RUBRICS FOR RESEARCH PAPER |
Exceeds Standard | Meets Standard | Nearly Meets Standards | Does Not Meet Standard |
| Title Page | Title Your Name, Teacher’s Name, Course Period, Date, Neatly finished-no errors |
Title |
Title, Name of writer |
No title page |
| Thesis Statement | Clearly and concisely states the paper’s purpose
in a single sentence, which is engaging, and thought provoking. |
Clearly states the paper’s purpose in a single sentence. |
Introduces the topic. Somewhat maintains focus on the topic.
Includes some transitions to connect key point Ends with a conclusion based
on evidence. |
Incomplete and/or unfocused statement of thesis |
| Introduction | The introduction is engaging, states the main topic and
previews the structure of the paper. Nuanced definition of terms, background,
summary of prior work on question, status at beginning of research |
The introduction states the main topic and previews the
structure of the paper. Good definition of terms,
background, summary of prior work on question, status at beginning of research |
The introduction states the main topic but does not adequately
preview the structure of the paper.
|
There is no clear introduction or main topic and the structure of the paper is missing. |
| Body | Each paragraph has thoughtful supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. | Each paragraph has sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. | A few paragraphs lacks supporting detail sentences. | Many paragraphs fails to develop the main idea. |
| Organization-Structure Development of Ideas | Writer demonstrates logical and subtle sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs and sub topical organization | Paragraph and sub topical organization present but not perfected or logically developed | Organization and presentation of ideas not developed | No evidence of structure to paper, or organization of ideas or themes within it |
| Conclusion | The conclusion is engaging and restates thesis | The conclusion restates the thesis | The conclusion does not adequately restate the thesis | Incomplete/unfocused |
| Mechanics | No errors of punctuation, capitalization or spelling | Almost no errors | Some errors of punctuation, capitalization, spelling | Many errors of punctuation, capitalization, spelling |
| Usage | No errors of sentence structure or word usage | Almost no errors | Some errors of grammar that do not adversely effect sense | Numerous and distracting errors of grammar that interfere with sense of the paper |
| Citation | All works cited, both text and visual, are done in correct format | All works cited. Inconsistencies in format | Some works cited. Inconsistent format | Deficiency in citing works |
| Bibliography | Done in APA format with no errors. Includes more than 15 scholarly sources, with complete coverage of scholarly work on topic | Done in APA format with almost no errors. More than 15 scholarly sources | APA format, some minor errors. Less than 15 sources, or incomplete coverage substantive scholarly work on the topic | Poorly formatted. Few scholarly references |
| Details of Research | Includes detail of all findings, with clear presentation of methods for discovery of those findings. Clear definitions of major concepts and explanatory perspectives | Includes detail of all findings with presentation of methods of discovery. Good definitions of explanatory concepts | Includes detail of findings. Definition of explanatory concepts | Deficient in presentation of findings, sources, methods, and explanatory concepts and perspectives. |
| Effectiveness | Reader has a thorough understanding of topic researched, as well as supporting pro/con arguments for thesis. | Reader has good understanding of topic researched and support available for thesis. | Reader is able to develop some understanding of topic and research process used | Reader is unsure of thesis, topic, or research methods used. |