Undergraduate Research Paper Grading Rubrics for each section

Standards Exemplary Satisfactory Developing Unacceptable Score

Introduction ✓ *exceptional introduction that grabs ✓ *Well-written introduction that is ✓ *basic introduction that states topic but ✓ *weak or no introduction of
Section interest of reader and states topic. interesting and states topic. lacks interest. the topic.
✓ thesis is exceptionally clear, arguable, ✓ **thesis is clear and arguable ✓ thesis is somewhat clear and arguable. ✓ Poor/limited research
well-developed, and a definitive statement of position. ✓ Introduction present but does not background.
statement. ✓ Provides adequate background provide strong background or ✓ paper’s purpose is
✓ Provides detailed and comprehensive research into the topic (study (i.e., motivation for the study. unclear/thesis is weak or
background research into the topic and why the study is important) and ✓ Provides background research into the missing.
summarizes important findings from the describes the problem to be solved. topic but does not describe the problem ✓ The research significance is
review of the literature. ✓ Conveys topic, Key question(s), and to be solved, missing.
✓ justifies the study. significance of the topic. ✓ insufficient or nonexistent explanation
✓ describes problem to be solved; states of details to non-specialists.
the research key question(s), ✓ The research significance is unclear or
✓ explains the significance of the problem general.
to an audience of non-specialists.

Purpose ✓ Clearly stated and appropriately ✓ Clearly stated and appropriately ✓ Somewhat understandable but needs ✓ Unclear and confusing.
worded. Well conceptualized. worded. Moderately conceptualized. clarity. Some level of ✓ No conceptualization.
conceptualization.
Research ✓ Clearly related to purpose and ✓ Related purpose and ✓ Somewhat related to purpose and ✓ Unrelated to purpose and
Questions understandable. Little or no revision understandable. Moderate revision understandable. poorly written.
needed. needed. ✓ Significant revision needed ✓ Significant revision needed.
Citation ✓ In-text citations and reference list ✓ Citation within text and in ✓ Works cited were not listed for in-text ✓ Poor/lack of intext citation
citations are complete & properly corresponding reference list are citations or works cited included ✓ lack of APA or MLA
formatted in APA style or MLA style. included with some formatting resources not mentioned in the format/numerous errors.
problems (APA or MLA) research paper.
✓ frequent errors in APA or MLA format
Writing style ✓ Scholarly style (appropriate to the given ✓ style & voice appropriate to the ✓ average and/or casual writing style ✓ poor writing style lacking in
& mechanics audience and purpose & show given audience and purpose. using standard English. elements of appropriate
originality) ✓ word choice is specific and ✓ word choice is often unspecific, standard English.
✓ word choice is specific, purposeful, purposeful, and somewhat varied generic, redundant & clichéd. ✓ word choice is excessively
dynamic, and varied. throughout. ✓ Some errors in spelling, grammar, clichéd & unspecific.
✓ Variety in sentence structure. ✓ Minimal grammar & mechanic punctuation, usage, and/or formatting. ✓ Frequent errors in grammar &
✓ Is free or almost free of errors of errors. mechanics, that obscure
grammar & writing mechanics meaning

1
 Comments for improvement:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Reviewer: _____________________________________ Grand Total: _________________________________________

2
Standards Exemplary Satisfactory Developing Unacceptable Score
(exceeds standards) (meets standards) (meets most of the standards) (below standards)

Literature ✓ Comprehensive and well-organized ✓ Complete literature review with ✓ Partially complete and somewhat ✓ Incomplete or is poorly
Review literature review. sound organization. disorganized. organized.
Section ✓ includes introduction that lays out ✓ Includes very few nonpreferred ✓ Provides some evidence to ✓ Lacks sufficient research
areas of research that will be reviewed sources and provides current support the central position with sources to support the central
✓ Includes current and landmark research relevant to the field and only a few/limited research position and/or, if included,
literature highly relevant to the topic. the topic. sources. are generally not relevant,
✓ Establishes an advanced theoretical ✓ Establishes a sound and ✓ Some sources may not be accurate, or reliable.
framework for the research topic. proficient theoretical framework relevant, accurate, and reliable ✓ Fails to establish an
✓ Demonstrates a sophisticated for the research topic. (Includes few non-refereed appropriate theoretical
understanding and careful, critical ✓ Demonstrates an understanding sources). framework for the research
analysis of the research topic and and some critical analysis of the ✓ Establishes a basic theoretical topic.
thesis (argument). research topic and thesis framework for the research topic. ✓ Demonstrates a lack of
✓ Compares/contrasts reviewed studies, (argument). ✓ Demonstrates a basic understanding and inadequate
considers counter arguments or ✓ Adequately compares/contrasts understanding of appropriate analysis of the research topic
opposing positions, and draws original reviewed studies or opposing citation format but requires and thesis.
and thoughtful conclusions. positions but broader connections significant revision. ✓ Analysis is superficial based
## Is appropriate for and/or implications are not as ✓ Demonstrates general on opinions and preferences
submission/presentation with little or no thoroughly explored. understanding with limited rather than critical analysis.
revision. ## May be appropriate for critical analysis of the research ✓ Sources, if included, are not
submission/presentation with major topic and thesis (argument). properly referenced, and cited
or moderate revision. Summarizes some related studies. in the paper.
## Is not appropriate for ## Not appropriate for
submission/presentation without submission/presentation
significant revision.
Citation ✓ In-text citations and reference list ✓ Citation within text and in ✓ Works cited were not listed for ✓ Poor/lack of intext citation
citations are complete & properly corresponding reference list are in-text citations or works cited ✓ lack of APA or MLA
formatted in APA style or MLA style. included with some formatting included resources not mentioned format/numerous errors.
problems (APA or MLA) in the research paper.
✓ frequent errors in APA or MLA
format
Writing ✓ Scholarly style (appropriate to the ✓ style & voice appropriate to the ✓ average and/or casual writing ✓ poor writing style lacking in
style & given audience and purpose & show given audience and purpose. style using standard English. elements of appropriate
mechanics originality) ✓ word choice is specific and ✓ word choice is often unspecific, standard English.
✓ word choice is specific, purposeful, purposeful, and somewhat varied generic, redundant & clichéd. ✓ word choice is excessively
dynamic, and varied. throughout. ✓ Some errors in spelling, clichéd & unspecific.
✓ Variety in sentence structure. ✓ Minimal grammar & mechanic grammar, punctuation, usage, ✓ Frequent errors in grammar &
✓ Is free or almost free of errors of errors. and/or formatting. mechanics, that obscure
grammar & writing mechanics meaning

3
 Comments for improvement:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Reviewer: _____________________________________ Grand Total: _________________________________________

4
Standards Exemplary Satisfactory Developing Unacceptable Score
(exceeds standards) (meets standards) (meets most of the standards) (below standards)

Method ✓ Well written, detailed description of ✓ Moderately well written and mostly ✓ Partial description of methods ✓ Incomplete and little
Section methods. complete description of methods. which appear to be appropriate and description of methods.
✓ Selected Method/design are highly ✓ Methods appear sound, related to purpose and research ✓ Methods appear
appropriate for the type of the research appropriate, and related to purpose questions. inappropriate or unrelated
and are directly linked to the purpose and research questions. ✓ description of participants, data to purpose and research
and research questions. ✓ provides an adequate description of collection instruments and/or questions.
✓ provides advanced description and participants, data collection procedures is unclear or ✓ Data analysis is
analysis of setting/participants, data instruments and procedures incomplete. incomplete and
collection instruments, and procedure: ✓ Data analysis is appropriate for the ✓ Data analysis appears appropriate inappropriate.
step-by-step description, informed research but needs some refinement. for the research but needs ## Not appropriate for
consent, debriefing) ## May be appropriate for submission/ significant refinement. submission/ presentation.
✓ Data analysis is highly appropriate for presentation with major or moderate ## Is not appropriate for submission/
the research and needs little or no revision. presentation without significant
refinement. revision.
## Is appropriate for submission/
presentation with little or no revision.
Writing ✓ Scholarly style (appropriate to the given ✓ style & voice appropriate to the ✓ average and/or casual writing style ✓ poor writing style lacking
style & audience and purpose & show given audience and purpose. using standard English. in elements of appropriate
mechanics originality) ✓ word choice is specific and ✓ word choice is often unspecific, standard English.
✓ word choice is specific, purposeful, purposeful, and somewhat varied generic, redundant & clichéd. ✓ word choice is
dynamic, and varied. throughout. ✓ Some errors in spelling, grammar, excessively clichéd &
✓ Variety in sentence structure. ✓ Minimal grammar & mechanic punctuation, usage, and/or unspecific.
✓ Is free or almost free of errors of errors. formatting. ✓ Frequent errors in
grammar & writing mechanics grammar & mechanics,
that obscure meaning
Comments for improvement:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reviewer: _____________________________________ Grand Total: _________________________________________

5
 Standards Exemplary Satisfactory Developing Unacceptable Score
(exceeds standards) (meets standards) (meets most of the standards) (below standards)

Results & ✓ results are accurately stated based on ✓ Results are accurately stated ✓ Results are described, but ✓ Results are inaccurately
Discussion the data analysis type (quantitative or based on the data analysis somewhat unclearly, stated based on the data
Section qualitative) & connected to the type (quantitative or incompletely, or without analysis.
qualitative) using suitable supporting tables/figures. ✓ No discussion to compare
purpose of the study using
tables or figures. ✓ not well substantiated by a findings to previous
appropriate tables or figures ✓ findings are described variety of data/evidence. research.
✓ provides a variety of data/evidence but moderately substantiated ✓ limited discussion with some ✓ No relationship to purpose
(interview, field notes, artifacts) to by a comparison to previous research. and research
support assertions/thematic points variety of data/evidence. Relates material to purpose and questions/hypothesis.
✓ Thoughtful, detailed, and ✓ Discussion relates findings research questions/hypothesis. ✓ Fails to discuss key
comprehensive discussion is presented. to previous research on ✓ Some discussion of key findings findings.
Key findings are specifically related to topic. and their implications. ✓ Shows little or no critical
previous research. Implications are ✓ Shows critical analysis of ✓ Shows some critical analysis of analysis of research related
well presented. research related to topic and research related to topic and to topic and compared to
✓ Shows creative thinking and compared to current study. compared to current study. current study.
thoughtful insight. ## May be appropriate for ## Is not appropriate for ## Not appropriate for
✓ Shows critical analysis of research publication or presentation. publication or presentation without publication or presentation
related to topic and compared to significant revision.
current study.
## Is appropriate for publication or
presentation with little or no revision.
Citation ✓ In-text citations and reference list ✓ Citation within text and in ✓ Works cited were not listed for in- ✓ Poor/lack of intext citation
citations are complete & properly corresponding reference list text citations or works cited ✓ lack of APA or MLA
formatted in APA style or MLA style. are included with some included resources not mentioned format/numerous errors.
formatting problems (APA or in the research paper.
MLA) ✓ frequent errors in APA or MLA
format
Writing style ✓ Scholarly style (appropriate to the given ✓ style & voice appropriate to ✓ average and/or casual writing style ✓ poor writing style lacking in
& mechanics audience and purpose & show the given audience and using standard English. elements of appropriate
originality) purpose. ✓ word choice is often unspecific, standard English.
✓ word choice is specific, purposeful, ✓ word choice is specific and generic, redundant & clichéd. ✓ word choice is excessively
dynamic, and varied. purposeful, and somewhat ✓ Some errors in spelling, grammar, clichéd & unspecific.
✓ Variety in sentence structure. varied throughout. punctuation, usage, and/or ✓ Frequent errors in grammar &
✓ Is free or almost free of errors of ✓ Minimal grammar & formatting. mechanics, that obscure
grammar & writing mechanics mechanic errors. meaning

6
 Comments for improvement:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Reviewer: _____________________________________ Grand Total: _________________________________________