise; clear connections with best practice and/or

theory/trend identified as viable response to problem/weakness may or may not be present

Synthesis rather than summaries of content presented in the collection of sources is present, clear connections with best practice and/or theory/trend identified as viable response to problem/weakness present

15. Proper number of source requirement is met

Source requirements for the appropriate level was not met

Meets minimum requirements for degree level: Master’s-A minimum of 10 sources were utilized

Five (5) sources beyond

minimum requirements were utilized

Category

Unacceptable (0 points)

Revisions Required (5 points)

Target (10 points)

Points

16. Collaborative resources are identified, explained

and supported

(InTASC 1, 5, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Collaborative resources are ambiguous or not identified; resources may be identified, but no explanation related to their value or role is provided; the connection between the collaborative resource and the identified problem is not clear

Collaborative resource(s) is identified; explanation of value and role is provided, but the connection between the collaborative resource(s) and the identified problem is not clear

Collaborative resource(s) is identified; explanation of value and role is provided; connection between the collaborative resource(s) and the identified problem is clear

17. Description of plan is clear and easy to follow (InTASC 7, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Action plan is not described; description is not clear; steps in plan are not in a logical order

Action plan description is provided, but additional detail may be warranted; steps in plan are outlined, but additional steps may be needed or the order could be altered for better efficiency

Action plan description is provided, and sufficient detail is included;

steps in plan are outlined; exhaustive list of steps and sequence of steps allows for optimal efficiency and outcome

18. Project timeline accounts for all elements in the plan and allocates appropriate amounts of

time for each element

(InTASC 7, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Project timeline is missing or incomplete; time allocation is inadequate or too extensive for one or more elements included in the plan

Project timeline is provided; all elements identified in the plan are included, but additional elements might be needed for an improved outcome; timing and/or time allocation could be improved

Project timeline is provided; all necessary elements are included for optimal outcome

19. Variables are identified and defined

(CAEP A1.1)

Variables are misidentified

Variables are identified correctly,

but with no clear definitions or

explanations as to how they will be measured

Variables are identified correctly, with clear definitions and explanations as to how they will be measured

20. Required data needs are identified and plans for retrieving and protecting that data are clear (i.e.

methods)

(InTASC 6, 9; CAEP A1.1)

Data needs are not identified or do not align with the problem; data retrieval plans are missing or

inappropriate

Data needs are identified; data retrieval plans are included, but plans for protecting the data and/or student confidentiality are not provided or are inadequate

Data needs are identified; data retrieval plans are included; adequate plans for protecting student confidentiality and/or data are provided

21. Description of the sample and sampling techniques are provided (CAEP A1.1)

Detailed descriptions of the participants are not given and/or sampling technique is not provided

Brief overview of the sample is given and sampling technique may or may not be included

Full descriptions of the participant sample, sampling technique and justifications for both the sample chosen and the sampling technique are given

22.Needed resources are identified, justified, and a leverage plan for acquiring resources is

clear and supported

(InTASC 5, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Resources are not identified or are inadequate; no justification for the resources is provided; unclear how identified resources might be acquired; plan for acquiring resources is inadequate

or ill-conceived

Resources are identified, but additional resources may be needed; justification for the resources is provided, but leverage plan for acquiring resources is not clear

Exhaustive list of resources is identified; justification for the resources is provided; leverage plan for acquiring resources is outlined

23. Justification for how the action plan will address the identified problem is clear

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

No justification is provided

Justification is provided, but the alignment between the plan and the problem solution is questionable

Justification is provided, and the alignment between the plan and the problem solution is clear

24. Connection between action plan and impact

on student achievement is clear

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

No connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided

Connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided; justification of that connection may or may not be included

Connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided; justification of that connection is included; limitations or outside interferences to improved student achievement are identified

Summary of Points

Writing Total Points Possible

40

Data Gathering/ Analysis/

Total Points Possible 160

Total Points Possible 200