DRAFT COPY
Guidelines for Evaluating Student Papers
Gary Steinley & R. L. Erion
These guidelines for the evaluation of papers are intended as a guide for teachers of graduate
level education courses. They are also intended to assist students in their preparation of papers
by helping them be more aware of expectations. Although these guidelines may be adapted to a
wide variety of paper types--book reviews, reaction papers, article critiques, etc.--they're
primarily intended for those serious graduate papers that require library research, considerable
thinking and writing time, and adherence to the APA Publication Manual. These guidelines can
serve as criteria against which those kind of papers can be judged.
The guidelines are organized about three categories: General Guidelines, APA Guidelines,
and Guidelines for Specific Types of Papers. Although there is some inevitable overlap, the
guidelines in each category draw an evaluator's attention to different aspects of a paper being
read.
Also included with this handout is a "Summary" for summarizing evaluative comments on a
given paper. The left-hand column of the page lists guidelines (often compressed) from this
handout, and the right-hand column includes a rating scale and space for written comments. This
is not intended to provide a scoring rubric, but rather guidance in analyzing strengths and
weaknesses.
I. GENERAL GUIDELINES
Some of the guidelines in this category have been generated from the APA Manual and are
peculiar to APA conventions. Most, such as coherence in a paragraph or adequate explanations,
reflect general principles of good writing and are common to virtually any academic writing. In
terms of evaluating a paper, these guidelines demand more interpretation than those in the
second category. For example, paragraph coherence is often difficult to judge, yet it's clearly one
criterion that distinguishes a quality paper from a lesser one. Likewise other criteria, such as the
adequacy of an explanation or the soundness of the author's ideas, require more interpretation
and judgment on the part of the evaluator.
For convenience, the following guidelines have been categorized into four groups--those
guidelines which seem to apply most to the paper as a whole, those directly applicable to the
introduction of a paper, those applicable to the body, and those applicable to the conclusion.
A. Overall Paper
These guidelines reflect general expectations that are appropriate for virtually any graduate
level paper.
1. Within the limitations of graduate course work, literature on the topic has been adequately
researched and understood. This library research is reflected not only through the extent and
1
quality of citation references, but also through the writer's understanding of the topic in
discussions throughout the paper.
2. Ownership of ideas is never a question. It's clear when the writer is citing others and when
his or her own ideas are being expressed.
3. A paper should reflect graduate level thinking. This could be demonstrated in many ways
depending on the kind of paper being written. For example, a student review may be found to
excel in its organization of apparently contradictory or confusing findings. A practical thought
piece might be judged by the author’s success in extrapolating from the literature clear, wellexplained guidelines for professional practice. The evaluation of a more theoretical or analytical
thought piece might be based on soundness of logic and depth of understanding.
4. Quality papers are well-organized. This refers not only to the physical organization of the
paper, but, more importantly, the underlying ideas addressed in the paper. Ideas loosely joined
to a topic are not ready for inclusion in an academic paper. Comprehensibility and memorability
are greatly enhanced when the writer has a clear structure of ideas s/he is trying to communicate
and organizes those ideas so that hierarchical and logical relationships are obvious to the reader.
5. Writing should be considerate. The author has to write so that the reader can construct (reconstruct) a structure of ideas compatible with those the author intended. The writing style
should be clear and direct, avoiding jargon and circumlocutions. A well-written paper provides
processing "instructions" (often referred to as metadiscourse) to help the reader in the
construction of meaning. Conventions which aid in this process include the introduction of a
paper, systems of headings and sub-headings, function paragraphs within a paper (a transitional
paragraph, for example), transitional phrases and comments within topic sentences, and so on.
Since words are only "blueprints for the construction of meaning," there's no doubt that writers
need to help reader's in the constructing process. The trick is provide appropriate help without
becoming overly-obtrusive.
6. A proofed paper is expected. Matters of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and so on should
follow APA conventions. APA usage conventions are generally consistent with other usage
conventions, but there are some differences. For example, according to the Manual a comma is
used before the conjunction in a series. (It's not optional as some other style manuals maintain.)
Section 3 of the Manual contains most of the APA guidelines for usage, spelling, and
punctuation. Section 4 contains typing instructions.
B. Introduction
Introductions, whether in a thought piece or review, are almost always unlabeled. In a paper
claiming to be written in APA format, introductions begin on page 3 two or three spaces below
the title, and their typical overall structure is from general to specific.
1. Introductions typically begin with general background or context, usually backed by
citations from the literature, for the particular topic or purpose of the paper.
2
2. Introductions should always include a rationale for the paper, based on the content of the
paper rather than the particulars of an assignment. The author could explain, for example, how
the paper responds to a need, problem, or question. The need (problem, question, issue, etc.)
could exist within the profession at large, among practitioners, within the general public, a
particular segment of the population, a particular group of professionals, a gap in the existing
literature, etc. . This is sometimes called the “so-what” test of significance.
3. Introductions typically end with a clear and direct statement of the purpose/main idea. If a
paper is intended as a review this should be explicitly stated in the purpose statement. For
example, "The purpose of this paper is to review the literature about . . ." or "This paper is my
response to the question: Is there a research base for current practices on . . . ?"
4. Introductions often state or imply the organization of the paper to prepare the reader for
what is to follow.
5. In addition to the above, introductions might also contain explanations of essential
definitions and/or assumptions. In papers that are more like reviews, the introduction might
contain more empirically-oriented information, such as how the reviewed works were selected,
limitations of the study, and so on.
C. Body
The body of a paper immediately follows the introduction, typically introduced by a heading
announcing the first major section of the paper (never by the heading, Body). Whereas there are
some general expectations governing the structure of introductions, the body of a thought piece
or review is organized directly around the structure of ideas the author wishes to communicate.
In most cases this should be a hierarchical structure of ideas, logically related to one another, and
organized in a manner compatible with the workings of human memory.
For the sake of focusing evaluation, the guidelines below are written to draw attention to the
form and substance of body paragraphs and sections and/or sub-sections within the body.
Although these are different units of a body, guidelines for evaluating them overlap. The form of
the guidelines below represents this overlap.
1. Every paragraph (section/sub-section) is well-unified. Every point and sub-point develops
the main idea implied, stated, or started in the topic sentence. Every paragraph develops the
main idea stated in the heading (and/or perhaps in a brief paragraph introducing the section).
2. Every paragraph (section) is coherent. It's easy to follow the flow of ideas from sentence
to sentence (paragraph to paragraph). There's never any question of how individual sentences
(paragraphs) fit into the whole structure of ideas being developed in the paragraph (section). The
paragraph (section) is not just a string of sentences (paragraphs). The reader does not have to
struggle to see how the parts fit into the whole.
3. Every paragraph (section) is well-developed. The main idea is supported/explained in the
depth needed for that idea and the audience. That is, ideas are not just "mentioned" but
explained by using convincing examples, arguments, and/or citations appropriately .
3
D. Conclusion
The concluding section of a paper typically involves at least several paragraphs. Hence, the
guidelines provided for the body of the paper are relevant, but there are other expectations as
well.
1. The conclusions should follow logically from the content of the paper. Assertions which
are unsuported or which seem to contradict the content of the paper are not acceptable.
2. The conclusions reflect the entire paper. If the writer has described various treatment
programs for bulimia, the conclusions should not be limited to one particular program.
3. The conclusions provide the reader with an integration of the content of the paper. They
are not simply a brief restatement of the content of the paper, but rather elaborate on that content.
Often this includes the implications for practice.
II. APA GUIDELINES
A. Format
If a graduate paper is going to be written following the APA manual (in APA style, format-or however one wishes to label it), then it has to contain certain characteristics such as a
reference section, author/date citations (rather than footnotes), etc. At the same time, it should
be recognized that the APA Publication Manual is not a manual written primarily for graduate
student use. It is a style manual for professionals submitting copy manuscripts, usually reports
of original empirical research, to journals for potential publication. In contrast, graduate students
are usually submitting final manuscripts, typically thought pieces or reviews (or some hybrid
thereof), to professors for evaluation. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the primary
intended purpose of the APA manual and our use of it in the College of Education and
Counseling. As a result, modifications of the APA directives are necessary, and some of those
are reflected in the guidelines that follow. (For further discussion of this issue see section A.01
in the Manual.)
1. An APA paper contains four or five parts: (a) a title page, the first page numbered 1; (b)
an abstract, starting on a new page numbered 2; (c) the text itself, starting on a new page
numbered 3; (d) a references list, starting on a new page numbered from last page of text; and (e)
optional appendixes, starting on a new page numbered from last page of the reference list.
2. If headings and sub-headings are used in the text, they follow the APA system for levels of
headings. See 3.30, 3.31, and 4.10 for guidelines for using heading. (Although they're not
required, it seems that most graduate papers of this sort would demand at least one level of
heading.)
3. The author-date method of citation is used throughout the text. (Sections 3.94-3.103)
4
4. Footnotes are infrequent and used only for content extensions or copyright permission
acknowledgments.
5. Entries in the reference list follow the APA guidelines for the content and form of each
entry. Only works cited in the text appear in the reference list.
6. The paper is basically double-spaced throughout, although single-spacing can be used to
improve readability (for example, long quotations or reference list entries). Likewise judicious
triple spacing (for example, following the paper title on page three) can be used to improve
readability. Both of these adjustments reflect the APA distinction between copy manuscripts
(double-spacing throughout) and final manuscript (judicious use of single-spacing).
7. APA calls for 1 1/2 inch top, bottom, left, and right margins. These margins are for copy
manuscripts and comments of copy editors. Margins should be reduced to 1 inch for student
papers unless individual instructors call for full APA margins.
8. The short title and page number are typed outside the top margin on the right side of the
page. They must be on every page.
9. If used, tables and figures are incorporated at the appropriate place in the text (rather than
at the end of the manuscript as is appropriate for copy manuscripts).
B. Usage
The APA manual also contains directives on use of language. While some of these are
reflected in the general guidelines, we would like to particularly emphasize the following:
1. The author uses appropriate self-reference (“I” or “we” rather than “the author” or “the
authors” (Sec 2.04)).
2. Nonsexist and culturally fair language is expected in all student papers. (Sections 2.13 2.17)
III. GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF PAPERS
In its Publication Manual, the American Psychological Association distinguishes three major
kinds of professional papers--Reports of Empirical Studies, Reviews, and Theory Pieces. Most
papers written for graduate classes are not reports of original research, but fit somewhere in the
other two categories.
The papers many students write are in the category of traditional reviews. That is, students
review the literature seeking a research-based response to some question such as "what is the
relationship between creativity and achievement" or "what successful treatment alternatives exist
for bulimia patients?" Though typically lacking the depth or scope of reviews that appear in
journals, student reviews are reviews nonetheless and can be evaluated against some of the
criteria governing the production and evaluation of more rigorous reviews.
5
Rather than being reviews or review-like, many student papers are more like the theory papers
which the APA includes as a third category, but not quite as narrowly defined. For this category,
we use the broader term thought pieces (borrowed from Edward M. Wolpert) to represent a
diverse category of professional and student writing that could include the serious theory papers
that the APA seems to have in mind as well as a wide variety of other papers: practical papers,
papers that are analytical, speculative, descriptive, argumentative, and so on. Thought pieces
like these pervade professional and student writing, and--given the diversity of the category--it
follows that criteria governing their production and evaluation can be equally diverse. guidelines
applied to a very practical thought piece, for example, will differ somewhat from guidelines
applied to a thought piece that is very analytical.
Within the limitations of this document, two types of guidelines will be discussed below-those applicable when a paper is more of a review and those more applicable to a thought piece.
A. Reviews
Reviews are taken here to reflect the sort of articles found in the Review of Educational
Research. They are noteworthy for exhaustive references, representing a fairly complete
overview of a part of the literature. Because of limitations in time and resources, student papers
are more often synthesis papers which are more like the “synthesis of the research” articles found
in Educational Leadership. These are less exhaustive in their treatment of the literature, but offer
a coherent view of some research with emphasis on implications. What follows is intended
specifically for reviews, but will be also be of help in evaluating and writing syntheses.
1. Reviews (and, less so, syntheses) are written more in the empiricist tradition, somewhere
between original research and thought pieces. The reader can expect to learn something about
the author’s “methodology.” That is, the author should explain the method and rationale used in
acquiring the “population” of work from which the sample in the review is drawn.
2. Although role clarity is expected in all academic writing, it's especially important with
reviews. It must be clear when the reviewer is moving among different roles of the reviewer-reporter, synthesizer, organizer, generalizer, evaluator, interpreter, etc. There's no ambiguity
about which voice is "speaking" at any given time in a good review.
3. Currency is expected , but this is not to suggest that reviews shouldn't reflect some
historical sense of the literature, nor does it imply that only current studies are worth citing.
4. Part of the success of a review lies in how successfully the reviewer was able to organize
the literature for the reader. Reviews are written for readers not familiar with the whole body of
research on a topic or question. A review should be organized to satisfy the purpose of the
review and provide the reader with a coherent and memorable view of extant literature on the
topic.
5. Typically reviews contain a final section in which the author does such things as draw
conclusions from the literature, describe patterns, discuss implications, point out inconsistencies
or gaps in the literature, and so on. This section is an important part of the review. The ideas
developed in this section should accurately reflect what exists in the literature, and they should
6
also reflect serious thinking and analysis on the part of the reviewer. Phrases such as "mixed,"
"inconclusive," or "ambiguous" can reflect sound judgments or indicate the reviewer is ducking
the complexity of the interactions and multiple relationships that dominate educational research.
B. Thought Pieces
Thought pieces are the most varied of the three kinds of papers. Their purpose may be to
persuade, inform, and/or dazzle. The topic may be intellectually, morally, esthetically, and/or
emotionally compelling. A paper which suggests a change in the way special needs students are
classified would be a thought piece. So would a paper on the importance of professionalism or
the future of compulsory schooling. Many thought pieces are syntheses which are much like
reviews, but offer a less balanced and complete view of the literature than would be expected in
a review. Others may provide an explanation of the significance of an event (eg. passage of a
piece of legislature) and be much like historical research, but generally lack the attention to
reconstruction of the details surrounding the event.
At the same time, thought pieces are the most “generic” of papers, so that most of the criteria
for evaluation are found in the General guidelines listed above. The criteria listed below reflect
particular emphases rather than departures from the more general criteria.
1. A thought piece is not simply an opinion paper, nor is it simply a collection of some of the
information available in the library on a given topic. A thought piece should always have some
point and be written in the tradition of rationalism with emphasis on truth through reflection,
reason, and logic.
2. Appropriate reference to the literature is made in terms of quality as well as quantity.
Writers of thought pieces use citations in a variety of ways: to establish a context for their topic,
as support for their ideas, as a foil against which they argue, and so on. Indeed many thought
pieces are primarily the ideas of others synthesized, translated, or applied by the writer.
3. The reader should be able to follow the thought processes by which the writer of the paper
arrived at his or her conclusions. This is done through citations, organization, coherency, etc.
In short, it is one of the intended products of meeting the guidelines listed above. An academic
paper is always intended for the judgment and use of the academic community and the writing
should facilitate this judgment and use.
7
GUIDELINES
Excellent/Adequate/Inadequate
I. GENERAL GUIDELINES
A. Overall Paper
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate support from literature.
Ownership of ideas clear.
Thinking is “graduate level.”
Well-organized.
Communicates.
Adequate proofreading
____
____
____
____
____
____
B. Introduction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background.
Rationale
Purpose.
Organization.
Other (as appropriate).
____
____
____
____
____
C. Body
1. Unity.
2. Coherency.
3. Development.
____
____
____
D. Conclusion
1. Follows logically.
2. Reflects whole paper.
3. Provides integration.
____
____
____
II. APA GUIDELINES
A. Format
1. Parts (present).
2. Title Page
3. Abstract
4. Headings and sub-headings.
5. Citations.
6. Footnotes.
7. References.
8. Line spacing.
9. Margins proper.
10. Pagination and header.
11. Tables/figures.
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
B. Usage
10. Appropriate self-reference
(avoid we/us/our).
11. Nonsexist/culturally fair language.
____
____
8
Comments
III. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Methodology is explained.
“Voice” always clear.
Both current and comprehensive.
Provides coherent overview.
Conclusions appropriate and thoughtful.
____
____
____
____
____
9