30 to >26.7 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 these sections.

26.7 to >23.7 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response proposes a sample, sampling method, and data collection method. Proposed sampling and data collection align with the research question and the methodological approach and are fully justified through reference to the Learning Resources. At least one scholarly resource is used in these sections.

23.7 to >20.7 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response proposes a sample, sampling method, and data collection method, but they may not align with the research question and methodological approach. Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed justification that does not clearly reference a scholarly resource.

20.7 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response does not propose a sample, sampling method, and data collection method, or the stated methods do not align with the research question and methodological approach. Response makes little or no attempt to justify the sampling and data collection. No resources are used in these sections.

30 to >26.7 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

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

26.7 to >23.7 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response identifies the specific ethical and cultural issues that need to be considered within the context of the proposed study. Response fully explains how the student plans to address those issues. Response demonstrates an evident understanding of the NASW Code of Ethics and culturally competent research. At least two scholarly resources are used in this section.

23.7 to >20.7 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response identifies general ethical and cultural issues that need to be considered. Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of how the student plans to address those issues. Response may demonstrate some understanding of the NASW Code of Ethics and culturally competent research, but it is vague or poorly connected. At least one scholarly resource is used in this section.

20.7 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response makes little or no attempt to identify ethical and cultural issues or explain how to address those issues. Response does not demonstrate understanding of the NASW Code of Ethics and culturally competent research. No resources are used in this section.

24 to >21.36 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.

21.36 to >18.96 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response clearly explains the anticipated results of the proposed study and the approach if the data didn’t align with expectations. Response provides justification that clearly connects to the literature and to the Learning Resources. At least one scholarly resource is used in this section.

18.96 to >16.56 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of the anticipated results of the proposed study and the approach if the data didn’t align with expectations. Response may provide justification, but it only tangentially connects to the literature and/or the Learning Resources.

16.56 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response makes little or no attempt to explain the anticipated results of the proposed study and the approach if the data didn’t align with expectations. No justification is provided.

18 to >16.02 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Response meets expectations and deepens critical thought and reflection by including specific details and examples to illustrate learning.

16.02 to >14.22 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Response clearly explains the student’s growth and insights gained through following the research proposal process. Relevant examples are provided to illustrate learning.

14.22 to >12.42 pts

Fair 70–79%

Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of the student’s growth and insights gained through following the research proposal process. Vague examples are provided to attempt to illustrate learning.

12.42 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Response makes little or no attempt to explain the student’s growth and insights gained through following the research proposal process. No examples are provided.

6 to >5.34 pts

Exceeds Expectation 90–100%

Student demonstrates exceptional ability to utilize research evidence to inform practice.

5.34 to >4.74 pts

Meets Expectation 80–89%

Student demonstrates clear ability to utilize research evidence to inform practice.

4.74 to >4.14 pts

Fair 70–79%

Student demonstrates some ability to utilize research evidence to inform practice.

4.14 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 0–69%

Student demonstrates little or no ability to utilize research evidence to inform practice.

12 to >10.68 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.

10.68 to >9.48 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.

9.48 to >8.28 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.

8.28 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.