This milestone will serve as a rough draft and must cover the three critical elements described in Part I of the Final Project Two Guidelines and Rubric document. ?TopicPSY409Sca

1. COVERAGE & DEPTH OF REFERENCE TO LITERATURE

· Few references to the literature

· Refers to inappropriate literature

· References were made to literature; however, the number of references and their appropriateness is questionable

· Adequate references to the literature

· Refers to appropriate literature

· Explains relevance of the literature to the problem statement

· More than adequate references to the literature

· Uses appropriate literature and explains relevance of each citation

· Relevance of the literature and connection to problem statement is clear and concise

· Exhaustive coverage of literature

· There is no doubt in the reader’s mind as to the relevance of the literature reviewed and the problem statement

2. ANALYSIS/ EVALUATION OF LITERATURE

· The student-writer did not identify how the reviewed studies related to the research problem

· The student-writer failed to deconstruct each study and the description of the results and conclusions was unclear and/or inaccurate

· The student-writer did not demonstrate a thorough evaluation of the literature

· The student-writer failed to express any judgments about the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.

· The relationship of the reviewed studies and the research problem was somewhat vague or unclear

· Some, but not all, of the studies deconstructed

· The description of the results and conclusions of studies may have been either vague or difficult to interpret

· The student-writer expressed judgments about some of the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.

· However, the judgments were not always appropriate

· The student-writer identified how the reviewed studies related to the research problem

· Most of the studies deconstructed

· The description of the results and conclusions of studies were stated

· The student-writer demonstrated a somewhat thorough evaluation of the literature

· The student-writer expressed appropriate judgments about many of the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.

· The student-writer clearly identified how the reviewed studies related to the research problem

· All of the studies were deconstructed

· The description of the results and conclusions of studies were easy to interpret

· The student-writer demonstrated a thorough evaluation of the literature

· The student-writer expressed legitimate judgments about all the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, validity, etc.

· The student-writer clearly and concisely identified how the reviewed studies related the research problem

· All of the studies were clearly and concisely deconstructed

· The student-writer demonstrated a thorough evaluation of the literature

· The student-writer clearly and concisely expressed judgments about all the reviewed studies in regard to the research methods, design, sampling, etc.

3. CONCLUSION/ SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS

· The student-writer did not attempt or failed to combine the reviewed studies to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic

· The student-writer attempted to combine the literature to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic

· However, the summary lacked in clarity and cohesiveness

· The student-writer combined the literature to create a summary of the research related to the issue/topic

· The summary was mostly clear and cohesive

· The student-writer combined the literature to create a very clear and cohesive summary of the research related to the issue/topic

· The student-writer combined the reviewed studies to create an exceptionally clear and cohesive summary of the research related to the issue/topic

4. PARTICIPANTS

-sampling techniques

-appropriateness of sample

· The sampling techniques described were not accurate and appropriate.

· The sample chosen was not appropriate or relevant given the problem statement.

· The sampling techniques described were mostly accurate and appropriate.

· The sample chosen was not appropriate or relevant given the problem statement.

· The sampling techniques described were mostly accurate and appropriate.

· The sample chosen is appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.

· The sampling techniques described were accurate and appropriate.

· The sample chosen was appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.

· The sampling techniques were clearly described and were undoubtedly accurate and appropriate.

· The sample chosen was appropriate and relevant given the problem statement.

5. PROCEDURES

-clarity of procedures

-appropriateness of methods

-ethically appropriate procedures

· The procedures were either not described or the description was significantly lacking.

· The proposed procedures were not ethical (Informed consent is not mentioned at all)

· The proposed methods were not discussed. Most to all of the descriptions were not accurately named.

· The procedures were described.

· The proposed procedures were somewhat ethical.

· The proposed methods were discussed. Most descriptions were accurately named.

· The procedures were described.

· The proposed procedures were ethical. Informed consent is included.

· The proposed methods were discussed and accurately named.

· The procedures were clearly described.

· The procedures were ethical and informed consent covered all participants.

· The proposed methods were thoroughly discussed and accurately named.

· The procedures were clearly described.

· The proposed procedures were ethical. Informed consent included. Thorough Human Subjects Review information.

· The proposed methods are thoroughly discussed and accurately named. The method described is clear and concise.

6. DATA MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS

–appropriateness of instrument

–findings and expected results

· Means of data collection were not appropriately chosen.

· Instrumentation was not discussed.

· An explanation of proposed analysis and/or the expected results and anticipated outcomes were not discussed

· Means of data collection were mostly appropriate.

· Most, but not all instrumentation was discussed.

· Either an explanation of proposed analysis and/or the expected results and anticipated outcomes were not discussed.

· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.

· All proposed instrumentation was discussed.

· An explanation of proposed analysis was given.

· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.

· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.

· All proposed instrumentation was discussed.

· An explanation of proposed analysis was given and was accurate. Included appropriate statistical analysis.

· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.

· Means of data collection were appropriately chosen.

· All proposed instrumentation is thoroughly discussed.

· An explanation of proposed analysis was given and was accurate and as thorough as possible. Included a thorough statistical analysis.

· Expected results and anticipated outcomes were discussed.

7. DISCUSSION

-accurate and appropriate limitations and implications

· The discussion was lacking.

· An insufficient number of limitations and implications were offered OR the limitations and implications offered were inaccurate and inappropriate.

· The limitations and implications (if offered) demonstrated a very poor understanding of the study and/or research methods.

· The discussion was lacking.

· The limitations and implication offered were either inaccurate and/or inappropriate and demonstrated a poor understanding of the study and/or research methods.

· The discussion somewhat thorough.

· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.

· Some of the limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a less sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.

· The discussion was thorough.

· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.

· Most, but not all limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.

· The discussion was very thorough.

· Accurate and appropriate limitations and implications were offered.

· All of limitations and implications were well-thought out and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the study and/or research methods.

8. APPENDICES

· The student-writer did not include all of the necessary appendices—more than 2 were not included.

· The items that were included were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate OR they were not thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.

· Some, but not all of the necessary appendices were included—2 items were not included.

· The items that were included were either all or mostly thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.

· Some, but not all of the necessary appendices were included—only 1 item was not included.

· The items that were included were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.

· All of the necessary appendices were included.

· Most, but not all items were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.

· All necessary appendices were included.

· All appendices were thorough, well-organized, clear, and appropriate.

9. WRITING STYLE

· The paper was difficult to read and understand due to the many errors and unclear writing and organization of thoughts

· Significant (more than 8) spelling and grammatical errors were found throughout the paper

· There were a few areas where the wording was confusing

· Although the main idea of the paper could be understood, readers may have to re-read section so as to understand the writing

· 5-8 errors in spelling, punctuation or word choice

· Overall, writing was clear and easy to understand; no re-reading was necessary

· Most sentences are smooth to make each paragraph understandable

· Ideas were logically organized into paragraphs and supported with references to the literature

· Several (between 3-4) spelling and grammatical mistakes were found

· Most of the paper was clearly organized

· Most sentences were carefully composed for smoothness within each paragraph

· References to the literature were appropriately used and clearly supported the student-writer’s claims

· Few (between 1-2) errors in spelling, punctuation or incorrect word choice

· The student-writer was clear, coherent, and concise

· The writing was compelling, clearly organized, and easy to read

· The thoughts were organized and developed in a logical sequence

· There were no mistakes in grammar, spelling, or punctuation

10. FORMATTING/ (APA, Citations, References, Etc.)

· More than 8mistakes in formatting references, citations, and/or quotations were found

· The cover sheet, text, and/or margins of the paper were incorrectly formatted in APA style

· Some (5-7) errors in formatting of the cover sheet and/or text of the paper (i.e., font requirements/ margins, etc.) formatting of the cover sheet

· Some (5-7) errors in formatting references (i.e., capitalization and punctuation errors)

· References or quotes were properly cited most of time; no more than 4 errors in formatting references, citations, and/or quotes were found

· The cover sheet was formatted in accordance with APA style

· References and quoted material were properly cited and only 1-3 errors were found.

· The cover sheet was formatted in accordance with APA style.

· References and quotations were all properly cited according to APA format.

· The entire paper was formatted correctly according to APA style