Research Homework
ancienmchiw
marking_rubric.pdf
MAA753
Marking Rubric for Assignment 2 Criteria Poor Acceptable Good Very Good Excellent Introduction and
background
(10%)
2 points
Poor and unclear
introduction, no
background and
objectives.
No mention about
the structure of the
proposal.
(0 to 4.9 points)
5 points
Introduction provides
little information.
Some information on
objectives relates to
task but incomplete.
Structure of the proposal
has not been clearly
stated.
(5 to 5.9 points)
6 points
Introduction
provides some
information.
Information on
objectives relates
to the task but is
cursory.
Structure of the
proposal has been
clearly stated.
(6 to 6.9 points)
7 points
A good
introduction with
clear statement of
intent,
background,
objectives or
conclusions.
Structure of the
proposal has been
clearly stated.
(7 to 7.9 points)
10 points
Excellent
introduction.
Clear, accurate
and
comprehensive
statements of
objectives.
Structure of the
proposal has been
clearly stated.
(8 to 10 points)
Literature review
(25%)
5 points
Articles selected
not relevant or of
poor quality or
insufficient.
Articles are not
suitable, illogical
and does not
relate to topic
Articles
12.5 points
Articles somewhat
informative but not
specific enough.
Selection of articles
somewhat relevant with
minimal attempt to
provide balanced
discussion.
Minimal demonstration
15 points
Articles are
informative,
relevant, of
average quality
and somewhat
sufficient but
still lacking
specific content.
A balanced
discussion has
17.5 points
Articles selection
is good,
informative and
generally specific
but still lacks a
degree of depth.
A balanced
discussion has
been provided that
demonstrates
25 points
Articles selection
is excellent, very
informative and
demonstrates
sound
understanding of
the topic.
Clear evidence of
comprehension of
articles by
mostly
descriptive
and not
specific.
Lacks
demonstration of
understanding the
topic or issues.
(0 to 12.4 points)
of understanding the
topics or issues.
(12.5 to 14.9 points)
been provided.
Demonstration
of understanding
the topic or
issues is evident
but it is
somewhat
cursory.
(15 to 17.4
points)
comprehension of
issues at a
reasonable level.
Evidence of
intention to
integrate articles
into own
argument &
perspective with
a logical flow is
somewhat there
but cursory.
(17.5 to 19.9
points)
summarizing
essential content.
Clear evidence of
intention to
integrate articles
into own
argument &
perspective with a
logical flow.
(20 to 25 points)
Hypotheses
development
(25%)
5 points
Hypotheses have
not been clearly
stated.
No theoretical
justification.
No consistencies
with the research
question.
Demonstrates poor
understanding of
hypothesis
development.
(0 to 12.4 points)
12.5 points
Hypotheses have been
clearly stated.
Little theoretical
justification.
Little consistencies with
the research question.
Demonstrates that
hypothesis development
has been understood to
some extent.
(12.5 to 14.9 points)
15 points
Hypotheses have
been clearly
stated.
Theoretical
justification is
somewhat cursory.
Some
consistencies with
the research
question.
Demonstrates
good
understanding of
17.5 points
Hypotheses have
been clearly stated.
Theoretical
justification has
been provided but
still there is
lacking.
Consistent with
the research
question.
Demonstrates very
good
understanding of
25 points
Hypotheses have
been clearly stated.
Enough theoretical
justification.
Fully consistent
with the research
question.
Demonstrates
excellent
understanding of
hypothesis
development.
(20 to 25 points)
hypothesis
development.
(15 to 17.4 points)
hypothesis
development.
(17.5 to 19.9
points)
Research design
(20%)
4 points
Poor description
about the data
source.
Poor description of
sample.
Poor definitions of
variables to be
used.
Poor specification
of the model.
(0 to 9.9 points)
10 points
Reasonable description
about the data source.
Reasonable definition of
rent seeking activities
and how they will be
measured.
Reasonable description
of sample.
Reasonable definitions
of variables to be used.
Reasonable specification
of the model.
(10 to11.9 points)
12 points
Good description
about the data
source.
Good definition of
rent seeking
activities and how
they will be
measured.
Good description
of sample.
Good definitions
of variables to be
used.
Good
specification of
the model.
(12 to14.9 points)
15 points
Very good
description about
the data source.
Very good
definition of rent
seeking activities
and how they will
be measured.
Very good
description of
sample.
Very good
definitions of
variables to be
used.
Very good
specification of the
model.
(15 to15.9 points)
20 points
Excellent
description about
the data source.
Excellent definition
of rent seeking
activities and how
they will be
measured.
Excellent
description of
sample.
Excellent
definitions of
variables to be
used.
Excellent
specification of the
model.
(16 to 20 points)
Conclusion and
recommendations
(10%)
2 points
Conclusion is
poorly written
5 points
Conclusion lacks
specificity.
6 points
Conclusion is
generally there
7 points
Concise and
somewhat well
10 points
Concise
conclusion written
appearing
magically from
nowhere.
No
recommendations
have been
provided
(0 to 4.9 points)
Recommendations
provided are
reasonable.
(5 to 5.9 points)
but not concise
and not well
formulated
Some good
recommendations
have been
provided.
(6 to 6.9 points)
formulated
conclusion.
Some very good
recommendations
have been
provided.
(7 to 7.9 points)
with logical
summation of
entire assignment.
Recommendations
made are
excellent.
(8 to 10 points)
Referencing (5%) 1 point
References do not
use the Harvard
system
Reference list not
appropriately
organized
(0 to 2.4 points)
2.5 points
Attempt to use Harvard
referencing style but
often incorrect.
Reference list is mostly
not appropriately
organized.
(2.5 to 2.9 points)
3 points
References are
provided in the
Harvard method
and accurate in
most cases.
Reference list
appropriately
organized with
only minor
errors.
(3 to 3.4 points)
3.5 points
References are
provided in the
Harvard method
and accurate with
only minor
errors.
Organized
reference list.
(3.5 to 3.9 points)
5 points
References are
provided in the
Harvard method
and are
completely
accurate.
Well organized
reference list.
(4 to 5 points)
Spelling,
grammar and
flow (5%)
1 point
Extensive spelling
and/or grammar
errors.
Construction of the
proposal is
illogical and
confusing
2.5 points
Some spelling and/or
grammatical errors.
Construction of the
proposal somewhat
illogical and a little
confusing.
(2.5 to 2.9 points)
3 points
Few spelling
and/or
grammatical
errors.
Construction of
the proposal is
reasonably logical
3.5 points
No spelling and/or
grammatical
errors.
Construction of
the proposal is
logical and
reasonably easy
5 points
No spelling and/or
grammatical errors
Construction of the
proposal is highly
logical and easy to
follow and read.
(4 to 5 points)
(0 to 2.4 points) and not confusing
(3 to 3.9 points)
to follow and
read.
(3.5 to 3.9 points)
Total score out of
100
0 or more
N
50 or more
P
60 or more
C
70 or more
D
80 or more
HD
