In RES-815 you selected five empirical articles to begin working on your proposed dissertation topic. For this assignment you will select 10 new empirical articles on your proposed dissertation topic
Dissertation Development - Rubric
Annotated Bibliography
20 points
Criteria Description
Annotated Bibliography
5. 5: Excellent
20 points
An annotated bibliography is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements. Annotations are clear and comprehensive.
4. 4: Good
18.2 points
An annotated bibliography is presented and includes all necessary elements. Annotations are clear and relatively descriptive. They are appropriate to the purpose.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.4 points
An annotated bibliography is presented, but the elements are addressed in a cursory manner.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.6 points
An annotated bibliography is present, but inaccurate or incomplete. Annotations are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An annotated bibliography is either missing or not evident to the reader. Annotations lack any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Alignment and Feasibility
10 points
Criteria Description
Alignment and Feasibility
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
Potential topic displays purposeful alignment to the degree program. The study proposed is feasible and can be accomplished in a timely manner.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
Potential topic displays solid alignment to the degree program. The study proposed is feasible.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
Potential topic displays reasonable alignment to the degree program. The study proposed is feasible but additional focus will allow timely completion.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
Potential topic displays weak alignment to the degree program. The study proposed is not feasible but with significant work could be altered to become feasible.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Potential topic does not display any discernible alignment to the degree program. The study proposed is not feasible.
Problem Statement
15 points
Criteria Description
Problem Statement
5. 5: Excellent
15 points
The problem statement is present and includes all components. The components are addressed well, and the alignment with one another is clear and strong.
4. 4: Good
13.65 points
The problem statement is present and includes all components. The components are addressed well, and the alignment with one another is relatively strong.
3. 3: Satisfactory
12.3 points
The problem statement is present and includes all components. Most are addressed well, but the alignment with one another is weak.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
10.95 points
The problem statement is present and includes all components, but they are not fully addressed and not in alignment with one another.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The problem statement is present but disjointed and missing many components.
Defense of the Need for the Study
10 points
Criteria Description
Defense of the Need for the Study
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
A defense of the need for the study is thorough. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
A defense of the need for the study is present. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
A defense of the need for the study is cursory. Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
A defense of the need for the study is illogical or inaccurate. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A defense of the need for the study is either missing or not evident.
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
10 points
Criteria Description
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
A proposed conceptual/theoretical framework is thorough. Argument for using the framework is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
A proposed conceptual/theoretical framework is present. Argument for using the framework shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion that give appropriate support to the choice of the framework.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
A proposed conceptual/theoretical framework is cursory. Argument for using the framework is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the choice of the framework.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
A proposed conceptual/theoretical framework is illogical. The proposed framework does not align with other components of the study Sufficient support for using the framework is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A proposed conceptual/theoretical framework is either missing or not evident.
Reflection on the Significance of the Study
10 points
Criteria Description
Reflection on the Significance of the Study
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
A reflection on the significance of the study is clear, thorough, and scholarly. Clear evidence of critical thought is present. The reflection connects directly to the articles read.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
A reflection on the significance of the study is present. Clear evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. The reflection connects to the articles read.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
A reflection on the significance of the study is cursory. Some evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. There is a vague connection to the articles read.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
A reflection on the significance of the study is illogical or unreasoned. Critical thought and scholarly reflection are not evident. Connection to the articles read is not evident.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A reflection on the significance of the study is either missing or not evident.
Defense of Article Selection
10 points
Criteria Description
Defense of Article Selection
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
A defense of the article selection is thorough. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
A defense of the article selection is present. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
A defense of the article selection is cursory. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
A defense of the article selection is illogical or inaccurate. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A defense of the article selection is either missing or not evident.
Mechanics of Writing
10 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing
5. 5: Excellent
10 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
9.1 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.2 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.3 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
