Rubrics

The two main rubrics used are reflective and research rubrics, and are intended to provide a guideline for Dental Hygiene writing assignments.

Research Writing Rubric

ExcellenceMeets ExpectationsDevelopingWeakPoor
Focused research question or topicExplores a narrow, original, timely, and significant research question and/or topic. Illustrates a mature understanding of the state of the literature. Exceeds expectations with summary and depth of topic, mature understanding of topicAddresses a focused research question and/or topic. Illustrates an understanding of the state of the literature. Effective summary and depth, mature understanding of topicQuestion and/or topic is relevant but poorly formed, obvious, underdeveloped or overbroad. Shows marginal understanding of literature. Lacking depth or immature understranding.Weak question and/or topic. Unaware of current research/topicNot a question. Not a topic. Misinformed. Unethical. Unresearchable.
Research selectionExceeds expectations of required number of sources, uses all relevant databases, uses higher level of evidence on the pyramidComprehensive search strategy using multiple databases, uses high-level evidence, meets required number of sources, effective source selectionLevel of evidence is inconsistent. Searching only one database meets required number of sources, ineffective source selectionAny of the following: does not meet required number of sources, its dated or irrelevant, biased, weak sources.All of the following: does not meet required number of sources, dated, irrelevant, biased, weak source selection.
Synthesis of researchSynthesis is particularly insightful, novel, or comprehensive, accurate interpretation of the literatureFeatures explicit efforts to connect information to central topic, accurate interpretations of literatureSome effort to explicitly connect research. Lacking detail or incomplete or inaccurate interpretation of the literatureNo synthesis. Mere summary and restatement, and inaccurate interpretation of the literatureContradictory, confusing, nonsensical
OrganizationEstablishes a sophisticated narrative that enhances understanding of the topicProduces a central narrative, funnels from general to specific, clear transitionsSome research is misplaced, weak transitionsOrganizational scheme is not apparent, lacks transitionsOrganization seems random.
Citation and Writing StandardsClear professional voice, stylistic choices that enhances understanding. NLM flawless.NLM correct. Clear professional voice and concise. Correct grammar, usage, spelling, punctuation.Minor citation error. Informal voice. Contains some irrelevant, confusing, wordy, or repetitive writing.Serious or multiple citation errors. Inappropriate voice. Language choices impair understanding.Multiple serious errors. Absent citation. Language choices impair understanding.

Reflective Writing Rubric

Meets expectationsDevelopingWeak
Description of events and backgroundProvides meaningful details of the events, demonstrates subject matter knowledge and cultural competencyIncludes limited or extraneous detail, description lacks technical details or attention to contextLacks meaningful detail or fails to demonstrate good judgement in the selection of evidence
Key findings and assessment of the scenarioDraws conclusions and assess the experience according to explicit criteriaDraws some conclusions from the scenario, but lacks analytical depthConclusions drawn area vague, obvious, or incorrect
Connections and ExtensionsWell-developed critical thinking that draws connections to broader implications, affective dimensions, and relevant knowledgeIdentifies some connection to relevant knowledge or circumstances, thoughts, or feelings. Critical thinking is inconsistently demonstratedLittle to no application of critical thinking when making connections to implications or relevant knowledge
Moving ForwardIdentifies clearly how conclusions will shape professional practiceIdentifies elementary conclusionsConclusions are shallow, incomplete, or based on poor inferences
Tone/Professionalism/Writing StandardsTone is analytical and professional, draws evidence-based conclusionsTone is personal, relies on impressions rather than data. Contains mechanical or citation errors.Tone is casual, reliance on cliche or vague conclusions, contains distracting mechanical or citation errors