Skip to Main Content

Click here for the CUC Virtual Research Workshop on May 18th @ Noon Central Time!

Mary DePew Resource Center for Research Writing: Comprehensive Exam College of Education, Dept. of Ed Leadership: Rubric Example Part 1 & 2

Part 1

Superintendent Endorsement Comp Exam
Educational Leadership
Scoring Rubric for Part 1: Leadership Analysis
PASS = Exceeds in all sections of the rubric.
Criteria Exceeds Meets Approaching

Section A. Analysis of the Case and

Leadership Theories
Demonstrates clear understanding of the case and integrates and applies three leadership theories to resolve the dilemma.

Demonstrates partial understanding of the case and attempts to integrate and apply three leadership theories to resolve the dilemma.  

Lack of understanding of the case and does not attempt to integrate and apply three leadership theories to resolve the dilemma.  

Appropriate sources, APA 7 format, and grammar and mechanics 

APA 7 format is followed accurately. Citations are from ten (10) current or more primary source research studies published in 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.

Writing is error free.  
Accuracy of APA 7 is inconsistent. Citations are from an imbalance of current, 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. There is misalignment between in-text citations and those in the reference list. There are some (under 5) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.  APA 7 format is inaccurate or missing.  There are fewer than ten (10) current, 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. There are many (5 or more) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.

 

Section B: School Leadership Praxis

PASS = Exceeds in all sections of the rubric

Criteria Exceeds Meets Approaching
Topic Clearly identifies the study topic and its importance.  Partially identifies the study topic and its importance. Does not identify the study topic and its importance
Background Provides full background/ context of the study grounded in scholarly research.  Partially provides background/ context of the study. The section is insufficiently grounded in scholarly research. Does not provide background/ context of the study. Scholarly research is missing.
Purpose of Study Clear statement of the purpose of the study. Partially clear statement of the purpose of the study.  Purpose of study is not evident.
Problem Statement and its Significance Clearly defines “researchable” problem as extracted from leadership literature. States connection to broader field of scholarship and practice. Somewhat defines “researchable” problem as extracted from leadership literature. Connection to broader field of scholarship and practice is emerging.  Does not define “researchable” problem as extracted from leadership literature. Connection to broader field of scholarship and practice is emerging. 
Theoretical Framework Clearly identifies leadership   theory. Shows understanding of major tenets of the theory.  Partially identifies leadership theory. Understanding of major tenets of the theory is emerging.  Does not identify leadership theory. Does not show understanding of major tenets of the theory.
Methodology Offers complete information on the research design/ methodological approach. The methodology is appropriate for the study purpose. Identifies and describes adequate limitations Offers incomplete information on the research design/ methodological approach. Methodology is somewhat appropriate for the study purpose. Incompletely identifies and describes adequate limitations.   Information on the research design/ methodological approach. Methodology is not appropriate for the study purpose. Does not identify and describe adequate limitations.
Synthesis, Analysis, and Conclusions

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.
Appropriate Sources, APA 7th Format, and Grammar and Mechanics APA 7 format is followed accurately. Citations are from ten (10) or more primary source research studies published in 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. Writing is error free. Accuracy of APA 7 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. There is misalignment between intext citations and those in the reference list. There are some (under 5) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing. APA 7 format is inaccurate or missing.  There are fewer than ten (10) 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. There are many (5 or more) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.

 

Part 2

Scoring Rubric for Part 2: Research Literature Review

PASS = Exceeds in all sections of the rubric.

Criteria Exceeds Meets Approaching
Introduction 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.
Synthesis of Common Themes 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 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 and subheadings are not used. Not all the writing is presented in an academic or professional voice. The literature review lacks consistent direction. Subtopics or themes are disjointed. The review is not a narrative discussion.
Patterns in the Literature and Critique. Gaps in the Literature 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.   Gaps in the literature are identified, insights are appropriate, and conclusions are succinctly and precisely presented. 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. Gaps in the literature are identified, insights are appropriate, and conclusions are succinctly and precisely presented. 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.  Gaps in the literature are identified, insights are appropriate, and conclusions are succinctly and precisely presented.
Conflicts in the Findings/Synthesis and Analysis of Ideas The literature review critically examines the problem, challenge, or topic. Conclusions and the guiding question are strongly supported in the review. The writing is presented in an academic and professional voice that critically analyzes and synthesizes the literature. The literature review provides minimal or superficial examination of the problem, challenge, or topic. Conclusions and the guiding question are emerging.  The writing is presented in an academic and professional voice that is beginning to critically analyze and synthesize the literature. The literature review does not provide an examination of the problem, challenge, or topic. Conclusions and the guiding question are not supported.  The writing is not presented in an academic and professional voice that critically analyzes and synthesizes the literature.
Contribution to the Body of Knowledge 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. The review adds a unique contribution to the Body of Knowledge. 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. The review is beginning to add to the Body of Knowledge. 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. There is no evidence of the review adding to the Body of Knowledge.
Appropriate Sources and Proper APA 7 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 7 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 7 format is followed, but inconsistently. There are some (under 5) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing 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  7 format is not followed. There are some (5 or more) grammatical and/or mechanical errors in the writing.