Student:
| RQ/Hyp | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
| Clear & concise. Describes nature of study. Indicates setting & subjects. Appropriate format (not a Y/N). Phrased as RQ/hyp that asks about relationship b/t variables. | Describes the nature of the study, but phrasing needs work. Indicates setting & subjects of study. Some work needed on format. Can see relationship b/t variables. | Unclear and/or very wordy. Nature of the study needs to be clarified. Barely indicates setting & subjects. Format needs work (Y/N format, RQ/hyp). Relationship b/t variables unclear. | RQ/hyp not given or phrases in a Y/N format. Unclear & wordy. Need to indicate site and subjects of study. What's the relationship b/t the variables? | |
| Justification | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
| Insightful, concise & understandable; well written. Examination of variables and their relationship thoroughly justified. | Many good points. work on clarity & brevity; good start. Fine justification for study & relationship b/t variables. | Good points are obscured b/c of writing. Some work on clarity & brevity needed. Need to clarify the need for study & relationship b/t variables. | Unclear/ minimal justification given. Need to work on clarity & brevity. Why should the study be done? What's the relationship b/t variables? | |
| Variables | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
| The study contains only 2 variables, at least one of which is abstract. The relationship b/t the variables makes sense. communication behaviors are clearly detailed. | The study contains only 2 variables, at least one of which is abstract. The relationship b/t the variables makes sense. communication behaviors are clearly detailed. | Variables are unclear-(more than 2, both concrete, relationship b/t 2 doesn't make sense). Communication behaviors are not detailed--not studying communication. | Both variables not addressed; there are significant issues w/ their relationship. Communication behaviors are not addressed. | |
| Conceptual Definitions | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
|
|
All definitions given & are well-defined, concise, & make sense. Other terms are defined if needed. Excellent, thorough. In own words. | All definitions are given and well-defined. but need to work on wording a bit. Need to define a few other terms. In own words. | Not all definitions given or well-defined. Need to work on wording. Need to define other terms. Need to put in own words. | Gives only minimal info. Definitions missing and/or lacking clarity; need to put in own words. Doesn't provide enough info to be useful. |
| Operational Definitions | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
|
|
Definitions given for each variable. Most or all possible means of measuring variables given. Concise & understandable. Good fit b/t conceptual & operational. | Definitions given for each variable. Need to clarify possible means of measuring variables. Work on clarity and conciseness. Good fit b/t conceptual & operational. | Definitions not given for each variable. Need to clarify how you'll measure variables. Need clarity & conciseness. Fit b/t conceptual & operational variables unclear. | Operational definitions not given. Need to address how you'll measure variables. |
| Writing | 5 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
|
|
Simple, clear writing that's free of jargon & clutter. Repetition where needed, but no redundancy. Nearly flawless writing that follows all formatting requirements. | Simple, clear writing that's mostly free of jargon & clutter. Repetition where needed, w/ minimal redundancy. Follows formatting. Has been proofread, but still has some writing errors. | Complex, unclear writing w/ jargon & clutter. Lots of redundancy & variation in discussion of study. Needs formatting & proofreading. Many writing errors. | Sloppy writing that doesn't adhere to requirements (e.g., length, formatting). complex, unclear writing that obscures the point of the study. Significant writing errors. |
|
Total: |
/25 |