|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% |
3
Satisfactory
79.00% |
4
Good
97.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 10.0 %Comparison Table: Table Compares Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Method Articles |
A comparison table is not included. |
A comparison table is incomplete or incorrect. |
A comparison table is included but lacks details. |
A comparison is complete and includes sufficient detail. |
A comparison is complete. The comparison is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Types of Study |
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is not included. |
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is incomplete or incorrect. |
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is included but lacks detail. |
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail. |
A statement of the types of studies used in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Statistical Tests |
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is not included. |
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is incomplete or incorrect. |
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is included but lacks detail. |
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail. |
A discussion of the types of statistical tests and why they were chosen in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Parametric vs. Nonparametric Tests |
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is not included. |
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is incomplete or incorrect. |
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests and the types applied in the articles is included but lacks detail. |
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests is present. Discussion of the types applied in the articles is complete and includes sufficient detail. |
A discussion of the difference between parametric and nonparametric tests is clearly present. Discussion of the types applied in the articles is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Applicability of Statistical Tests |
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is not included. |
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is incomplete or incorrect. |
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is included but lacks detail. |
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is complete and includes sufficient detail. |
A discussion of the applicability and justification of the chosen statistical test in each article is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Evaluation of Reliability and Validity Factors |
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is not included. |
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is incomplete or incorrect. |
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is included but lacks supporting details. |
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is complete and includes supporting details |
An evaluation of the reliability and validity factors and how they are accounted for in the articles is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail. |
| 10.0 %Summary |
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is not included. |
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is incomplete or incorrect. |
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is included but lacks supporting details. |
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is complete and includes supporting details |
A summary of how the chosen studies could be applied in practice is extremely thorough, with substantial supporting detail |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the r
eader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
Get The Answer