Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

The Mary DePew Resource Center for Research Writing: Comprehensive Exam College of Education, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction: Rubric Example Parts 1 & 2

Scoring Rubrics: Curriculum & Instruction Comp Exam

C&I Comp Exam Rubric-Part 1 (Topics 1-6)

Criteria

PASS

DEVELOPING (DOES NOT PASS)

UNACCEPTABLE (DOES NOT PASS)

Context

 

Offered context on the curriculum topic with discussion of relevant course- related literature. Defined key vocabulary.

Offered minimal context on the curriculum topic. Topic not placed in context using related literature. Key vocabulary not well defined. 

Offered no context on the curriculum topic. Topic not placed in context using related literature. Key vocabulary not well defined. 

Discussion

Reviewed relationships among key concepts and phenomena; and offered critique of the literature. Clearly proposed new relationships; and offered new perspectives on the curriculum topic. 

Minimally reviewed relationships among key concepts and phenomena; and offered critique of the literature.

Key concepts and phenomena not discussed; does not include a critique of the literature.

Multiple

Sources on

Topic

 

Provides clear and applicable theory and scholarly research from multiple and diverse (3 or more) sources/authors/ perspectives from the literature.

Provides clear and applicable theory and research from 2 sources/authors/ perspectives or diverse perspectives are not apparent, from the literature.

Provides unclear application of theory and research and/or lacks multiple or diverse perspectives, from the literature.

Quality of

Organization

Information was exceptionally clear and well organized. 

Information was clear but not organized.

Information was unclear and/or disorganized.

Appropriate sources, APA and

format

 

APA format is followed accurately. Citations are from six or more primary source research studies published in professional journals that are applicable to the topic.  Additional supporting materials, such as scholarly, peer-reviewed articles (theoretical or conceptual pieces), books from academic presses, and government and technical reports are included.  In-text citations are aligned with the reference list. Writing is error free or with minimal error that distracts the reader (e.g., a consistent type of error throughout).

Accuracy of APA is inconsistent. Citations are from an imbalance of primary source research studies published in professional journals, books from academic presses, and government and technical reports, supporting or secondary materials, and/or non-scholarly sources, and/or are not applicable to the topic. There is misalignment between in-text citations and those in the reference list. There are some (under 10) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.

APA format is inaccurate or missing. There are fewer than six scholarly, peer-reviewed, primary source research studies. Supporting materials and/or non-scholarly materials predominate, or are not applicable to the topic. In-text citations are not aligned with the reference list.

There are many (10 or more) different grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.

 

 

Scoring Rubric for C&I Part 2: Research 

Criteria

PROFICIENT/

PASSED

NOT PASSED/

DEVELOPING

NOT PASSED/

UNACCEPTABLE

Introducing the Idea:

Problem

Statement

The topic is introduced by providing background to the literature review, the problem statement, and its significance.

The issue is emerging. Introductory background information, a clear problem statement, challenge, topic and/or significance is/are missing.

Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic that is to be examined.

Body: Flow of

the Literature

Review

The literature review progresses from general ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie sections as well as adjacent paragraphs together.  The writing is presented in an academic and professional voice that critically analyzes and synthesizes the literature. The review is presented as an integrated narrative discussion, not a list of annotations or findings.

There is a basic flow from one section to the next. However, sections or paragraphs do not transition well or are not clearly connected to the problem, challenge, or topic being discussed. Not all of the writing is presented in an academic or professional voice. Critical analysis, synthesis, and the narrative are still developing.

The literature review lacks consistent direction. Subtopics or themes are disjointed. The writing is not presented in an academic or professional voice, and does not employ critical analysis or synthesis of the material reviewed. The review is not a narrative discussion.

 

Coverage of Content

The content is covered in depth without being redundant. Sources are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and include seminal, timely, and relevant content in relation to the problem, challenge, or topic. Significance to the purpose of the review is clear. 

The content is not covered in depth or with specificity.

Some sources are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and include seminal, timely, and relevant content in relation to the problem, challenge, or topic. Significance to the purpose of the review is emerging.

The content is incomplete. The material presented is insufficient, fragmented, and/or major themes have not been included. Very few of the sources are scholarly or peer-reviewed, or include seminal, timely, and relevant content in relation to the problem, challenge, or topic. Content is of minimal significance to the purpose of the review.

Conclusion: A Synthesis and

Analysis of Ideas

The literature review critically examines the problem, challenge, or topic. Gaps in the literature are identified, insights are appropriate, and conclusions are succinctly and precisely presented. Conclusions and the guiding question are strongly supported in the review.

The literature review provides minimal or superficial examination of the problem, challenge, or topic. Gaps in the literature are minimally identified. Insights, if provided, may not be supported.

Conclusions and the guiding question are emerging.

The literature review does not provide an examination of the problem, challenge, or topic.  Gaps in the literature are not identified. Insights are not provided or supported.

Conclusions and the guiding question are not supported.

Clarity of Writing and Writing Technique

Writing is clear, coherent, and cohesive. The ideas are expressed in a succinct and precise manner. Active voice is used when appropriate, and meaning is explicit. The review is free of grammatical and mechanical errors.

Writing is generally clear, coherent, and cohesive, however​, consistency and precision are lacking.  The ideas expressed may be unclear or redundant. Active voice may or may not be appropriate, and meaning is not made explicit. The review contains minor grammatical and/or mechanical errors.

Writing is not clear, coherent, or cohesive; consistency and precision are lacking. The ideas expressed are unclear and/or redundant. Active voice is not appropriate, and meaning is not explicit. The review contains major grammatical and/or mechanical errors. Major reconstruction of the argument and narrative are required.

Appropriate

Sources, and

Proper APA

Format

Review contains a minimum of 10 scholarly, peer-reviewed, primary source research studies published in a variety of professional journals. Additional supporting materials, such as scholarly, peer-reviewed articles (theoretical or conceptual pieces), books from academic presses, and government and technical reports are included. In-text citations are aligned with the reference list. APA format is followed accurately.

Review contains less than 10 scholarly, peer-reviewed, primary source research studies published in a variety of professional journals. The review contains an imbalance of supporting or secondary materials and/or non-scholarly sources along with primary, scholarly research. There is misalignment between in-text citations and those in the reference list. APA format is followed, but inconsistently.

Review contains less than six scholarly, peer-reviewed, primary source research studies. Supporting materials and/or non-scholarly materials predominate. In-text citations are not aligned with the reference list. APA format is not followed.