Task 3 | Critical Abstract (Your Article)
Instructions
what you have to do |
|
delivarable |
|
dates | Begins : 6 pm, Mon 5 Oct |
why are we doing this? |
|
note |
|
Rubric
5: Excellent | 4: Good | 3: Average | 2: Below Average | 1: Needs improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Displays almost all (≈ 90%) of the indicators. | Displays a vast majority (≈ 75%) of the indicators. | Displays many (≈ 50%) of the indicators. | Displays several (≈ 25%) of the indicators. | Displays a few (≈ 10%) of the indicators. |
Assessment Items | 4 Very good / Mostly no problems / Meets requirements well | 3 Good / Minor problems / Largely meets requirements | 2 Only fair / Some problems / Only meets basic requirements | 1 Poor / Major problems / Does no reach requirements |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content (40%) | |||||
(a) | Summary clearly and succinctly reflects the gist in the study. | Summary clearly and succinctly reflects the gist in the study. | Summery is generally clear and succinct but some areas need more work/ but there is slight imbalance in content reported. | Summary may touch on key points and does not give context to allow for better understanding OR summary gives too much elaboration on particular ideas. | Summary is either too elaborated or not comprehensive. |
(b) | Information is accurate. | Information is fully accurate. | Information is accurately nearly all the time. | Information is generally accurately but has noticeably lapses. | Information is seriously inaccurate. |
(c) | Attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study. | Successful attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with substantial elaboration. | Good attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with sufficient elaboration/ but there are some lapses. | Some attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study with some elaboration/ but there are noticeable lapses. 2 | Some attempts to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the study/ but there are serious lapses OR evaluation is based on personal and not scientific assessment. |
(d) | Demonstrates one or more of the following features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth. | Fully demonstrates the following features in analysing the study:clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study. | Demonstrates most of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study. | Demonstrates some of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study. | Demonstrates few of the features in analysing the study: clarity, complexity, perceptiveness and originality, and depth in analysing the study. |
Organization (20%) | |||||
(a) | Demarcation between rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) are very clear. | Very clear and effective demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion). | Generally clear and effective demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion). | Some indication of demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) but this is not always easily discernible. | Some attempts at demarcation of rhetorical moves (from introduction, summary, evaluation and conclusion) but the flow of ideas is not clear at all. |
(b) | The sentences and paragraphs are coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly). | The sentences and paragraphs are coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” very smoothly. There are no gaps between ideas.). | The sentences and paragraphs are generally coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly in most cases. There are some gaps between ideas but these are minor.). | The sentences and paragraphs are fairly coherent (i.e. the ideas are logically linked and they “flow” smoothly in most cases but there are some obvious gaps between ideas which might impede meaning.). | The sentences and paragraphs are incoherent (i.e. the ideas are poorly organized and do “flow” smoothly, causing difficulty in understanding in many instances. |
Language (40%) | |||||
(a) | Use of vocabulary is precise. | Use of vocabulary is precise. | Use of vocabulary is mainly precise, but could be more exact. | Use of vocabulary is precise most of the time, but there may be occasional lapses. | Use of vocabulary is imprecise. |
(b) | Uses a range of language (e.g. for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study). | Effectively uses transitions and signal markers for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study). | Good use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study. | Occasionally missing in use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study. | Frequently missing in use of transitions and signal markers) for highlighting ideas/ making references to the study, method or underlying theory/ signalling logical relationships and evaluating the study. |
(c) | Clear and concise sentences. | Very clear and concise sentences. | Generally clear and concise sentences, but there are occasional lapses but these are minor. | Fairly clear and concise sentences, but there are lapses that impede meaning. | “Murky” and poorly structured sentences which are incomprehensible. |
(d) | Makes few or no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. | Makes few or no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. | Makes occasional grammar, spelling or punctuation errors, but this does not impede communication. | Makes frequent grammar, spelling or punctuation errors, which impede meaning occasionally. | Makes frequent grammar, spelling or punctuation errors which impede meaning in several instances. |