Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Assessment criteria include, paper format, content literature cited and article choice. In addition to the three articles used for analysis, supporting references should also be used. A minimum of one unique supporting article is required in the Introduction and Conclusion sections. A student example paper has been uploaded to Blackboard. This paper is well-done and hits almost all the “Meets expectations” criteria in the rubric.
Summary sums up the strengths and weaknesses of each article; compares and contrasts articles to one another summary lacks some details, misses a strength/weakness of one of the articles; occasionally compares and contrasts but mainly lists each articles strengths and weakness separately summary lacks detail, includes either strengths or weaknesses; fails to compare and contrasts articles to one another
Significance establishes practical and theoretical significance of body of work; has your chosen article been cited by others; did your articles spark other researches hypotheses or questions; are there any practical applications; implication (social, political, technological, medical) to the research; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) logic not clear to the theoretical significance of the body of work; not thorough in establishing its significance; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) no connection to theoretical significance of body of work; fails to cite at least one supporting reference Literature cited Format one journal format chosen and used throughout in bibliography and in-text citations some in-text citations were not in the same format; 1-2 errors in bibliography consistency lacking for in-text citations; bibliography with 3+ formatting errors Subject Chosen articles were all on the same topic; topic was specific enough so that an analysis was possible topics were not consistent or were too broad/general each article was on a separate topic and the topics were without reasonable similarities Citation Each reference was used and cited correctly within the body of the paper; three focal references were analyzed; at least 5 references used references were occasionally cited incorrectly; three focal references were analyzed; 4 total references used two or fewer references were analyzed; no supporting references used Quantity minimum of 5, 1 unique to intro, 1 unique to discussion and 3 critically reviewed missing 1 unique missing 2 unique and/or 1 of critically reviewed.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
|