Research Writing Rubric
| Excellence | Meets Expectations | Developing | Weak | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focused research question or topic | Explores a narrow, original, timely, and significant research question and/or topic. Illustrates a mature understanding of the state of the literature. Exceeds expectations with summary and depth of topic, mature understanding of topic | Addresses a focused research question and/or topic. Illustrates an understanding of the state of the literature. Effective summary and depth, mature understanding of topic | Question and/or topic is relevant but poorly formed, obvious, underdeveloped or overbroad. Shows marginal understanding of literature. Lacking depth or immature understanding. | Weak question and/or topic. Unaware of current research/topic | Not a question. Not a topic. Misinformed. Unethical. Unresearchable. |
| Research selection | Exceeds expectations of required number of sources, uses all relevant databases, uses higher level of evidence on the pyramid | Comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases, uses high-level evidence, meets required number of sources, effective source selection | Level of evidence is inconsistent. Searching only one database meets required number of sources, ineffective source selection | Any of the following: does not meet required number of sources, its dated or irrelevant, biased, weak sources. | All of the following: does not meet required number of sources, dated, irrelevant, biased, weak source selection. |
| Synthesis of research | Synthesis is particularly insightful, novel, or comprehensive, accurate interpretation of the literature | Features explicit efforts to connect information to central topic, accurate interpretations of literature | Some effort to explicitly connect research. Lacking detail or incomplete or inaccurate interpretation of the literature | No synthesis. Mere summary and restatement, and inaccurate interpretation of the literature | Contradictory, confusing, nonsensical |
| Organization | Establishes a sophisticated narrative that enhances understanding of the topic | Produces a central narrative, funnels from general to specific, clear transitions | Some research is misplaced, weak transitions | Organizational scheme is not apparent, lacks transitions | Organization seems random. |
| Citation and Writing Standards | Clear professional voice, stylistic choices that enhances understanding. NLM flawless. | NLM correct. Clear professional voice and concise. Correct grammar, usage, spelling, punctuation. | Minor citation error. Informal voice. Contains some irrelevant, confusing, wordy, or repetitive writing. | Serious or multiple citation errors. Inappropriate voice. Language choices impair understanding. | Multiple serious errors. Absent citation. Language choices impair understanding. |
Reflective Writing Rubric
| Meets expectations | Developing | Weak | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Description of events and background | Provides meaningful details of the events, demonstrates subject matter knowledge and cultural competency | Includes limited or extraneous detail, description lacks technical details or attention to context | Lacks meaningful detail or fails to demonstrate good judgement in the selection of evidence |
| Key findings and assessment of the scenario | Draws conclusions and assess the experience according to explicit criteria | Draws some conclusions from the scenario, but lacks analytical depth | Conclusions drawn area vague, obvious, or incorrect |
| Connections and Extensions | Well-developed critical thinking that draws connections to broader implications, affective dimensions, and relevant knowledge | Identifies some connection to relevant knowledge or circumstances, thoughts, or feelings. Critical thinking is inconsistently demonstrated | Little to no application of critical thinking when making connections to implications or relevant knowledge |
| Moving Forward | Identifies clearly how conclusions will shape professional practice | Identifies elementary conclusions | Conclusions are shallow, incomplete, or based on poor inferences |
| Tone/Professionalism/Writing Standards | Tone is analytical and professional, draws evidence-based conclusions | Tone is personal, relies on impressions rather than data. Contains mechanical or citation errors. | Tone is casual, reliance on cliché or vague conclusions, contains distracting mechanical or citation errors |