Quality of Sources

Sources do not meet guidelines for types of sources used 

Sources meet guidelines for types selected but there is no consideration of validity

Several sources are credible but others are not current or have questionable validity

All sources demonstrate careful consideration of validity and sources do not repeat same information

/20

Accuracy

Makes more than 10 errors on citations. 

Makes 6-10 errors on citations.

Makes 3-5 errors on citations.

Includes the complete and accurate bibliographic citation for each source and is organized according to citation method used

/10

Annotations

Little or no information specific to the source is included

One component of the annotation is missing in many citations

One component of the annotation is missing or very limited in several citations

Content Summaries are accurate, evaluation addresses validity of source and usefulness for assignment is included for every source

/20

Annotations Structure

Annotations are missing or are not coherent. 

Poorly written, many generic statements, too short

Well written but contain some generic statements OR not appropriate length.

Well-written, unique to the source, avoids vague statements. Appropriate length.

/20

Overall quality

Sources used would not create an informative paper

Sources miss key topics required by presentation assignment

Bibliography provides sources to create a paper on the topic but is missing some key information

Bibliography could be used to generate a comprehensive research paper with excellent sources.

/30

Abstract

The abstract should show focus and organization, a clear description of the field, clarity of writing and a clear outline of findings.

Organization of abstract could be improved. Purpose and aims of project cannot be determined. Abstract provides virtually no description of method or process used. Incomplete sentences, grammar errors and poor word choice make the abstract unreadable. Abstract provides no statement of findings.?

??Purpose and aims can be inferred but are not clearly stated. Abstract has little to no organization. Abstract hints at method and/or process used but fails to document them clearly. Grammatical errors and word choice make comprehension difficult. Poor writing present throughout. Abstract provides incomplete or unclear statement of findings.

Organization of abstract is good, and purpose and aims are stated. Some clarifying questions may be needed to fully understand project. Abstract adequately describes the method or process; these means appear appropriate for the project described. Some errors and typos may be present. Writing needs considerable improvement. Abstract provides a clear statement of findings.

Organization of abstract is very clear. Purpose and aims are explicitly described—no clarifying questions needed. Abstract includes a research question(s) and describes the process of gathering information from multiple, research-based sources. Abstract is written almost perfectly. No errors (or very limited errors) present, writing is exceptionally clear. Writing is clear and does not interfere with comprehension. Abstract provides a clear statement of findings gleaned from the review of literature.

5

Purpose

The purpose of a literature review is to identify, define, and clarify a problem, gap in knowledge, or issue to be addressed by the proposed research project. In doing so, it should provide an overview of the state of knowledge on the topic through a synthesis of previous research. A literature review should survey appropriate, relevant, and up-to-date sources. It also should persuade the reader of the scholarly significance and need for the proposed research project.

Reads as a dump of information, potentially taking the form of an “all about X” paper. Fails to connect the information to broader scholarly conversations or to use the information to justify the proposed project.

Provides some context for the scholarship included in the review and begins to identify a research problem or gap. Contains some synthesis of scholarship, but fails to provide a cohesive representation of the scholarly conversations surrounding the topic of the proposed project. May include some information that lacks relevance to the proposed project.

Synthesizes scholarship related to the proposed research project. A story is beginning to develop that demonstrates the relationships between relevant scholarly conversations and the proposed project.

Clarifies the research problem, gap, or issue to be addressed by the proposed research project. Strategically examines relations, themes, and trends in the literature in order to build a case for both the significance and need of the research project.

/15

Organisation

A well-organized literature will guide the reader through the scholarly conversation surrounding a topic, setting up the specific contribution(s) the proposed research project will make to that conversation. The literature review should employ a broad-to-narrow structure, opening with context for the problem or issue the project will address, then explaining relevant relations, themes, and trends in existing literature, and ultimately highlighting the gap(s) or need(s) that the project will address. When appropriate (often at the end of the literature review), the literature review will present the proposed project’s research question or hypothesis. Paragraphs or sections should synthesize groups of related sources according to concept, theory, or methodology, rather than summarizing sources one at a time. A well-organized literature review will exhibit coherence, demonstrated by effective transitions, a logical flow of information within and among paragraphs, and balance among its various components.

Exhibits little strategic or deliberate organization. Lacks overall structure, and ideas appears randomly ordered. Lacks transitions between and within paragraphs. May not use paragraphs, or the division of paragraphs may lack logic.

Has some sense of order, but is confusing or inconsistent. The order of information does not effectively set up proposed research project or embed it within a broader scholarly conversation. May rely on formulaic or inconsistent organizational patterns and may not balance ideas appropriately in the paper. May have redundancies or circle around ideas. May move from study to study or author to author.

Displays a deliberate attempt to organize ideas. Has some transitions that shepherd the reader through the literature on the topic, but there may be missing information, abrupt turns, and/or out-ofsequence ideas. Has synthesis that connects thematically related studies within paragraphs or sections, but some studies, authors, or articles may not be fully integrated.

Demonstrates a deliberate organization that follows a broad to narrow structure. Seamlessly and efficiently transitions between ideas.

Paragraphs and sections synthesize related bodies of literature as opposed to summarizing single authors or sources.

/20

Support and development

Support refers to the way the writer uses prior scholarship to develop ideas throughout the literature review and within its paragraphs and/or sections. A well developed literature review will analyze and critically evaluate the literature, utilizing details and examples from sources to provide evidence for its claims and to elaborate key points. It should go beyond superficial evaluations to provide commentary characterized by depth and complexity.

Support and development are severely lacking or absent. Problems with attribution, citation, and plagiarism may be present. If claims about the literature are present, they are not accompanied by adequate evidence and examples. Observations about and evaluations of sources, if present, may be uncritical, illogical, or contradictory. Heavily relies on quotation, and little to no attempt to integrate sources into sentences.

Support and development are faulty or inconsistent. Writer attempts to analyze prior scholarship but offers problematic conclusions that may be vague or simplistic or rely on sweeping generalizations. More sources may be needed. Commentary on sources may be underdeveloped or rely heavily on others’ observations. May demonstrate a

reluctance to criticize the methods, findings, or conclusions in prior scholarship. Descriptions of source material often lack details and examples or include unnecessary details and examples. Doesn’t adequately integrate sources into sentences, often lacking transitions that connect the sources to the surrounding ideas.

Support and development are consistent and logical. Analysis and evaluation of the literature are present and bolstered by evidence that is appropriate and, for the most part, effective. Occasionally, there may be too few or too many details and examples to support claims and points. Commentary reflects critical thinking but may sometimes seem formulaic or warrant further elaboration or explanation. Uses formulaic techniques to integrate sources into sentences.

Support and development demonstrate complexity and sophistication of thought. Carefully selected details and examples support the author’s original analysis and evaluation of the literature.

Commentary not only reflects depth of insight, but also an

awareness of how much or how little explanation the audience needs to understand the author’s points. Uses mostly summary and paraphrase over quotation, and seamlessly integrates sources into sentences.

/20

Style

This trait generally refers to the choices that the writer makes for specific audiences. This may include features like tone, sentence length and structure, phrasing, and word choice. The style should be appropriate for the research area (e.g., use of 1st or 3rd person) and should employ a formal and professional tone, active voice, and precise terminology.

Writing has an inappropriate tone. Sentences and phrases are simplistic, unvaried, or wordy. Writing is stiff, awkward, and difficult to follow. Unclear or incorrect use of terminology or vocabulary.

Writing has an inconsistent or occasionally inappropriate tone. Some sentences and phrases are repetitive, bland, or awkward. Writing is occasionally difficult to follow. Some misused vocabulary or inconsistent terminology. Word choice may be ineffective.

Writing has a consistent and appropriate tone. Sentences and phrases are typically concise and effective but may be somewhat mechanical. Writing is easy to follow. Terminology or vocabulary is appropriate and sensible but may be predictable.

Tone contributes to reader comprehension. Uses varied sentence structure and phrases to convey meaning and to create interest and engagement. Vocabulary is sophisticated, precise, and varied.

/20

Usage, mechanics and formatting

This trait generally addresses issues dealing with writing convention, citation style, and formatting. Features may include grammar, mechanics, usage, citation, punctuation, formatting, and capitalization.

Contains errors across most of the areas of grammar, mechanics, usage, citation, punctuation, formatting, and capitalization. Problems interfere with meaning or distract the reader.

Contains errors across some areas of grammar, mechanics, usage, citation, punctuation, formatting, and capitalization. Problems

Few to no errors across most of the areas of grammar, mechanics, usage, citation, punctuation, formatting, and capitalization. The writing reads smoothly, and problems do not compromise meaning.may, on occasion, compromise meaning or distract the reader.

Demonstrates mastery of grammar, mechanics, usage, citation, punctuation, formatting, and capitalization. May use language and punctuation to enhance meaning.

/10

Reflection

This trait demonstrates reflection on the writing process, critically appraising their own approach and considering changes to writing practice in the future.

Demonstrate a limited understanding of the writing process.

Demonstrate a basic understanding of the writing process.

Demonstrate a thoughtful understanding of the writing process and it’s personal application.

Demonstrate a conscious and thorough understanding of their own writing process, and critically reflects on how it will change their approach in the future.

/10