Skip to main content

iRubric: Research Paper (Senior Required Application Project) rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Research Paper (Senior Required Application Project) Research paper scoring rubric for the MVCTC Required Application Project. Rubric Code: D9XWA4 By donita_massing Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Arts and Design Type: Writing Grade Levels: 9-12

Research paper (R.A.P)
	Poor 0 pts	Unacceptable 2 pts	Acceptable 3 pts	Good 4 pts	Exemplary 5 pts
Meet the due date	Poor More than 3 school days late.	Unacceptable 3 school days late	Acceptable 2 school days late	Good 1 school day late	Exemplary Submitted on time or early.
Title and submission information	Poor No information provided.	Unacceptable Evidence of two or less	Acceptable Evidence of three	Good Evidence of four	Exemplary Your Name, Instructor’s Name, Course Period, Date, and Title following MLA guidelines
Thesis Statement	Poor Thesis statement is missing.	Unacceptable Incomplete and/or unfocused.	Acceptable States the paper’s purpose in the introduction as a single sentence.	Good Clearly states the paper’s purpose in the introduction as a single sentence.	Exemplary Clearly and concisely states the paper’s purpose in the introduction as a single sentence, which is engaging and thought provoking.
Introduction	Poor The introduction is missing.	Unacceptable The introduction is missing an introductory sentence and/or transition and/or thesis statement.	Acceptable There is an introductory sentence but weak transition to the thesis statement.	Good There is an introductory sentence and adequate transition to the thesis statement.	Exemplary There is an engaging introductory sentence and thoughtful transition to the thesis statement.
Body	Poor The body is missing.	Unacceptable Some paragraphs lack supporting detail sentences.	Acceptable Some paragraphs lack supporting detail sentences.	Good Each paragraph has sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea.	Exemplary Each paragraph has thoughtful supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea.
Content	Poor The content is missing.	Unacceptable Central purpose or argument is not clearly identified. Analysis is vague or not evident. Reader is confused or may be misinformed.	Acceptable Information supports a central purpose or argument at times. Analysis is basic or general. Reader gains few insights.	Good Information provides reasonable support for a central purpose or argument and displays evidence of a basic analysis of a significant topic. Reader gains some insights.	Exemplary Balanced presentation of relevant and legitimate information that clearly supports a central purpose or argument and shows a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of a significant topic. Reader gains important insights.
Sentence Structure	Poor Sentences are incomplete or are only phrases and therefore are missing.	Unacceptable Sentences are ineffectively worded and/or lack topic and/or are poorly structured.	Acceptable Sentence structure is simplistic and/or awkward.	Good Sentence structure is controlled and varied.	Exemplary There are a variety of sentence structures and lengths.
Language	Poor No appropriate use of the language.	Unacceptable Wording is incorrect and/or ineffective.	Acceptable Language is simplistic and/or imprecise.	Good Language is acceptable and/or effective.	Exemplary Language is precise and/or rich and professional.
Mechanics	Poor Punctuation is missing.	Unacceptable Glaring and distracting recognizable errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling.	Acceptable Numerous recognizable errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling.	Good Punctuation, capitalization and spelling have few recognizable errors.	Exemplary Punctuation, capitalization and spelling appear to have no recognizable errors.
Internal Citation	Poor Internal citation is missing.	Unacceptable Only one source work cited.	Acceptable Few cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format.	Good Some cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format. Inconsistencies are evident.	Exemplary All cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format with no recognizable errors.
Use of Sources	Poor No sources are cited.	Unacceptable References are seldom cited to support statements.	Acceptable Although attributions are occasionally given, many statements seem unsubstantiated. The reader is confused about the source of information and ideas.	Good Professionally legitimate sources that support claims are generally present and attribution is, for the most part, clear and fairly represented.	Exemplary Compelling evidence from professionally legitimate sources is given to support claims. Attribution is clear and fairly represented.
Quality of Sources	Poor No sources are cited.	Unacceptable There are virtually no sources that are professionally reliable. The reader seriously doubts the value of the material.	Acceptable Most of the references are from sources that are not peer-reviewed and have uncertain reliability. The reader doubts the accuracy of much of the material presented.	Good Although most of the references are professionally legitimate, a few are questionable (e.g., trade books, internet sources, popular magazines, …). The reader is uncertain of the reliability of some of the sources.	Exemplary References are primarily peer- reviewed professional journals or other approved sources (e.g., government documents, agency manuals, …). The reader is confident that the information and ideas can be trusted.
Conclusion	Poor The conclusion is missing.	Unacceptable Incomplete and/or unfocused.	Acceptable The conclusion does not adequately restate the thesis.	Good The conclusion restates the thesis.	Exemplary The conclusion is engaging and restates the thesis.
Works Cited	Poor No works are cited.	Unacceptable Formatted with many recognizable errors. Includes three (3) references.	Acceptable Formatted with some recognizable errors. Includes four (4) references from at least two (2) types of sources.	Good Formatted with few recognizable errors. Includes five (5) references from at least three (3) different types of sources.	Exemplary Formatted with no recognizable errors. Includes at least five (5) references from at least three (3) different types of sources.

Subjects:

Arts and Design

Types:

Writing

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More Arts and Design rubrics

More Writing rubrics

Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.

Assess

Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.

Share

Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubric^tm.

n202