A P P E N D I X F P O R T F O L I O E N T R Y : 3 A C T I O N R E S E A R C H P A P E R R U B R I C

Completed in TDE 665

CRITERIA Basic Level1.0

Approaching Expectations2.0

Meets Expectations3.0

Exceeds Expectations4.0

Score

AbstractInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;NETS-T 2, 5

Described the study incorrectly and incompletely, did not include most of the key components in the study- context, need or purpose, problem statement or research question, methodology, participants, findings, conclusions, recommendations and implications for educational change, reported results in a subjective, biased manner; made many editorial commentaries; many redundancies; used incorrect tenses; used first rather than third person; used passive rather than active voice; used block format, went over 250 words and more than one page

Described the study incoherently, and incompletely, did not include a few of the key components in the study- context, need or purpose, problem statement or research question, methodology, participants, findings, conclusions, recommendations and implications for educational change, reported results in an objective, unbiased manner; made some editorial commentaries; some redundancies; used inconsistent tenses; used third rather than first person; used active rather than passive voice; used block format, stayed within 150-250 words but went over one page

Described the study coherently, completely and concisely, included all of the key components in the study- context, need or purpose, problem statement or research question, methodology, participants, findings, conclusions, recommendations and implications for educational change, reported results as they are, in an objective, unbiased manner; refrained from editorial commentaries; a few redundancies; used correct tenses; used third rather than first person; used active rather than passive voice: used block format, stayed within 150-250 words, one page

Described the study interestingly, coherently, completely and concisely, included all of the key components in the study- context, need or purpose, problem statement or research question, methodology, participants, findings, conclusions, recommendations and implications for educational change, reported results as they are, in an objective, unbiased manner; refrained from editorial commentaries; no redundancies; consistently used correct tenses; used third rather than first person; used active rather than passive voice; used block format, stayed within 150-250 words, one page

IntroductionInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9; NETS-T 2, 5

Failed to describe the context and circumstances of the study; no attempts to connect the study with differentiated instruction; incorrectly stated research question in a nonspecific,

Somewhat described the context and circumstances of the study; made some attempts at connecting the study with differentiated instruction; inconsistently stated research question in a specific,

Clearly described context and circumstances of the study; made many attempts at connecting the study with differentiated instruction; stated research question in a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely manner, clearly specified the need

Clearly described context and circumstances of the study in an interesting manner; made strong connection with differentiated instruction; stated research question in a specific, measurable,

non-measurable, unachievable, irrelevant and untimely manner, weakly specified the need for the study

measurable, achievable, relevant and timely manner, somewhat specified the need for the study

for the study achievable, relevant and timely manner, clearly and convincingly specified the need for the study

Literature Review with ReferencesInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;NETS-T 2, 5

Failed to restated topic and background information is unclear, did not present conceptual framework but did not attempt to relate themes and patterns clearly and logically; disorganized and did not use subheadings at all, concluded with an unclear and incorrect reiteration of the need for the study in relation with extant literature, failed to connect own study with existing research, many redundancies; did not weigh both sides of the issue; made no connections between other studies and own study; cited only 5 or less relevant and current sources (within the last 5 years except for the classics and out-of-print books) from

Restated topic and background information is unclear, attempted to present conceptual framework but related themes and patterns are not clearly and logically organized; used subheadings in some sections, concluded with an unclear reiteration of the need for the study in relation with extant literature, weakly connected own study with existing research, covered most content and related research dealing with topic but with some redundancies; looked at one side of the issue more than the opposite issue; made weak connections between other studies and own study; cited at least 6-7 relevant and current sources (within the last 5 years except for the classics and out-of-print books) from reputable

Restated topic and laid out background information in a clear and scholarly manner, presented conceptual framework citing related themes and patterns in logically organized and well-constructed paragraphs; used subheadings appropriately, concluded with a some reiteration of the need for the study in relation with extant literature, connected own study with existing research, covered appropriate content and related research dealing with topic in depth without being redundant; looked at both sides of the issue; made clear and explicit connections with own study; cited 8-9, relevant and current sources (within the last 5 years except for the classics and out-of-print books) from reputable sources; all sources cited in the text appear in and

Restated topic and laid out background information in a very clear, interesting and scholarly manner, presented conceptual framework citing related themes and patterns in logically organized and well-constructed paragraphs; used appropriate subheadings throughout, concluded with a reiteration of the need for the study in relation with extant literature, connected own study with existing research, covered appropriate content and related research dealing with topic in depth without being redundant; looked at both sides of the issue; made clear and explicit connections with own study; cited 10 or

reputable sources; some sources cited in the text did not appear in and accurately match the references and vice versa; followed APA format correctly but inconsistently

sources; a few sources cited in the text did not appear in and accurately match the references and vice versa; followed APA format correctly but inconsistently

accurately match the references and vice versa; followed APA format correctly and consistently

more, relevant and current sources (within the last 5 years except for the classics and out-of-print books) from reputable sources; all sources cited in the text appear in and accurately match the references and vice versa; followed APA format correctly and consistently

CRITERIA Basic Level1.0

Approaching Expectations2.0

Meets Expectations3.0

Exceeds Expectations4.0

Score

Methodology with the AppendixInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;NETS-T 2, 5

Failed to explicitly state the research design; did not purposefully triangulate data sources (only 1 or 2 out of 3), did not describe valid, reliable and bias-free instruments/ intervention used; attached only 1 of 3 tools of inquiry in the Appendix, did not outline data collection procedure with no timeline; provided general ways of analyzing and interpreting data and did not refer to statistical tests to be used; did not describe context and environmental factors such as physical (geographical location), temporal (time of day), social (individuals or groups) and cognitive (curriculum and core standards); failed to specify selection and demographics of the

Somewhat alluded to the research design but did not explain why it was chosen; purposefully triangulated data sources (only 2 out of 3), but vaguely described valid, reliable and bias-free instruments/ intervention used; attached 2 of 3 tools of inquiry in the Appendix, mentioned incomplete data collection procedure with no timeline, provided general ways of analyzing and interpreting data and vaguely referred to statistical tests to be used; somewhat described context and environmental factors such as physical (geographical location), temporal (time of day), social (individuals or groups) and cognitive (curriculum and core standards); vaguely specified selection and

Identified the research design but did not explain why it was chosen; purposefully triangulated data sources, described valid, reliable and bias-free instruments/ intervention used, attached at least three tools of inquiry in the Appendix, outlined step by step data collection procedure with no timeline, provided general ways of analyzing and interpreting data and somewhat stated statistical tests to be used; completely described context and environmental factors such as physical (geographical location), temporal (time of day), social (individuals or groups) and cognitive (curriculum and core standards); specified selection

Identified the research design and explained why it was chosen; purposefully triangulated data sources, described valid, reliable and bias-free instruments/ intervention used, attached at least three tools of inquiry in the Appendix, outlined step by step data collection procedure with a realistic timeline, provided specific ways of analyzing and interpreting data and clearly stated statistical tests to be used; clearly described context and environmental factors such as physical (geographical location), temporal (time of day), social (individuals or groups) and cognitive (curriculum and core standards); specified selection and demographics of the participants (e.g., age, gender, SES, ethnicity, special needs), showed evidence of protection of

participants (e.g., age, gender, SES, ethnicity, special needs), showed no evidence of protection of human subjects and assurance of confidentiality (completion of CITI or IRB approval in the Appendix)

demographics of the participants (e.g., age, gender, SES, ethnicity, special needs), showed little evidence of protection of human subjects and assurance of confidentiality (completion of CITI or IRB approval in the Appendix)

and demographics of the participants (e.g., age, gender, SES, ethnicity, special needs), showed evidence of protection of human subjects and assurance of confidentiality (completion of CITI and IRB approval in the Appendix)

human subjects and assurance of confidentiality (completion of CITI and IRB approval in the Appendix)

Findings with AppendixTables and FiguresInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;NETS-T 2, 5

Discussed the collected data in a limited fashion and did not use properly-labeled and APA-formatted tables and figures to enhance the narrative; unclear conclusion based on findings (no raw data in Appendix); weakly compared findings with other studies cited in the literature review; failed to identify limitations of the study and did not mention generalizability or validity

Discussed the collected data in some fashion but used inconsistently-labeled and APA-formatted tables and figures to enhance the narrative; somewhat explained or alluded to a conclusion based on findings (incomplete raw data in Appendix); somewhat compared findings with other studies cited in the literature review; weakly identified limitations of the study including generalizability or validity

Discussed the collected data in an organized fashion; appropriately used properly labeled and APA-formatted tables and figures to enhance the narrative; arrived at a plausible conclusion based on findings (raw data in Appendix); compared findings with other studies cited in the literature review; identified limitations of the study including generalizability and validity

Thoroughly discussed all of the collected data in a clear and organized fashion; appropriately used properly labeled and APA-formatted tables and figures to enhance the narrative; explained how conclusion was arrived based on findings (complete raw data in Appendix); applied appropriate statistical analysis; compared findings with other studies cited in the literature review; identified limitations of the study including generalizability, reliability and validity

ReflectionInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;NETS-T 2, 5

Failed to consider the action research process with no mention of the obstacles, successes, or lessons learned are missing; identified limited problems that remain unresolved and recommended inappropriate research questions for further study; unrealistic plan of action as next steps; included some ways to share the results; vague conclusion with an overall summary of the research with some implications for the teacher researcher’s practice.

Considered the action research process but some of the obstacles, successes, or lessons learned are missing; identified limited problems that remain unresolved and recommended inappropriate research questions for further study; unrealistic plan of action as next steps; included some ways to share the results; vague conclusion with an overall summary of the research with some implications for the teacher researcher’s practice.

Considered the action research process including obstacles, successes, and lessons learned; identified new problems that need to be resolved and recommended appropriate research questions for further study; realistic plan of action as next steps; included ways to share the results; concluded with some summary of the research with implications for the teacher researcher’s practice

Considered the action research process with depth and substance including obstacles, successes, and lessons learned; identified new, as well as old problems that remain unresolved and recommended well-stated research questions for further study; realistic plan of action as next steps; included ways to share the results; concluded with an overall summary of the research with implications for the teacher researcher’s practice

Mechanics and OverallInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9;

Did not follow APA format and template guidelines, no subheadings, many spelling and grammatical errors, difficult to understand, flows logically, professional and scholarly

Followed APA format and template guidelines inconsistently, used some subheadings, some spelling and grammatical errors, easy to understand, flows logically, professional and scholarly

Mostly followed APA format and template guidelines with appropriate subheadings, a few spelling and grammatical errors, used Times New Roman or Arial 12-point font, double-spaced;

Consistently and correctly followed APA format and template guidelines with appropriate subheadings, no spelling and grammatical errors, interesting to read and easy to understand, flows logically, professional and scholarly

NETS-T 2, 5 used professional writing style

Timeliness & technical requirementsInTASC 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9; NETS-T 2, 5

Submitted incomplete copy in separated Word documents 3 days after the due date with no self-evaluation in the rubric

Submitted incomplete copy in one Word document 1-2 after due date with incomplete self-evaluation in the rubric

Submitted clean final copy in one Word document on the due date with completed self-evaluation in the rubric

Submitted clean final copy in one Word document before due date with completed self-evaluation in the rubric

TOTAL

Note: This action assignment is 35% of your final grade in TDE 655 (formerly TDE613). The 75% will be determined by your participation in group discussions 5 & 6 and action assignments 5-7. There are no more resubmissions at this point; however, you are still expected to make all suggested changes addressing instructor’s comments before including a clean copy of this final paper in your portfolio. The corrected final version will be archived at Marian University as evidence of your scholarly work.

Number of times submitted before proficient (minimum score of 40/50 required for proficiency) ________________