iRubric: Scientific literature review in computer science (NUI) rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Scientific literature review in computer science (NUI)

Using databases of peer-reviewed journals, students research a topic in computer science and summarize scientific findings and state-of-the-art.

Rubric Code: WX2C222

By cianf1888

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Computers

Type: Writing

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Computer Science Review Topic
	Missing 0 pts	Beginning/Unacceptable 1 pts	Developing/Fair 2 pts	Accomplished/Good 3 pts	Exemplary/Excellent 4 pts
Deadline accomplishment	Missing Missed all deadlines	Beginning/Unacceptable All assignments were submitted but all of them were submitted after the dealing	Developing/Fair One out of 3 assignments were submitted on time	Accomplished/Good Two out of the 3 assignments were submitted on time	Exemplary/Excellent Proposal, First Draft and Final Review were handed on time
Instructions	Missing Did not follow any of the instructions	Beginning/Unacceptable Students did not follow all the formatting instructions provided. Review contents are not divided in the following sections: Abstract 250 words; Table of contents; Introduction comprising, how the review was carried out (databases etc), Historical background, subsection themes; Conclusion/Discussion and further directions; APA References. Review has between 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words)	Developing/Fair Students did not follow all the formatting instructions provided. Review contents are somehow divided in the following sections but some are missing: Abstract 250 words; Table of contents; Introduction comprising, how the review was carried out (databases etc), Historical background, subsection themes; Conclusion/Discussion and further directions; APA References. Review has between 8-10 pages (2000-2500)	Accomplished/Good Students followed most of the formatting instructions provided. Review contents are somehow divided in the following sections but some are missing: Abstract 250 words; Table of contents; Introduction comprising, how the review was carried out (databases etc), Historical background, subsection themes; Conclusion/Discussion and further directions; APA References. Review has between 10-14 pages (2500-3500 words)	Exemplary/Excellent Students followed all the formatting instructions provided. Review contents are somehow divided in the following sections: Abstract 250 words; Table of contents; Introduction comprising, how the review was carried out (databases etc), Historical background, subsection themes; Conclusion/Discussion and further directions; APA References. Review has between 10-14 pages (2500-3500 words)
Topic Selection	Missing Did not present a proposal	Beginning/Unacceptable Topic is very general and has no focus. Scope of the paper is so broad it is impossible to give proper treatment within the given length.	Developing/Fair Student has narrowed the topic somewhat. Further research may lead to a better topic selection.	Accomplished/Good Topic is specific enough that the student can give proper treatment within the given length. Student may still need to narrow the focus by applying specific criteria to eliminate unnecessary information.	Exemplary/Excellent Topic of the paper is clearly defined. Research focus has been narrowed by specific criteria. The state-of-the-art may be clearly given within the paper's length.
Content	Missing Content is not primarily based on Scientific Research	Beginning/Unacceptable Research articles reviewed are scattered and unrelated. Student clearly did not filter out irrelevant articles and instead summarized the top "web hits".	Developing/Fair Articles reviewed had some relation to each other and to the chosen topic. Keyword search may need to be refined.	Accomplished/Good A good general review of the literature is included, covering at least five of the seminal early papers and some relevant current papers. Papers reviewed are cohesive and inter-related.	Exemplary/Excellent Ten to fifteen relevant papers are reviewed, from seminal early works to the latest current developments. The articles reviewed are clearly inter-related and build upon each other to show how we have progressed to the current state-of-the-art.
Organization	Missing Subsections do not exist at all. All concepts are mixed and make no sense	Beginning/Unacceptable Writing is not logically organized. Paragraphs lack topic sentences and may contain more than one major idea. Paragraphs and sentences do not support each other.	Developing/Fair In general, writing is logically organized. Occasionally paragraphs contain more than one main idea or contain sentences unrelated to the main idea. Some support and flow among paragraphs. Reader has a fairly clear idea of what the writer intends.	Accomplished/Good Writing is logically organized to support the central purpose. Paragraphs contain only one main idea, with each paragraph supporting the others. The reader can follow the structure of the paper and understands the writer's intentions.	Exemplary/Excellent Ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose of the paper. Paragraphs contain one topic sentence, and supporting sentences clearly flow from one to the other. Paragraphs also are clearly linked to each other. The reader can easily follow the paper.
Industrial/consumer applications	Missing Non Industrial/consumer applications are mentioned or described	Beginning/Unacceptable Students only present one or two industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review and do not justify why they do not present more.	Developing/Fair At least 2 or 3 different industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review are discussed. If not they should state that not enough information was found in other industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review and this is why they only describe one or two. Students do not describe commonalities/differences between these.	Accomplished/Good At least 2 or 3 different industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review are discussed. If not they should state that not enough information was found on other industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review and this is why they only describe one or two. Students try to find commonalities/differences between the industrial players / consumer applications of the technology but get lost in the discussion, so no clear message is given at the end.	Exemplary/Excellent At least 2 or 3 different industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review are discussed. If not they should state that not enough information was found in other industrial players / consumer applications of the technology and this is why they only describe one or two. Students were able to find commonalities/differences between the industrial players / consumer applications of the technology and briefly discussed them.
Sentence Structure	Missing N/A	Beginning/Unacceptable Errors in sentence structure are frequent enough to be a major distraction to the reader	Developing/Fair Some sentences are awkwardly constructed so that the reader is occasionally distracted.	Accomplished/Good Sentences are well-phrased and there is some variety in length and structure. Flow from sentence to sentence is generally smooth.	Exemplary/Excellent Sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure. They flow smoothly from one to another.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation	Missing N/A	Beginning/Unacceptable There are so many errors the meaning is obscured. Student obviously did not proof read the paper at all.	Developing/Fair Paper has many distracting errors. Perhaps some editing did occur.	Accomplished/Good There are occasional errors, but they are not too distracting and do not obscure the meaning of the sentence.	Exemplary/Excellent Writing is free or almost free of errors.
Conclusions	Missing Conclusions are missing	Beginning/Unacceptable Conclusion is too general about, industrial players / consumer applications / implications of the technology under review and does not describe the technology under study.	Developing/Fair Conclusion section is very specific to particular industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review in the study but not general to the industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review . Commonalities and differences between findings are not mentioned at all.	Accomplished/Good Commonalities and differences between industrial players / consumer applications of the technology under review are mentioned but not clear message is stated. General clear conclusion states somehow if the technology studied is a concern for humanity, the environment or the future of the technology.	Exemplary/Excellent General clear conclusion states if the technology being studied in this review is a concern for humanity, the environment or the future of technology. Commonalities and differences between findings are clearly discussed
Future directions	Missing This section is missing	Beginning/Unacceptable No future directions are given at all	Developing/Fair Message is given about what are the future directions that need to be taken regarding needed research, public awareness of the concerns, solutions problems provided by the technology, as examples. However this is not very well explained and not clearly stated.	Accomplished/Good Some directions are given about what are the future directions that need to be taken regarding needed research, public awareness of the concerns, solutions to problems provided by the technology, as examples.	Exemplary/Excellent Clear message is given about what are the future directions of this areas. What steps need to be taken regarding research, public awareness of the concerns, solutions provided by the technology, as examples. Details and some specific examples are provided.
Use of References	Missing No references provided	Beginning/Unacceptable Student failed to cite sources. Very few references given throughout paper, even though the content clearly did not originate from the student.	Developing/Fair Although attributions are occasionally given, many statements seem unsubstantiated. Sources of information are unclear.	Accomplished/Good Professionally legitimate sources are generally present and attribution is, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. Student made a good effort at citing sources.	Exemplary/Excellent Compelling evidence from legitimate sources are given. Attribution is clear and fairly represented.
Quality of References	Missing No references provided	Beginning/Unacceptable Virtually no professionally reliable sources. Random websites with no qualifications are references. The Wikipedia appeared to be the only source.	Developing/Fair Most of the references are from sources that are not peer-reviewed. Accuracy of the material is unable to be substantiated.	Accomplished/Good Majority of the references cited are from peer-reviewed sources. Accuracy of some sources may not be verifiable but are generally regarded as legitimate. Minimal use of Wikipedia.	Exemplary/Excellent References are primarily peer-reviewed professional journals or other approved sources. Reader is confident that information and ideas can be trusted.

Keywords:

technical writing, literature review, computer science

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric