Skip to main content
iRubric: Literature Review rubric

iRubric: Literature Review rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Literature Review 
Literature Review
Literature review on self-study topic relating to sintering for post graduate sintering theory course. Sources: Cornell University Assessment Rubrics; Dr Joanna Migrock, U Texas (http://www.utexas.edu/ugs/sig/plan/samples/writing-rubric7)
Rubric Code: R22685B
By kligeb
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Engineering  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Post Graduate

Powered by iRubric Criteria
100 %
  Needs Improvement

5 pts

Developing

10 pts

Meets Expectations

15 pts

Exceeds Expectations

20 pts

Content & Organization
90 %
Organisation
20 %

Matrix/Paper is organised in a logical manner with an opening paragraph and body. You may or may not have a concluding paragraph at this time. Clear and logical transitions exist between sections that link core concepts.
Needs Improvement

The matrix/paper is lacking organisation of ideas. Poor flow of content and progression between sections. Links between core concepts are missing, misleading or incorrect.
Developing

The overall structure of the review is clear, but some sections are weak. Transitions that clarify the relationships between core concepts are occasionally either missing, misleading or incorrect.
Meets Expectations

The review is clearly organised. A logical progression of ideas is presented with some discussion in each section. Transitions between sections, that link core concepts, give a clear flow to the report.
Exceeds Expectations

The review is exceptionally organised. Writer demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed discussions in each section. Transitions between sections, that link core concepts, enhance the flow of the report.
Introduction
20 %

Introduction of topic including objectives, motivation and scope of study.
Needs Improvement

The paper does not contain an introduction or is lacking core objectives.
Developing

An attempt at introducing the topic is made with a fairly clear statement of the objectives.
Meets Expectations

Introduces the topic and states the objectives clearly. The scope and motivation for the study are briefly touched on.
Exceeds Expectations

Introduces the topic in an engaging and interesting manner. Clearly and concisely states objectives and scope of the work, giving a thorough motivation for the study.
Content
30 %

The content is comprehensive and accurate. Core concepts are discussed that relate to the objectives and lead to the development of the conclusions.
Needs Improvement

The content is inadequate or inaccurately presented. Core concepts are not discussed or are irrelevant to objectives.
Developing

The content covers the most important topics, but further material is needed to fully cover the subject or some of the content is presented unclearly. Discussion of core concepts is attempted but not fully developed.
Meets Expectations

The content covers an sufficient range of material accurately. Discussion of core concepts links to the objectives of the study and leads up to the conclusions of the study.
Exceeds Expectations

The content is exceptionally comprehensive and accurate. Core concepts are discussed in-depth, linking discussions to the objectives and leading to conclusions that spark new ideas.
Conclusion
20 %

Relevant conclusions that relate to the objectives and follow from the content of the review are presented.
Needs Improvement

The paper does not contain a conclusion.
Developing

Conclusion is not finished or does not restate the thesis.
Meets Expectations

Conclusion is complete but is not original. Rehash of Introduction.
Exceeds Expectations

Conclusion is complete and completely original.
References
10 %

A range of relevant sources have been carefully selected for the review. Analyses at least 4 documents.
Needs Improvement

Selection of sources is inadequate or irrelevant to topic. Citations omitted from text.
Developing

Adequate selection of sources, however not all are relevant or correctly cited in the text. At least 4 sources referenced.
Meets Expectations

Adequate selection of relevant sources that are correctly cited in the text. At least 5 sources referenced.
Exceeds Expectations

Relevant and thorough selection of sources that are cited correctly and strategically throughout text. Key papers on topic have been sourced. At least 6 sources referenced.
Format & Style
10 %
Grammar & writing style
50 %

Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed. Spelling is correct.
Needs Improvement

Errors or shortcomings in this area of assessment lead to confusion of ideas.
Developing

An occasional error in this area may cause the reader to a moment of confusion.
Meets Expectations

There are very few errors in this area, only a few typos. The review reads easily and clearly.
Exceeds Expectations

The paper follows the major conventions of grammar and punctuation leading to a clear and understandable expression of ideas. It is a pleasure to read.






Discuss this rubric




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

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 iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n16