Grading Rubric Bernstein

Rubric

Section Element Item Score Wgt

Sec Sub

Pct Points

Title Page 0.25

Short Title 90 0.1 0.09

Running Head 98 0.1 0.10

Title + Affiliation 95 0.05 0.05

Abstract 2.5

Contains the heading “Abstract” 100 0.25 0.25

On a separate page 100 0.1 0.10

120 words or less 90 0.15 0.14

Clearly summarizes the review 100 2 2.00

Body 28.1

Title is used as heading 80 0.1 0.08

Thesis statement is clear, meaningful 90 4 3.60

A

Depth of Research: Lit review is

thoroughly developed, supported, and

structured using only relevant

information 80 8 6.40

B Explanation of Literature 90 8 7.20

C

Final analysis shows understanding of

the research. 80 8 6.40

D References and Documentation 26.85

Use Zotero to get full credit on this part.

**Remember to check references to make sure that they were imported in the correct format from psycINFO or PubMed.

Overall, follow APA style. 90 0.2 0.18

In alphabetical order. 80 0.2 0.16

Double-spaced. 70 0.2 0.14

Have a hanging indent. 90 0.25 0.23

Must have at least 25 references. 70 8 5.60

All references must be cited in text

(otherwise do not include them). 80 3 2.40

All references cited in text must be

included in reference section. 70 3 2.10

Research notes (in Zotero) are

complete, and reflect how the sources

are used in the paper. 90 12 10.80

E Overall writing style, grammar, and mechanics 42.3

Length: 15-25 pages, but appropriate

to scope 100 4 4.00

Double spaced 90 0.1 0.09

Sections are in order 80 0.1 0.08

Appropriate font/size 100 0.1 0.10

Clear and concise writing, correct

grammar/spelling 70 20 14.00

Overall application of APA format is

correct (e.g., heading, citations,

numbers in text etc. -- see individual

format-related elements above) 100 8 8.00

Rubric was carefully reviewed 90 3 2.70

NEW!

Peer and UTF feedback was considered

and, when appropriate, led to revisions 70 7 4.90

Percentage total 81.88

Points this assignment 60

TOTAL 49.13

Comments Authors: Use this page


Rubric


Sec Sub

Pct Points

Title Page 0.25

Short Title 100 0.1 0.10

Running Head 100 0.1 0.10

Title + Affiliation 100 0.05 0.05

Abstract 2.5

Contains the heading “Abstract” 100 0.25 0.25

On a separate page 100 0.1 0.10

120 words or less 100 0.15 0.15

Clearly summarizes the review 100 2 2.00

Body 28.1

Title is used as heading 100 0.1 0.10

Thesis statement is clear, meaningful 100 4 4.00

A




information 100 8 8.00

B Explanation of Literature 100 8 8.00

C


the research. 100 8 8.00




Overall, follow APA style. 100 0.2 0.20

In alphabetical order. 100 0.2 0.20

Double-spaced. 100 0.2 0.20

Have a hanging indent. 100 0.25 0.25

Must have at least 25 references. 100 8 8.00


(otherwise do not include them). 100 3 3.00


included in reference section. 100 3 3.00



are used in the paper. 100 12 12.00



to scope 100 4 4.00

Double spaced 100 0.1 0.10

Sections are in order 100 0.1 0.10

Appropriate font/size 100 0.1 0.10


grammar/spelling 100 20 20.00




format-related elements above) 100 8 8.00

Rubric was carefully reviewed 100 3 3.00

NEW!



Percentage total 100.00


TOTAL 60.00

Comments


Rubric


Sec Sub

Pct Points

Compariso

n

Title Page 0.25

Short Title 100 0.1 0.10 -10

Running Head 100 0.1 0.10 -2

Title + Affiliation 100 0.05 0.05 -5

Abstract 2.5

Contains the heading “Abstract” 100 0.25 0.25 0

On a separate page 100 0.1 0.10 0

120 words or less 100 0.15 0.15 -10

Clearly summarizes the review 100 2 2.00 0

Body 28.1

Title is used as heading 100 0.1 0.10 -20

Thesis statement is clear, meaningful 100 4 4.00 -10

A




information 100 8 8.00 -20

B Explanation of Literature 100 8 8.00 -10

C


the research. 100 8 8.00 -20




Overall, follow APA style. 100 0.2 0.20 -10

In alphabetical order. 100 0.2 0.20 -20

Double-spaced. 100 0.2 0.20 -30

Have a hanging indent. 100 0.25 0.25 -10

Must have at least 25 references. 100 8 8.00 -30


(otherwise do not include them). 100 3 3.00 -20


included in reference section. 100 3 3.00 -30



are used in the paper. 100 12 12.00 -10



to scope 100 4 4.00 0

Double spaced 100 0.1 0.10 -10

Sections are in order 100 0.1 0.10 -20

Appropriate font/size 100 0.1 0.10 0


grammar/spelling 100 20 20.00 -30




format-related elements above) 100 8 8.00 0

Rubric was carefully reviewed 100 3 3.00 -10

NEW!



Percentage total 100.00 0


TOTAL 60.00

Comments


Element Exceeds Standard: 86-100%* Meets Standard: 80-85% Approaches Standard: 70-79% Falls Below Standard 69% or lower

A: Depth of

Research · Provides complete, accurate and

relevant information based firmly

on extensive and careful evaluation of the research.

· The required number of relevant scholarly sources are included,

demonstrating extensive, in-depth research.

· Provides mostly complete, accurate, and relevant

information based on research.

· The required number of relevant

scholarly sources are included, revealing adequate research.

· Provides basic, some of which may be incorrect and/or irrelevant

information based on minimal research.

· Too few relevant scholarly sources are included, revealing

marginal research.

· Paper is lacking information and/or information is inaccurate and

irrelevant needing much more research.

· Over-reliance on non-academic and secondary sources.

B: Explanation

of Literature · Background provides an excellent

foundation to understand salient

concepts in the literature.

· Theories and studies are explained thoroughly and concisely present

information necessary for understanding the topic.

· Background provides a strong foundation to understand salient


· Theories and studies are explained adequately and usually

present information necessary for understanding the topic.

· Background provides a good foundation to understand salient


· Theories and studies are usually explained clearly and sometimes


· Background should have provided much more information to explain

pertinent concepts in the literature.

· Theories and studies are confusing and rarely present information

necessary for understanding the topic.

C: Final

Analysis · Demonstrates in-depth

understanding and insight into the topic through careful analysis and

reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate provocative and logical critical

thinking about the topic.

· Ideas for future research flow

easily from the critique of current research and provide an engaging

avenue of study.

· Demonstrates a general

understanding of the topic with some analysis and reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate logical critical thinking.

· Ideas for future research

generally flow from the critique of current research and provide

an interesting avenue of study.

· Demonstrates some

understanding of the topic, but with limited analysis and

reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate basic understanding, but reflect

minimal critical thought.

· Ideas for future research only

somewhat flow from the critique of current evidence.

· Demonstrates little understanding of

the topic through minimal analysis and reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate no critical thought.

· Ideas for future research do not flow

from the critique of current research and fail to provide a connected

avenue of study

D: Research Documentation

· Sources referenced in paper at all necessary points

· All citations--in-text and

references--follow APA format.

· Notes in Zotero are accurate, and clearly related to the paper.

· Sources mostly referenced in paper

· No more than one or two citation

errors in the text or references.

· Notes in Zotero are largely accurate and mostly reflected in

the paper.

· Some facts not referenced

· Several citation errors in the text or references.

· Notes in Zotero are spotty, don’t appear to be clearly reflected in the paper.

· Spotty documentation of facts in text

· Pattern of citation errors in the text

and references.

· Few or no notes in Zotero, and little or no relationship between them and

the paper.

E: Grammar, Mechanics, &

Organization

· No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

· The paper moves toward a clear

conclusion with a marked sense of logical progression and symmetry.

· Paragraphs were structured well; sentence structure was impressive.

· Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

· Paper usually flows well

forwarding a logical progression of thoughts.

· Paragraphs were mostly structured well; sentences were designed well.

· Few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.

· The paper’s direction is

somewhat clear, but is confusing at times.

· Paragraph organization was confusing at times; sentences were mostly designed well.

· Many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

· The paper lacks a clear sense of

order and direction.

· Paragraph structure was not clear; sentences depended heavily on

passive voice or were confusing.

* Note that on preliminary drafts, expectations are somewhat lower and as a result, scores may be higher, relative to scores (and expectations) on later drafts.

Adapted from materials developed at The Harker School: http://harker.libguides.com/LitReview

Element Exceeds Standard: 86-100%* Meets Standard: 80-85% Approaches Standard: 70-79% Falls Below Standard 69% or lower

A: Depth of

Research · Provides complete, accurate and

relevant information based firmly

on extensive and careful evaluation of the research.

· The required number of relevant scholarly sources are included,

demonstrating extensive, in-depth research.

· Provides mostly complete, accurate, and relevant

information based on research.

· The required number of relevant

scholarly sources are included, revealing adequate research.

· Provides basic, some of which may be incorrect and/or irrelevant

information based on minimal research.

· Too few relevant scholarly sources are included, revealing

marginal research.

· Paper is lacking information and/or information is inaccurate and

irrelevant needing much more research.

· Over-reliance on non-academic and secondary sources.

B: Explanation

of Literature · Background provides an excellent

foundation to understand salient


· Theories and studies are explained thoroughly and concisely present

information necessary for understanding the topic.

· Background provides a strong foundation to understand salient


· Theories and studies are explained adequately and usually


· Background provides a good foundation to understand salient


· Theories and studies are usually explained clearly and sometimes


· Background should have provided much more information to explain

pertinent concepts in the literature.

· Theories and studies are confusing and rarely present information

necessary for understanding the topic.

C: Final

Analysis · Demonstrates in-depth

understanding and insight into the topic through careful analysis and

reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate provocative and logical critical

thinking about the topic.

· Ideas for future research flow

easily from the critique of current research and provide an engaging

avenue of study.

· Demonstrates a general

understanding of the topic with some analysis and reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate logical critical thinking.

· Ideas for future research

generally flow from the critique of current research and provide

an interesting avenue of study.

· Demonstrates some

understanding of the topic, but with limited analysis and

reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate basic understanding, but reflect

minimal critical thought.

· Ideas for future research only

somewhat flow from the critique of current evidence.

· Demonstrates little understanding of

the topic through minimal analysis and reflection.

· Identified gaps demonstrate no critical thought.

· Ideas for future research do not flow

from the critique of current research and fail to provide a connected

avenue of study

D: Research Documentation

· Sources referenced in paper at all necessary points

· All citations--in-text and

references--follow APA format.

· Notes in Zotero are accurate, and clearly related to the paper.

· Sources mostly referenced in paper

· No more than one or two citation

errors in the text or references.

· Notes in Zotero are largely accurate and mostly reflected in

the paper.

· Some facts not referenced

· Several citation errors in the text or references.

· Notes in Zotero are spotty, don’t appear to be clearly reflected in the paper.

· Spotty documentation of facts in text

· Pattern of citation errors in the text

and references.

· Few or no notes in Zotero, and little or no relationship between them and

the paper.

E: Grammar, Mechanics, &

Organization

· No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

· The paper moves toward a clear

conclusion with a marked sense of logical progression and symmetry.

· Paragraphs were structured well; sentence structure was impressive.

· Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

· Paper usually flows well

forwarding a logical progression of thoughts.

· Paragraphs were mostly structured well; sentences were designed well.

· Few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.

· The paper’s direction is

somewhat clear, but is confusing at times.

· Paragraph organization was confusing at times; sentences were mostly designed well.

· Many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

· The paper lacks a clear sense of

order and direction.

· Paragraph structure was not clear; sentences depended heavily on

passive voice or were confusing.

* Note that on preliminary drafts, expectations are somewhat lower and as a result, scores may be higher, relative to scores (and expectations) on later drafts.

Adapted from materials developed at The Harker School: http://harker.libguides.com/LitReview

Ser Section Item ManOpt Score WeightSec SubtPoints

1

2 Title Page 0.25

3 Short Title Man 100 0.1 0.1

4 Running Head Man 95 0.1 0.1

5 Title + Affiliation Man 95 0.05 0.05

6

7 Abstract 3.5

8

Contains the heading

“Abstract” Man 100 0.25 0.25

9 On a separate page Man 0 0.1 0

10 120 words or less Man 100 0.15 0.15

11

Clearly summarizes

the study Man 100 3 3

12

13 Introduction 25.6

14

Title is used as

heading Man 100 0.1 0.1

15

Introduces the

problem under

investigation Man 100 5 5

16

Lit review is

thoroughly developed,

supported, and

structured using only

relevant information Man 95 10 9.5

17

Central purpose is

clear and apparent. Man 100 5 5

18 State variables Man 100 0.25 0.25

19 State hypotheses Man 100 0.25 0.25

20

Length: 6-10 pages

depending on full

length of paper,

appropriate to scope

of proposal Man 100 5 5

21

22 Method

23 Overall 4.25

24

25

Subheadings are in

APA format Man 100 0.25 0.25

26

Materials +

procedures are written

in paragraphs Man 100 1 1

27

Clear, organized, and

easy to understand Man 100 3 3

28

29 Participants 1.1

30

Number of

participants Man 100 0.25 0.25

31

Demographics: sex,

age, race/ethnicity Man 100 0.25 0.25

32

General geographic

location (e.g.

University in

Northeast United

States) Man 100 0.1 0.1

33

Recruitment, selection

of participants, and/or

conditions of

participation (e.g.,

payment, extra credit,

nothing) Man 100 0.5 0.5

34

35 Materials and/or Measures Man 85 15 15 12.8

36 Experimental non-questionnaire study

37

Adequately describe

materials used

38

Where it came from /

who created it

39 What it assesses

40 Survey Study

41

The full name of the

measure

42

Where it came from /

who created it

43 What it assesses

44

Info on item

measurement (e.g., 7

point Likert scale)

45

Example of a sample

item

46 Observational study

47 Props/apparatus

48

Measurement

materials (e.g.,

stopwatch)

49 Data recording sheets

50

51 Procedures 7

52

Type of research

design Man 100 2 2

53

Include all steps in

procedure Man 95 2 1.9

54

Mentions what is

appropriate to

hypothesis and design

(e.g., subject

assignment,

instructions,

debriefing) Man 100 3 3

55

56 Proposed Results 0

57

Identification of the

statistical test used Opt

58 Restated hypothesis Opt

59

Hypothesis was

correctly supported or

rejected Opt

60

Correct interpretation

of findings across

groups Opt

61

All relevant data was

presented in APA

format Opt

62

63 References 4

65 Use Zotero and you will get full credit on this part.

67 **Remember to check references to make sure that they were imported in the correct format from psycINFO or PubMed.

68

69

Overall, follow APA

style. Man 100 0.25 0.25

70 In alphabetical order. Man 100 0.25 0.25

71 Double-spaced. Man 100 0.25 0.25

72

Have a hanging

indent. Man 100 0.25 0.25

73

Must have at least 10

references. Man 100 2 2

74

All references must be

cited in text

(otherwise do not

include them). Man 100 0.75 0.75

75

All references cited in

text must be included

in reference section. Man 100 0.25 0.25

76

77 Overall writing style and grammar 39.3

78

Length: 15-25 pages,

appropriate to scope Man 100 4 4

79 Double spaced Man 100 0.1 0.1

80 Sections are in order Man 100 0.1 0.1

81 Appropriate font/size Man 100 0.1 0.1

82

Clear and concise

writing, correct

grammar/spelling Man 93 35 32.6

83

Overall application of

APA format is correct

(e.g., heading,

citations, numbers in

text etc. -- see

individual format-

related elements

above) Man

84

85 Percentage total 94.6

Paper quality: 75% 70.944375

Process

Documentation: 10% 10

Process

Communication: 15% 15

TOTAL 95.944375

This is an ambitious

and impressive piece of

work. The thinking is

very strong. The

writing is good. You

get into trouble at

times. As a reader, I

appreciate the effort to

give some variety with

interesting sentences

and the like. It’s just

the next step for you:

doing that but keeping

it clear. So you may

want to back off a little

and go for simple,

direct, and clear. But

overall, this was one of

the very best works we

read. Fine job. Here’re

the details.

Comments

yes

h should not be capitalized

title not double spaced

yes

no

yes

yes

no

yes it is also reviewed

throughout the literature

review

The literature review starts

with the beginnings of TMT

and goes on to connect it

to other theories and

research in a fluid and

concise manner. There

are a couple of points

where I think the

connections could have

been explained better and

some concepts should

have been explained in

more detail.

yes, throughout the review

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

there is not an explanation

of the primes for mortality

salience or in-group and

out-group priming in the

measures section

yes in the procedures

yes

yes

unclear if participants are

working in groups or

individually but the rest of

the procedure is well

written and clear

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes


yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

very good, a couple of

spelling mistakes and

some places where

sentence structure was a

bit unclear.

completed proposal,

handed in references and

Zotero file

communicated when

necessary and completed

check ins

Documents

Grading Rubric Bernstein