| Scale: Poor
(1) |
Adequate
(2) |
Good
(3) |
Outstanding
(4) |
| is
difficult to understand and does not adequately describe the (proposed)
research. |
is too
long, but describes the main identifiers, or too short and misses a key
identifier |
is informative, and contains all key identifiers of the (proposed) research. | is compact
and to the point, and contains all key identifiers of the
(proposed) research. |
| does not
introduce the topic and does not describe the main (preliminary)
findings of the
research in a quantitative way. |
summarizes
the main (preliminary) findings. |
introduces the topic and describes the key (preliminary) findings clearly and quantitatively. | starts with an introductory sentence and describes the main (preliminary) findings in a quantitative and space efficient way. |
| contains irrelevant material or misses key points. It does not follow the inverse pyramid structure or the thesis statement is not on target. Statements of fact are usually not referenced. | contains a slightly too long or too short presentation of background and some prior work in the topic area starting broad and narrowing to a clear thesis statement. Statements of fact are generally referenced. | contains a presentation of background and prior work in the topic area starting broad and narrowing to a clear thesis statement. Statements of fact are generally referenced. | contains a
compact but comprehsensive presentation of background and prior work in
the topic area starting broad and narrowing to a clear thesis
statement. Statements of fact are always properly referenced. |
| are
incomplete, or (preliminary) data analysis is not appropriate.
|
are
presented fairly completely, (preliminary) data
analysis
is
appropriate, but
should be extended. |
are
presented in a comprehensive fashion, (preliminary) data
analysis
is
appropriate. |
are
presented in a comprehensive fashion, (preliminary) data
analysis
is
appropriate and
exhaustive. |
| poorly links data
interpretation to thesis statement and previous work. |
generally interprets results in context of thesis statement and previous work. | interprets results in
context of
thesis statement and properly cited studies. |
thoroughly interprets results in context of thesis statement and properly cited studies. |
| interfere with ability to understand ideas presented | are adequate to grasp the main ideas | are clear and enable reader to grasp all ideas | enhance the reader’s grasp of the ideas and engage the reader |
| is unclear,
not consistent with disciplinary style |
is mostly consistent with disciplinary style | is almost always consistent with disciplinary style | is entirely consistent with disciplinary style |
| are used
when not necessary or are frequently not explained |
are usually
necessary and explained |
are
necessary and explained |
are always
necessary and well explained |
| often are
blurry, or have too small fonts, are hard to comprehend, don't have
captions, or miss units or lables. |
occasionally are blurry, or have too small fonts, are hard to comprehend, don't have captions, or miss units or labels. | are sharp, easy to read, have captions, and are interleaved with the text. | are always
sharp, easy to read and considerable enhance the understanding of the
material. They all have captions and are interleaved with the text. |
| is not appropriate
or relevant to research problem or topic; literature reviewed is
minimal or detracts from the study; citations are incorrect. |
selected for the study is
minimal but relates to the study topic or problem; minor citation
errors; attempt to integrate literature into study |
review is thorough and
includes relevant and up-to-date sources; literature is well integrated
with the research, and is linked to the results; citations are correct |
is exhaustive and
synthesized to enhance reader’s understanding of topic and to show
relationship of study to the discipline |