Rubric Detail A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout. Content Top of Form Name: Research Paper Grading Rubric Description: Rubric used by the MIS Department to grade Graduate Final Research Paper. Grid View List View Below Average Average Good Outstanding Title Points: .48 (2.4%) Not present Feedback: Points: .64 (3.2%) Is present Missing two of the following: dependent variable, independent variable and organism studied Feedback: Points: .72 (3.6%) Gives a general description of question and work performed Missing one of the following: dependent variable, independent variable and organism studied Feedback: Points: .8 (4%) Is descriptive of question and work performed Includes dependent variable, independent variable and organism studied Feedback: Abstract Points: .84 (4.2%) Is missing three or more components of a good abstract Is not written in a scientific style Includes references in abstract Feedback: Points: 1.12 (5.6%) Is missing two components of a good abstract Does not give an overview that leads directly to the reader being able to state the major findings of the study Feedback: Points: 1.26 (6.3%) Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well organized or concise. Feedback: Points: 1.4 (7%) States clearly question being asked Gives hypothesis being tested Highlights most important findings with enough information to understand experiments States major findings and conclusions Is a concise summary of question and findings Feedback: Introduction Points: 1.8 (9%) Is missing needed information to understand the present study or is Is missing a description of the specific purpose of the study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of the introduction Contains no information about the study system Feedback: Points: 2.4 (12%) Is missing one or two components of a good introduction Contains significant superfluous information Gives a description of the study system Feedback: Points: 2.7 (13.5%) Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well organized or concise. Feedback: Points: 3 (15%) Provides the reader with the necessary information to understand the present study Piques the readers interest and makes the importance of the question real Gives appropriate information to previous studies that has an impact on the current study Does not contain superfluous information and/or is not wordy Gives a description of the specific purpose of the study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of the introduction Gives a description of the study system and why it is appropriate to use it to answer hypo ...

1. Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate
student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and
made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to
change the rubric's layout.
Content
Top of Form
Name: Research Paper Grading Rubric
Description: Rubric used by the MIS Department to grade
Graduate Final Research Paper.
Grid View
List View
Below
Average
Average
Good
Outstanding
Title
Points:
.48 (2.4%)
Not present
Feedback:
Points:
.64 (3.2%)
Is present Missing two of the following: dependent variable,
independent variable and organism studied
Feedback:
Points:

2. .72 (3.6%)
Gives a general description of question and work performed
Missing one of the following: dependent variable, independent
variable and organism studied
Feedback:
Points:
.8 (4%)
Is descriptive of question and work performed Includes
dependent variable, independent variable and organism studied
Feedback:
Abstract
Points:
.84 (4.2%)
Is missing three or more components of a good abstract Is not
written in a scientific style Includes references in abstract
Feedback:
Points:
1.12 (5.6%)
Is missing two components of a good abstract Does not give an
overview that leads directly to the reader being able to state the
major findings of the study
Feedback:
Points:
1.26 (6.3%)
Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well
organized or concise.
Feedback:
Points:
1.4 (7%)
States clearly question being asked Gives hypothesis being

3. tested Highlights most important findings with enough
information to understand experiments States major findings
and conclusions Is a concise summary of question and findings
Feedback:
Introduction
Points:
1.8 (9%)
Is missing needed information to understand the present study
or is Is missing a description of the specific purpose of the
study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief
summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of
the introduction Contains no information about the study
system
Feedback:
Points:
2.4 (12%)
Is missing one or two components of a good introduction
Contains significant superfluous information Gives a
description of the study system
Feedback:
Points:
2.7 (13.5%)
Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well
organized or concise.
Feedback:
Points:
3 (15%)
Provides the reader with the necessary information to
understand the present study Piques the readers interest and
makes the importance of the question real Gives appropriate
information to previous studies that has an impact on the
current study Does not contain superfluous information and/or

4. is not wordy Gives a description of the specific purpose of the
study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief
summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of
the introduction Gives a description of the study system and
why it is appropriate to use it to answer hypothesis
Feedback:
Research
Methods
and Materials
Points:
2.4 (12%)
Is lacking several critical details so that it is impossible to
repeat the experiments described Many steps are missing in
describing steps in an experiment Chemicals and equipment are
in a list or are not described
Feedback:
Points:
3.2 (16%)
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with some critical details are lacking Most steps
are understandable but some lack detail or are confusing Most
specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned along with
their source (not as a list)
Feedback:
Points:
3.6 (18%)
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with sufficient detail to enable another scientist
to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results Most steps
are understandable but some lack detail or are confusing Most
specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned along with
their source (not as a list)
Feedback:

5. Points:
4 (20%)
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with sufficient detail to enable another scientist
to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results Presents
easy-to-follow steps which are logical and adequately detailed
without including standard procedures that all scientist know
how to do Specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned
along with their source (not as a list)
Feedback:
Results
Points:
1.8 (9%)
Raw unprocessed data is present Some results presented as
both narrative text and in figures and tables Data not clearly
presented Important data not highlighted Data in tables or
figures not described in narrative form
Feedback:
Points:
2.4 (12%)
Most pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is
absent Most results presented as both narrative text and in
figures and tables Most data presented in a logical manner to
enable the reader to draw conclusions Most important data is
highlighted Most of the tables and figures have appropriate
legends Most tables and figures are described in the narrative
text
Feedback:
Points:
2.7 (13.5%)
All pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is absent
Most results presented as both narrative text and in figures and

6. tables Most data presented in a logical manner to enable the
reader to draw conclusions Most important data is highlighted
All tables and figures have appropriate legends All tables and
figures are described in the narrative text
Feedback:
Points:
3 (15%)
All pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is absent
Results presented as both narrative text and in figures and
tables Data presented in a logical manner to enable the reader
to draw conclusions Important data is highlighted No
conclusions are present All tables and figures have appropriate
legends All tables and figures are described in the narrative
text
Feedback:
Discussion/
Conclussions
Points:
1.8 (9%)
Conclusions are stated but without sufficient reference to the
results that support it. Lacking several of the characters of a
good discussion
Feedback:
Points:
2.4 (12%)
Conclusions are stated clearly with reference to the data that
support a conclusion Argument for the conclusions can be
understood but difficult to follow Final paragraph states the
major finding of the study (the take home message)
Feedback:
Points:
2.7 (13.5%)

7. Conclusions are stated clearly with explicit reference to the
data that support a conclusion Argument for conclusions is
generally well organized Importance of conclusions discussed
Conclusions related to other studies and put into a context of
current knowledge Final paragraph states the major finding of
the study (the take home message)
Feedback:
Points:
3 (15%)
Question and hypothesis restated Conclusions are stated clearly
with explicit reference to the data that support a conclusion
Argument for conclusions well organized Importance of
conclusions discussed Conclusions related to other studies and
put into a context of current knowledge Clear differentiation
between speculations and conclusions Final paragraph states
the major finding of the study (the take home message)
Feedback:
References
Points:
1.2 (6%)
Many sources absent Inappropriate format References not
most relevant/appropriate to study
Feedback:
Points:
1.6 (8%)
Most cited sources present Generally in required format
References relevant and appropriate
Feedback:
Points:
1.8 (9%)
All cited sources present In required format References
relevant and appropriate

8. Feedback:
Points:
2 (10%)
All cited sources present No references not cited in the body
present In the required format References all highly relevant
Feedback:
Grammar &
Mechanics
Points:
1.2 (6%)
Paper lacks well organized paragraphs Sections do not contain
information presented in a logical order Many grammatical
errors Many misappropriate word usage errors (e.g., effect vs.
affect) Many misuses of scientific terms
Feedback:
Points:
1.6 (8%)
Many paragraphs well organized Several grammatical errors,
typos, and misspelling may be present
Feedback:
Points:
1.8 (9%)
Most paragraphs well organized Sections with logical
organization of paragraphs (especially introduction, results and
conclusions) Several grammatical errors, typos, and
misspelling may be present Some misappropriate word usage
errors (effect vs. affect) Some misuse of scientific terms
Feedback:
Points:
2 (10%)
Paragraphs well organized Sections with logical organization

9. of paragraphs (especially introduction, results and conclusions)
Few grammatical errors, typos and misspellings Appropriate
word selection Correct use of scientific terms
Feedback:
Format
Points:
.48 (2.4%)
No evidence of required format or Author name missing Latin
scientific name not italicized Paper not stapled
Feedback:
Points:
.64 (3.2%)
An attempt made to follow required format Author name
displayed Paper stapled
Feedback:
Points:
.72 (3.6%)
Most components of the required format followed Author name
displayed Paper stapled
Feedback:
Points:
.8 (4%)
All components in the appropriate format Author name
displayed Latin scientific name italicized with genus
capitalized and species in lower case Paper stapled
Feedback:
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Title--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average .48 (2.4%) points
Not present

10. Average .64 (3.2%) points
Is present Missing two of the following: dependent variable,
independent variable and organism studied
Good .72 (3.6%) points
Gives a general description of question and work performed
Missing one of the following: dependent variable, independent
variable and organism studied
Outstanding .8 (4%) points
Is descriptive of question and work performed Includes
dependent variable, independent variable and organism studied
Feedback:
Abstract--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average .84 (4.2%) points
Is missing three or more components of a good abstract Is not
written in a scientific style Includes references in abstract
Average 1.12 (5.6%) points
Is missing two components of a good abstract Does not give an
overview that leads directly to the reader being able to state the
major findings of the study
Good 1.26 (6.3%) points
Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well
organized or concise.
Outstanding 1.4 (7%) points
States clearly question being asked Gives hypothesis being
tested Highlights most important findings with enough
information to understand experiments States major findings
and conclusions Is a concise summary of question and findings
Feedback:
Introduction--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 1.8 (9%) points
Is missing needed information to understand the present study
or is Is missing a description of the specific purpose of the

11. study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief
summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of
the introduction Contains no information about the study
system
Average 2.4 (12%) points
Is missing one or two components of a good introduction
Contains significant superfluous information Gives a
description of the study system
Good 2.7 (13.5%) points
Is missing one component of good abstract Abstract is not well
organized or concise.
Outstanding 3 (15%) points
Provides the reader with the necessary information to
understand the present study Piques the readers interest and
makes the importance of the question real Gives appropriate
information to previous studies that has an impact on the
current study Does not contain superfluous information and/or
is not wordy Gives a description of the specific purpose of the
study, a description of the hypothesis being tested and a brief
summary of the experimental strategy being used at the end of
the introduction Gives a description of the study system and
why it is appropriate to use it to answer hypothesis
Feedback:
Research
Methods
and Materials--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 2.4 (12%) points
Is lacking several critical details so that it is impossible to
repeat the experiments described Many steps are missing in
describing steps in an experiment Chemicals and equipment are
in a list or are not described
Average 3.2 (16%) points
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with some critical details are lacking Most steps

12. are understandable but some lack detail or are confusing Most
specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned along with
their source (not as a list)
Good 3.6 (18%) points
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with sufficient detail to enable another scientist
to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results Most steps
are understandable but some lack detail or are confusing Most
specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned along with
their source (not as a list)
Outstanding 4 (20%) points
Is written in paragraph form Describes how the experiment
was performed with sufficient detail to enable another scientist
to repeat the experiment and obtain the same results Presents
easy-to-follow steps which are logical and adequately detailed
without including standard procedures that all scientist know
how to do Specific chemicals and equipment are mentioned
along with their source (not as a list)
Feedback:
Results--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 1.8 (9%) points
Raw unprocessed data is present Some results presented as
both narrative text and in figures and tables Data not clearly
presented Important data not highlighted Data in tables or
figures not described in narrative form
Average 2.4 (12%) points
Most pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is
absent Most results presented as both narrative text and in
figures and tables Most data presented in a logical manner to
enable the reader to draw conclusions Most important data is
highlighted Most of the tables and figures have appropriate
legends Most tables and figures are described in the narrative
text
Good 2.7 (13.5%) points

13. All pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is absent
Most results presented as both narrative text and in figures and
tables Most data presented in a logical manner to enable the
reader to draw conclusions Most important data is highlighted
All tables and figures have appropriate legends All tables and
figures are described in the narrative text
Outstanding 3 (15%) points
All pertinent data is described Raw unprocessed data is absent
Results presented as both narrative text and in figures and
tables Data presented in a logical manner to enable the reader
to draw conclusions Important data is highlighted No
conclusions are present All tables and figures have appropriate
legends All tables and figures are described in the narrative
text
Feedback:
Discussion/
Conclussions--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 1.8 (9%) points
Conclusions are stated but without sufficient reference to the
results that support it. Lacking several of the characters of a
good discussion
Average 2.4 (12%) points
Conclusions are stated clearly with reference to the data that
support a conclusion Argument for the conclusions can be
understood but difficult to follow Final paragraph states the
major finding of the study (the take home message)
Good 2.7 (13.5%) points
Conclusions are stated clearly with explicit reference to the
data that support a conclusion Argument for conclusions is
generally well organized Importance of conclusions discussed
Conclusions related to other studies and put into a context of
current knowledge Final paragraph states the major finding of
the study (the take home message)
Outstanding 3 (15%) points

14. Question and hypothesis restated Conclusions are stated clearly
with explicit reference to the data that support a conclusion
Argument for conclusions well organized Importance of
conclusions discussed Conclusions related to other studies and
put into a context of current knowledge Clear differentiation
between speculations and conclusions Final paragraph states
the major finding of the study (the take home message)
Feedback:
References--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 1.2 (6%) points
Many sources absent Inappropriate format References not
most relevant/appropriate to study
Average 1.6 (8%) points
Most cited sources present Generally in required format
References relevant and appropriate
Good 1.8 (9%) points
All cited sources present In required format References
relevant and appropriate
Outstanding 2 (10%) points
All cited sources present No references not cited in the body
present In the required format References all highly relevant
Feedback:
Grammar &
Mechanics--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average 1.2 (6%) points
Paper lacks well organized paragraphs Sections do not contain
information presented in a logical order Many grammatical
errors Many misappropriate word usage errors (e.g., effect vs.
affect) Many misuses of scientific terms
Average 1.6 (8%) points
Many paragraphs well organized Several grammatical errors,
typos, and misspelling may be present

15. Good 1.8 (9%) points
Most paragraphs well organized Sections with logical
organization of paragraphs (especially introduction, results and
conclusions) Several grammatical errors, typos, and
misspelling may be present Some misappropriate word usage
errors (effect vs. affect) Some misuse of scientific terms
Outstanding 2 (10%) points
Paragraphs well organized Sections with logical organization
of paragraphs (especially introduction, results and conclusions)
Few grammatical errors, typos and misspellings Appropriate
word selection Correct use of scientific terms
Feedback:
Format--
Levels of Achievement:
Below
Average .48 (2.4%) points
No evidence of required format or Author name missing Latin
scientific name not italicized Paper not stapled
Average .64 (3.2%) points
An attempt made to follow required format Author name
displayed Paper stapled
Good .72 (3.6%) points
Most components of the required format followed Author name
displayed Paper stapled
Outstanding .8 (4%) points
All components in the appropriate format Author name
displayed Latin scientific name italicized with genus
capitalized and species in lower case Paper stapled
Feedback:
Name:Research Paper Grading Rubric
Description:Rubric used by the MIS Department to grade
Graduate Final Research Paper.
Bottom of Form

16. 1.4
<span class='rangePercent'>(
7
%)</span>
1.8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
9
%)</span>
2.4
<span class='rangePercent'>(
12
%)</span>
0.0320000
2.7
<span class='rangePercent'>(
13.5
%)</span>
3
<span class='rangePercent'>(
15
%)</span>
3.2
<span class='rangePercent'>(
16
%)</span>
3.6
<span class='rangePercent'>(
18
%)</span>

17. 0.0360000
4
<span class='rangePercent'>(
20
%)</span>
1.8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
9
%)</span>
1.8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
9
%)</span>
0.0400000
2.7
<span class='rangePercent'>(
13.5
%)</span>
1.2
<span class='rangePercent'>(
6
%)</span>
1.6
<span class='rangePercent'>(
8
%)</span>
0.0420000

18. 1.8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
9
%)</span>
2
<span class='rangePercent'>(
10
%)</span>
1.2
<span class='rangePercent'>(
6
%)</span>
0.0560000
.
48
<span class='rangePercent'>(
2.4
%)</span>
.
72
<span class='rangePercent'>(
3.6
%)</span>
.
8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
4
%)</span>

19. 0.0630000
0.0700000
0.0900000
0.1200000
0.1350000
0.1500000
0.1600000
0.1800000
0.2000000
0.0600000
Exit
0.0800000
0.1000000
0.0800000
0.0320000
.
48
<span class='rangePercent'>(
2.4
%)</span>
.

20. 64
<span class='rangePercent'>(
3.2
%)</span>
.
72
<span class='rangePercent'>(
3.6
%)</span>
.
8
<span class='rangePercent'>(
4
%)</span>
0.0420000
.
84
<span class='rangePercent'>(
4.2
%)</span>
0.0240000
1.12
<span class='rangePercent'>(
5.6
%)</span>
1.26
<span class='rangePercent'>(
6.3
%)</span>