Psychology Analytical Rubric Question Title * 1. COURSE NUMBER Question Title * 2. SECTION NUMBER Question Title * 3. YEAR/SEMESTER Question Title * 4. FOCUS (4) Exemplary: -Hypothesis is clearly formulated and articulated-Rationale of the research is well-developed-Key concepts are identified and operationally defined-Description of the method, participants, procedure, and results is clear and complete-Objective stance maintained throughout document (3) Accomplished -Hypothesis is adequately formulated and articulated-Rationale of the research is adequately developed-Most of the key concepts are identified and operationally defined-Objective stance mostly maintained (2) Developing-Hypothesis is stated, but it may lack precision and clarity-Attempt is made to provide rationale of the research, which may not be clearly stated but becomes evident at some point-Most of the key concepts are identified and operationally defined, though the definitions may be imprecise-Method, participants, procedure, and results are described, but some information may be unclear-Objectivity mostly maintained, though occasional subjective remarks occur (1) Beginning -Hypothesis is poorly stated and does not become evident until the end-Little or no attempt is made to provide rationale of the research-Very few key concept are identified and clearly defined- Flaws and inconsistencies in addressing method, participants, procedure, and results-Frequent subjective intrusions (0) Unacceptable-Hypothesis is not stated and does not become evident until the end- No rationale of the research is provided- Key concepts either not identified or are identified in a confusing manner- Gaps in describing method, participants, procedure, and results-Very frequent subjective remarks Question Title * 5. ORGANIZATION & DEVELOPMENT (4) Exemplary-Logical development of ideas-Clearly written abstract-Clear introduction, with the statement of the research hypothesis (proposal)-Introduction contains exhaustive and relevant review of previous literature related to the research question/ hypothesis-Effective, thorough and coherent literature review in the introductory section-Sophisticated and smooth transitions between and within sentences, paragraphs and sections-Consistently clear and detailed description of Methods and Results-Apt, interesting, and insightful conclusions in Discussion section-Exceptional creativity, critical thinking skills, and ability to synthesize previous research (3) Accomplished -Mostly logical development of ideas-Clearly written abstract which may be occasionally obscure-Introduction contains mostly appropriate review of previous relevant literature related to the research question/ hypothesis-Research hypothesis (proposal) identified at some point-Mostly coherent and adequate literature review in the introductory section-Mostly appropriate transitions between and within sentences, paragraphs and sections-Description of Methods and Results mostly adequate, with only occasional lapses-Effective conclusions in Discussion section, though no author insight or further implications offered (2) Developing -Development of ideas not smooth and occasionally lacking coherence- Abstract inconsistent and lacking the relevant info-Not entirely clear and coherent introduction- satisfactory review of previous relevant literature and occasional attempt to tie it to the hypothesis put forward-Research hypothesis stated though not explicitly and clearly- Generally adequate literature review in the introductory section-Occasional transitions between and within sentences, paragraphs and sections-Description of Methods and Results generally adequate, with frequent lapses-Adequate conclusions in Discussion section; no author insight or further implications offered (1) Beginning-Rarely logical and smooth development of ideas- Abstract awkward and confusing, missing the basic info-Weak and incoherent introduction-Limited and rudimentary review of relevant literature-No attempt is made to tie it to the hypothesis put forward-Research hypothesis poorly stated-Little or no transitions between and within sentences, paragraphs and sections-Numerous flaws and lack of detail in addressing Methods and Results-Weak and inadequate conclusions in Discussion section (0) Unacceptable-Ideas not developed logically- Unclear or missing abstract-Missing or incoherent introduction- Incoherent and inappropriate or missing literature review-No attempt is made to tie it to the hypothesis put forward-Research hypothesis not stated or stated confusingly- No transitions-Inconsistency and lack of relevant info in addressing Methods and Results-Missing, confusing, weak, or irrelevant conclusions-Discussion section very chaotic, no conclusion regarding the research hypothesis, no attempt made at identifying possible limitations and future implications of the study Question Title * 6. STYLE & SENTENCE STRUCTURE (4) Exemplary-Sophisticated sentence structure with varied length and structure-Audience-appropriate, objective, efficient academic language-Smooth, clear, and economic style-No verbosity (3) Accomplished -Frequently varied sentence structure with very occasional errors-Usually audience-appropriate, objective, efficient academic language, though some subjective remarks may appear-Generally clear, and economic style, but may have some flowery expressions-Some verbosity (2) Developing-Occasional variation in sentence structure and length-Generally pragmatically adequate though some inappropriate (informal) style may occur-In general, accurate language, though frequent subjective remarks may appear-Occasional errors and verbosity-Generally clear style, though frequent flowery phrases occur-Often verbose (1) Beginning-No variation in sentence structure – very simple syntax, short and simple sentences-Frequently pragmatically inadequate with excess informal language-Frequent errors-Frequent subjective remarks-Imprecise phrases, unclear and at times incomprehensible-Too verbose (0) Unacceptable -No variation in sentence structure – very simple and frequently erroneous syntax-Very short sentences-Mostly pragmatically inadequate with excess informal language-Very frequent errors which render sentences incomprehensible-Conspicuously many subjective remarks- Exceedingly verbose Question Title * 7. GRAMMAR & MECHANICS (4) Exemplary-Zero grammatical errors-Zero spelling and punctuation errors-Zero mechanical errors(number of page missing, running head misplaced, hanging section title, etc.) (3) Accomplished- Some errors occur (grammatical, spelling and punctuation, and mechanical) (2) DevelopingFrequent errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and mechanics (1) BeginningToo many errors of all type, resulting in occasional communication breakdown (0) UnacceptableErrors so many that the text is unreadable Question Title * 8. RESEARCH (4) Exemplary-Flawless APA format and document design-Insightful and creative use of sources for the development of own research ideas-Comprehensive and exhaustive literature review supporting the hypothesis and providing a rationale-Previous research exhaustively reviewed-Excellent knowledge of research methods-Unfailingly correct in-text citations-Flawless reference section-No plagiarism (3) Accomplished-Mostly appropriate (APA) section headings and subheadings-Frequently insightful and creative use of sources for the development of own research ideas-Generally well formulated research hypothesis-Mostly thorough literature review supporting the hypothesis-Infrequent errors in in-text citations-Occasional errors in reference section-No plagiarism (2) Developing -Some lapses in APA conformity- Paper sections occasionally inconsistent with APA-Limited creativity and insight in the use of sources for the development of own research ideas-Research hypothesis formulated but may be confusing-Rather adequate literature review supporting the hypothesis-Some errors in in-text citationsand in reference section-No plagiarism (1) Beginning-Frequent lapses in APA conformity- Paper sections frequently APA inconsistent-Frequent use of inappropriate or unreliable sources-Research hypothesis poorly formulated and confusing-Very basic and incoherent literature review-Frequent errors in in-text citations and in reference section-No plagiarism (0) Unacceptable- Paper mostly APA inconsistent-Lack of a sufficient number of sources or frequent use of inappropriate or unreliable sources-Research hypothesis poorly formulated or missing-Incoherent or missing literature review-Widespread errors in in-text citations and in reference section-Evidence of plagiarism Done