HSB4MI – Independent Study Unit, Final Research Report –
COMMENTS and MARKS
KNOWLEDGE/ UNDERSTANDING
Introduction:
(Background
Information)
Excellent - Captures Readers
Attention – Give needed information
on issue to the reader
Well Done – Brief Introduction, but
gives necessary points of information –
needed more detail and explanation on
general information of topic
Needs Improvement – Does not
give enough information to provide
the reader with necessary
background information of the issue.
Need to expand and give more detail
Research Question:
(2 Variables –
independent/cause and
dependant/effect
relationship)
Excellent – Stated research question
is very feasible and the cause and
effect relationship is comprehensive
- variables are related to the topic in
a practical way – relationship of the
2 variables is critical and dependant
on one another
Excellent - Terms are clearly
defined and explained. Reader can
comprehend the focus and
relationship of the variables
Well Done – Research question is well
done and understandable - cause and
effect relationship is clearly stated –
variables are dependant on each other
– however, the variables are
predictable and other variables may
have applied to the research better
Well Done – Terms are defined but
need further explanation.
Needs Improvement – research
question is weak and does not
present the cause and effect
relationship of the 2 variables – not
identified
Excellent –answers the research
question and examines specific
reasons why the cause and effect
relationship of the 2 variables exists
Well Done –answers the research
question briefly – needs more
explanation and reasons for the cause
and effect relationship – somewhat
answers the questions how and why
Definition of Research
Terms:
Hypothesis: (Answered
how and why this issue
is occurring)
Needs Improvement – Terms not
defined at all or not done in a way in
which the reader can understand the
connection and relationship of the
variables
Needs Improvement – Some
explanation given – does not answer
the research question fully – does
not answer the question how and
why
THINKING/INQUIRY
Secondary Research
Introduction: (3 main
arguments)
Secondary Research Argument 1
Paragraph:
Secondary Research Argument 2
Paragraph:
Secondary Research Argument 3
Paragraph:
Concluding Paragraph:
(theory application,
reference to hypothesis)
Primary Research Survey/Interview
Questions:
Excellent – all 3 arguments are
clearly introduced – clear and
concise information is presented
which explains why these topics are
important
Excellent – argument is clear and
concise – it is directly supported
using relevant details/examples/
explanation from research to prove
each argument - information in
paragraph ties directly to research
question and hypothesis
Excellent – argument is clear and
concise – it is directly supported
using relevant details/examples/
explanation from research to prove
each argument - information in
paragraph ties directly to research
question and hypothesis
Excellent – argument is clear and
concise – it is directly supported
using relevant details/examples/
explanation from research to prove
each argument - information in
paragraph ties directly to research
question and hypothesis
Excellent - Sum up each topic correctly and thoroughly use at least
1 theoretical perspective to tie in all
information - refer to hypothesis and
give details whether or not the
research supported the initial
explanation
Well Done – 3 reasonable arguments
are introduced – no further information
or connection is made to the arguments
to connect or explain briefly why these
arguments are important
Well Done – argument is generally
relevant to the hypothesis and research
question - some details/examples/
explanation given from research to
prove each argument is given - points
need further explanation – needed to
expand using further academic sources
Well Done – argument is generally
relevant to the hypothesis and research
question - some details/examples/
explanation given from research to
prove each argument is given - points
need further explanation – needed to
expand using further academic sources
Well Done – argument is generally
relevant to the hypothesis and research
question - some details/examples/
explanation given from research to
prove each argument is given - points
need further explanation – needed to
expand using further academic sources
Well Done – use 1 theoretical
perspective – briefly explained points
related to your research - points need
further explanation and specific details
– provided some connection between
research and hypothesis
Excellent –all/most questions are
relevant and concise - easily
understood by audience – no
evidence of bias or leading
questions – relevant and connected
to secondary research given –
process of questioning was followed
Well Done – most/some questions are
relevant and concise – some questions
easily understood by audience some
questions confusing – little evidence of
bias or leading questions - some
connection to research – process of
questioning somewhat followed
Needs Improvement – 3 or less
arguments are introduced – some
may be relevant and others may not
be relevant – too brief and not
enough information given
Needs Improvement - weak
argument given – lacks detail and
explanation – some relevant points –
needs further explanation and
examples to prove its connection to
the research question and hypothesis
Needs Improvement - weak
argument given – lacks detail and
explanation – some relevant points –
needs further explanation and
examples to prove its connection to
the research question and hypothesis
Needs Improvement - weak
argument given – lacks detail and
explanation – some relevant points –
needs further explanation and
examples to prove its connection to
the research question and hypothesis
Needs Improvement – use 1 or less
theoretical perspectives – connection
between research and theory was too
brief – need to expand and provide
more specific explanation and
details – weak or no reference to
whether or not the research
supported the initial hypothesis
Needs Improvement – some/few
questions are relevant and concise –
questions are difficult to understand
by audience – no evidence of bias or
leading - questions – lack of
connection to secondary research –
process of questioning not followed
COMMUNICATION
Spelling/Grammar:
Sentence
Structure/Formal
Language:
Excellent – none (or fewer than 3)
minor spelling or grammar mistakes
– isolated issues regarding
spelling/grammar
Excellent – none (or fewer than 3)
minor sentence structure mistakes –
isolated issues regarding sentence
structure – formal language used
throughout (contractions, slang…)
Works Citing
Throughout Report:
Excellent – none (or fewer than 2)
minor sourcing issues – isolated
issues regarding APA formatting
APA Editing Checklist
Excellent – rough draft completed
by assigned date – checklist handed
in fully completed – all appropriate
corrections made
Well Done – more than 3 (less than 6)
minor to moderate spelling or grammar
issues – isolated and consistent issues
throughout report
Well Done – more than 3 (less than 6)
minor to moderate sentence structure
issues – isolated and consistent issues
throughout report – formal language
used most of the time (contractions,
slang…)
Well Done – more than 2 (less than 5)
minor to moderate APA formatting
sourcing issues – isolated and
consistent issues throughout report
Well Done – most of the rough draft
was completed by assigned date handed in APA checklist mostly filled
in
Needs Improvement – more than 6
moderate to severe spelling or
grammar issues – throughout entire
report
Needs Improvement – more than 6
moderate to severe sentence
structure issues – throughout entire
report– formal language not used
throughout (contractions, slang…)
Needs Improvement - more than 6
moderate to severe APA formatting
sourcing issues – throughout entire
report – could be considered
plagiarism
Needs Improvement – did not have
rough draft completed on time –
received editing sheet after due date
– some/none filled in
APPLICATION
Theory Application
and Explanation:
Excellent - correctly and thoroughly
use at least 1(or 1 more) theoretical
perspective to tie in all information
– explained aspects of the theory
and connected specific information
to the proper/strongest theory
Well Done - use 1 theoretical
perspective – briefly explained points
related to your research - points need
further explanation and specific details
– some/little explanation of theory and
some connection to points from the
research and a suitable theory
Primary Research
Analysis: (audience,
questions, explanation of
predicted research)
Excellent – clear and concise
rationale – appropriate and detailed
target audience description –
thoroughly explained intent for each
question and what information is
expected
Reference List: (Works
Cited)
Excellent – no mistakes on APA
reference list/works cited page
Well Done – rationale is brief but
gives necessary information – target
audience is given and somewhat
described – needs more explanation or
detail – some factors not listed – some
explanation and analysis of questions –
needs more detail
Well Done – 1-5 minor mistakes on
APA reference list/works cited page
Criteria/Levels
Knowledge/Understanding
 Background Information of Issue
 Research Question
 Defining Terms of Research
 Hypothesis (What? and Why?)
Thinking/Inquiry - Evidence
 Academic Research has 3 main
arguments (Body Paragraphs)
 All points are related to the research
question and hypothesis
 Primary Research Questions
Communication
 Spelling/Grammar
 Sentence Structure/Formal Language
 Completion
 Works Citing Throughout Report
 Rough Draft – APA Editing Sheet
Application
 Theory Application in Conclusion
 Primary Research Analysis (audience,
questions, predicted research)
 APA Works Cited Page
50-59%
Level 1
60-69%
Level 2
Needs Improvement - use 1 or less
theoretical perspectives – connection
between research and theory was too
brief – need to expand and provide
more specific explanation and
details – no explanation of the
theory – little to no connection of
research and theory
Needs Improvement – rationale is
too brief or is not appropriate –
target audience is weak or not
relevant – many critical factors of
target audience not included –
question analysis too brief or not
included
Needs Improvement – 5 or more
moderate to severe mistakes on
APA reference list/works cited page
70-79%
Level 3
80-100%
Level 4