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 Rubric Example

Rubric Sample

Name:   Rubric for Literature Review

Description:

Rubric Detail:

Levels of Achievement:

Criteria

Excellent

Developing

Unacceptable

Introducing the Idea, Appropriate Sources, and Proper APA Format

4 to 5 points

Introduction is grounded in the central research question. Background to the topic of the literature review is provided leading to the problem statement and its signi

2 to 3 points

The issue is emerging, the connection between the research question and reviewed literature is not clear. Introductory background information and/or problem statement is/are missing. Review contains less than 10 scholarly, peer reviewed, primary source research studies published in a variety of professional journals. APA format is followed, but inconsistently.

0 to 1 point

The issue is not clearly presented. Research question, introductory background information, problem statement is/are missing. Review contains less than 6 scholarly, peer-reviewed, primary source research studies published in a variety of professional journals. APA format is not followed.

Levels of Achievement:

Criteria

Excellent

Developing

Unacceptable

Flow of the Literature Review

4 to 5 points

The literature review progresses from general ideas to specific conclusions with an organizational structure of subtopics and themes. 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.

2 to 3 points

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 and subheadings are not used. Not all of the writing is presented in an academic or professional voice. Critical analysis, synthesis, and the narrative are still developing.

0 to 1 point

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.

Levels of Achievement:

Coverage of Content

4 to 5 points

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

2 to 3 points

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.

0 to 1 point

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 peerreviewed, 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.

Synthesis and Analysis of Ideas

4 to 5 points

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.

2 to 3 points

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.

0 to 1 point

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.

Levels of Achievement:

Criteria

Excellent

Developing

Unacceptable

Clarity of Writing and Writing Technique

4 to 5 points

Writing is clear, coherent, and cohesive. The ideas are expressed in third person 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.

2 to 3 points

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.

0 to 1 point

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.

Hide Associated Items

ITEM NAME

CATEGORY

VISIBLE TO STUDENTS

POINTS

POSSIBLE

Literature Review—Due at the end of Module 10

Category: Assignment

Visible to Students: Yes (With Rubric Scores)

Points Possible: 25