Writing Manual & Sea King Capstone - Palos Verdes High School

Research Paper Rubric
Student Name: __________________________ English Teacher: __________________________
Title Page
Introduction
Literature Review
Method
Above Standard (4) At Standard (3) Approaching Standard (2) Below Standard (1)
Appropriate in tone, structure, Suggests nature of the study; Identifies only one variable of
and length; generally explanatory may identify only one variable of the study; contains superfluous
of the study; suggests design. the study; suggests design. information; lacks design
Appropriate in tone, structure,
and length; fully explanatory of
the study; allows reader to
anticipate design.
Clear statement of problem under
investigation; clearly states
goal(s) of the study; problem
identified in introductory
paragraph.
Articles reviewed are relevant to
the problem being investigated;
coverage of previous empirical
and theoretical studies is
thorough; issues are clearly
explained; issues related to the
problem are discussed in a
logical progression; the number
of articles cited is sufficient for
the task.
Contains concisely organized
information that allows the study
to be replicated; includes all
subsections including site or
setting, participants, materials
and procedures; identifies
sequential information in an
appropriate chronology; does not
contain unnecessary, wordy
descriptions of procedures.
Problem under investigation
stated in general terms; goals of
the study stated less clearly;
problem identified in
introductory paragraph.
Articles reviewed are relevant to
the problem; coverage of
previous empirical and
theoretical studies may not be
complete; some confusion over
concepts or issues may be
present; issues related to the
problem may not be presented in
a logical order; the number of
articles is adequate for the task.
As in 4, but contains unnecessary
or superfluous information or
wordy descriptions within the
section.
Introductory paragraph may not
identify problem under
investigation; nature of problem
being studied is not clear to the
reader; the reader has to find the
goals of the study.
Some articles reviewed are
irrelevant to the problem, or
relevant articles from the
literature are not reviewed;
important information about
articles being reviewed may be
left out, and/or irrelevant
information may be included;
confusion about some concepts
or issues being discussed; issues
related to the problem are not
organized in a way which
effectively supports the
argument, are arranged
chronologically, or are arranged
article by article; the number of
articles is fewer than necessary
for the task.
Presents a study that is definitely
replicable; all information in
document may be related to this
section but fails to identify some
sources of data or presents
sequential information in a
disorganized, difficult way; may
contain unnecessary or
superfluous information.
information or is misleading.
Problem not identified in
introductory paragraph; reader
may be unable to determine the
problem being investigated; the
purpose and/or goals of the study
are not apparent to the reader.
Articles reviewed are not directly
related to the problem, though
they may be in the same general
conceptual area; important
information from articles is
ignored, and irrelevant
information is included; lack of
understanding of concepts or
issues being discussed;
presentation of previous research
and theory not organized in a
logical manner; inadequate
number of articles reviewed.
Presents a study that is
marginally replicable; parts of
the basic design must be inferred
by the reader; procedures not
described; some information in
results and discussion cannot be
anticipated by reading the
method section.
81