Even though social workers might think of a compelling research question and have a desire to conduct research, this does not mean that the research is automatically supported by stakeh

36 to >32.04 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Response meets expectations and deepens critical thought through details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. Three or more scholarly resources are used to support these opening sections.

32.04 to >28.44 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response fully introduces the proposed research study through the introduction, problem statement, and research question sections. Response demonstrates evident alignment between the problem and the research question and clearly connects to social work practice. At least two scholarly resources are used to support these opening sections.

28.44 to >24.84 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed introduction to the proposed research study through the introduction, problem statement, and research question sections. Response may demonstrate some alignment between the problem and the research question, but it is vague or poorly connected. Response may make a tangential connection to social work practice. At least one scholarly resource is used to support these opening sections.

24.84 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response makes little or no attempt to introduce the proposed research study through the introduction, problem statement, and research question sections. No resources are used to support these opening sections.

24 to >21.36 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Response meets expectations and deepens critical thought and comparison of the research articles. Literature review fully synthesizes ideas to support the need for the proposed study and expertly connects to the research topic, problem, and question from earlier sections. More than four scholarly resources (the student’s chosen articles) are used in this section.

21.36 to >18.96 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response fully reviews the literature and analyzes it in the context of the research topic. Response incorporates feedback from first draft of literature review. Student’s review supports the need for the proposed study. At least four scholarly resources (the student’s chosen articles) are used in this section.

18.96 to >16.56 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response attempts to review the literature but lacks clarity, depth, and/or analysis. Response may incorporate some feedback from first draft of literature review but may not have addressed areas needed to meet expectations. Student’s review incompletely or vaguely supports the need for the proposed study. At least three scholarly resources (the student’s chosen articles) are used in this section.

16.56 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response makes little or no attempt to review the literature. Response does not incorporate feedback from first draft of literature review. Student’s review does not support the need for the proposed study. Two or fewer scholarly resources (the student’s chosen articles) are used in this section.

36 to >32.04 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Response meets expectations and deepens justification through details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources. Two or more scholarly resources are used in this section.

32.04 to >28.44 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response proposes a methodological approach (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods). Methodological approach aligns with the research question and is fully justified through reference to the Learning Resources. At least one scholarly resource is used in this section.

28.44 to >24.84 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response proposes a methodological approach (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods), but it may not align with the research question. Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed justification that does not clearly reference a scholarly resource.

24.84 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response does not propose a methodological approach (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods), or the stated approach does not align with the research question. Response makes little or no attempt to justify the approach. No resources are used in this section.

6 to >5.34 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Student demonstrates exceptional ability to utilize evidence to inform research. Student demonstrates exemplary critical thought in analysis of research methods.

5.34 to >4.74 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Student demonstrates clear ability to utilize evidence to inform research. Student demonstrates critical thought in analysis of research methods.

4.74 to >4.14 pts

Fair 70–79%

Student demonstrates some ability to utilize evidence to inform research. Student demonstrates some critical thought in analysis of research methods. Analysis lacks needed detail or depth.

4.14 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Student demonstrates little or no ability to utilize evidence to inform research. Student demonstrates no critical thought in analysis of research methods.

18 to >16.02 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. … Paper appropriately paraphrases sources, using one or less quotes. Presents polished APA Style. Citations, reference list, and paper formatting are generally error free (two or fewer). … Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

16.02 to >14.22 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. … Paper appropriately paraphrases sources. Paper may use two to three short quotes but provides appropriate reference. Consistently documents sources in APA Style. Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with a few minimal errors (three to five). The reference list is complete and contains only minimal errors (three to five). Paper formatting is appropriate….There is a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. … Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

14.22 to >12.42 pts

Fair 70–79%

Paper does not meet length requirements (either somewhat too short or too long). The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. …Paper may rely on four short quotes or one to two long quotes (over 40 words) and/or does not sufficiently paraphrase material from other resources into student's own words. Attempts to document sources in APA Style. Citations are present but contain frequent APA errors or omissions. A reference list is provided but is incomplete and/or contains frequent APA errors. Paper formatting may be incorrect (e.g., single-spaced or without a title page). …Occasionally lacks a clear distinction between cited content and original thought….Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

12.42 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Paper does not meet length requirements (either significantly too short or too long). The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. … Paper relies excessively on quoting (five or more quotes) or three or more long quotes (over 40 words), and/or uses quoted material without paraphrasing or referencing the source of the material. Little or no attempt to document sources in APA Style. Citations are infrequent or missing, and a reference list is not provided. Little or no attempt has been made to format the paper in APA Style…. There is no distinction between cited content and original thought. … Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.