Reference no: EM132130454

Annotated Bibliography

This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.

Criteria

Exemplary
Competent
Developing
Unacceptable

Title page and grammar

Submitted title page with all required elements on it. No grammar or formatting errors. Submitted title page with most required elements on it. Only minor grammar or formatting errors. Submitted title page, but not all required elements on it. Several grammar or formatting errors. No title page, just the information that should be on it. Major grmmar or formatting errors.

Management topic

Topic provided and defined well. Related to course topics Topic provided, but needs to be defined and narrowed more. Topic provided, but not defined well or was not related to course. Could not tell that the topic was provided.

Case study reference citation (with description and reference)
Case study used with description and reference.
Case study used, but without much description or reference lacking.
Case study referred to, but not explained.
No case study mentioned.

Research question based on case study
Solid link between case study and research question which is formulated in question format.
General link between case study and research question. Not stated in question format.
Weak link between case study and research question.
No link between case study and research question.

Annotated reference list (5 reference articles + description of each)

All of the following components were included:

1.Scope & purpose
2.Brief description of content (2-3 sentences)
3.Authoritativeness of the author (credentials, expert status, other works)
4.Evaluation of scholarly value (journal, reference list quality)
5.Objectivity of the article (only one point of view? Statements supported?)
6.Relevance/usefulness to research question

Most of the following components were included:
1.Scope & purpose
2.Brief description of content (2-3 sentences)
3.Authoritativeness of the author (credentials, expert status, other works)
4.Evaluation of scholarly value (journal, reference list quality)
5.Objectivity of the article (only one point of view? Statements supported?)
6.Relevance/usefulness to research question

Only a few of the following components were included:
1.Scope & purpose
2.Brief description of content (2-3 sentences)
3.Authoritativeness of the author (credentials, expert status, other works)
4.Evaluation of scholarly value (journal, reference list quality)
5.Objectivity of the article (only one point of view? Statements supported?)
6.Relevance/usefulness to research question

None of the following components were included:
1.Scope & purpose
2.Brief description of content (2-3 sentences)
3.Authoritativeness of the author (credentials, expert status, other works)
4.Evaluation of scholarly value (journal, reference list quality)
5.Objectivity of the article (only one point of view? Statements supported?)
6.Relevance/usefulness to research question