CriteriaRatingsPts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroductionA brief intro to the report with a hypothesis/claim as to what factors may influence people’s attitudes to the official language question and minority languages in the US

3 ptsFull Marks
Clearly stated background, research question, and hypothesis

2 ptsPartial credit
Lack of background information; the hypothesis is not very clear – lacks detail

1 ptsPartial credit
No background information; no hypothesis – Not clear at all

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData and analysis: Qualitative observationOne qualitative observation from your own data

3 ptsFull Marks
Qualitative observation based on the personal data is clearly described; The qualitative observation is closely related to the hypothesis.

2 ptsFull credit
Qualitative observation based on personal data is clearly described; However, the qualitative observation is not related to the hypothesis.

1 ptsPartial credit
A qualitative observation is missing.

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData and analysis: Quantitative observation IQuantitative observation I from the class data

3 ptsFull Marks
An appropriate quantitative correlation is made. The statistics of each group is provided.

2 ptsPartial credit
The quantitative correlation is provided. However, the statistics of each group (mean or percentage) is missing.

1 ptsPartial credit
The observation does not count as a quantitative correlation. For example, more than one variable is changed when comparing two demographic groups. Or the correlation is not comparing two demographic groups but is a description of a single group.

0 ptsNo mark
A quantitative observation is missing, or the quantitative observation is NOT based on the class data.

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData and analysis: Quantitative observation IIQuantitative observation II from the class data

3 ptsFull Marks
An appropriate quantitative correlation is made. The statistics of each group is provided.

2 ptsPartial credit
The quantitative correlation is provided. However, the statistics of each group (mean or percentage) is missing.

1 ptsPartial credit
The observation does not count as a quantitative correlation. For example, more than one variable is changed when comparing two demographic groups. Or the correlation is not comparing two demographic groups but is a description of a single group.

0 ptsNo Marks
A quantitative observation is missing, or the quantitative observation is NOT based on the class data.

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussionHow did the results confirm or contradict the hypothesis, and what are the (potential) implications of the paper’s findings? How do these results relate to concepts covered in class and in the readings?

3 ptsFull Marks
The discussion states whether the hypothesis was confirmed or contradicted the correlations. The discussion used linguistic concepts to fully explained why the patterns found in the results emerged.

2 ptsPartial credit
The discussion states whether the hypothesis was confirmed or contradicted the correlations. The discussion generally addressed why the patterns in the results emerged using linguistic concepts. However, some details are missing OR some patterns were explained using common sense assumptions without applying linguistic knowledge.

0 ptsNo Marks
A discussion is missing. OR the arguments in the discussion are speculative. No linguistic knowledge was applied in the discussion.

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReferencesThere should be at least three – from either a required reading for the class or material presented in lecture or credible outside sources. Any specific fact or idea that is taken directly from a reference must be cited. All references should be in an academic style (APA recommended).

3 ptsFull Marks
Well-integrated references to at least three sources.

2 ptsPartial credit
Well-integrated references to only two sources.

1 ptsPartial credit
Reference to only one source. OR more than one of the references are irrelevant to the observations or the discussion.

0 ptsNo Marks
There is no reference to sources.

3 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle, proof-reading, and length

2 ptsFull Marks
Clearly written – proof-read and no longer than 750 words. Correct use of academic citation style (e.g. APA) for references.

1 ptsPartial credit
Several sentences are unclearly stated. OR much longer than 750 words. OR incorrect use of academic citation style (e.g. APA) for references.

0 ptsNo Marks
A lot of sentences are unclearly stated. OR excessively longer than 750 words. OR no use of academic citation style (e.g. APA) for references.

2 pt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *