Rubric/Guide for Action Research Study

Candidate Name:___________________________
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Not Acceptable Beginning Competent Exemplary
STATEMENT OF • No or unclear description of the context • Context is mentioned but not well • Description of the context for the question • Question is researchable and could
PROBLEM, • Question is not researchable described is clear. potentially resolve a clearly identified
UNDERSTANDIN • Question does not reflect a problem • Question is somewhat researchable • Question is researchable problem or issue
G OF CONTEXT related to a specific site • Question is timely or relevant to the issue • Question is timely and relevant to the • Question is relevant, timely and grounded
AND RESEARCH • Question does not reflect the philosophy or problem issue or problem in practice and supported by thoroughly
and guiding principles of the program • Question is somewhat guided by needs • Question is clearly guided by needs conducted needs assessment conducted in
QUESTION the context
assessment conducted in the context assessment conducted in the context
• Question somewhat reflects the • Question reflects the philosophy and • Needs assessment was conducted in
philosophy and guiding principles of the guiding principles of the program. collaboration with other professionals in
program the area

Level Rating =
LITERATURE • Literature review doesn’t cite relevant • Literature review cites major theories and • Literature review cites major and • Literature review cites comprehensive
REVIEW theories and research in terms of the research in the field of study that is contemporary theories and research that research and theoretical knowledge of the
(GUIDING question(s) being asked related, but does not make clear seem relevant to the contextual needs and field in the way relevant to the contextual
THEOREIS AND • Literature reviewed does not includes connections with the research questions(s) the action research question(s), and clear needs and the action research question(s)
major theories and research in the area • Literature reviewed includes some major connections with research questions are • Literature review is synthesized
RESEARCH)
• Literature review is not written in the way theories and research in the area made purposefully (appropriate connections are
that can guide the action planned in the • Literature review is written in the way • Literature review includes ,major and made)
study that can somewhat guide the action and contemporary theories and research in the • Connections substantiate this research
• Literature is not linked to action and assessment plan area • Literature review is organized around and
assessment plan • Literature is marginally linked to action • Literature review is purposefully written guides action and assessment plan
• Literature does not reflect the context of and assessment plan in the way that can meaningfully guide comprehensively
the research (i.e., the research setting) • Literature minimally reflects the context the action and assessment plan • All literature is reviewed in the context of
of the research • Literature purposefully guides action and the research
assessment plan
• Literature review reflects the context of
the research
Level Rating =
ACTION AND • Action and assessment plan for studying • Action and assessment plans for studying • Action and assessment plans are clear and • Data collection demonstrates
ASSESSMENT research question are not clear and research question are clear or systematic systematic responsiveness to emerging issues
PLAN – FIRST systematic but not both • Action and assessment plans are clearly • Links of action and assessment plans to
ITERATION • Action and assessment plans are not • Action and assessment plans are guided by relevant theories and research. guiding theories and research are insightful
guided by relevant theories and research. marginally guided by relevant theories • Process of data collection is systematic and reflective.
(RECURSIVE
• Description of action/intervention is not and research. and thorough • Data collection plans are exceptional and
DESIGN) • Methods chosen are not well thought
present or unclear • Clear description of action/intervention provide in-depth examination of the
• Process of data collection is not explained through in terms of the research • Data analyses are appropriate and accurate question(s)
thoroughly question(s) • Plan for recursive action • Design phases are or could be thoroughly
• Initial design would not permit recursive • Description of action/intervention is clear redesign/implementation is clear and substantiated by data
action • Plan for triangulation of data has gaps possible • Developing the action and assessment
• No plan to triangulate data and/or triangulation of data is cited but not • Data triangulation plan is evident or plans benefited from collaborating with
evident underway other professionals in the area
• Data triangulation is planned but not
clearly articulated
Level Rating =
 Rubric/Guide for Action Research Study

EVOLUTION OF • No description for the context of the
RESEARCH new or revised question(s)
QUESTION, • Second phase research question does
IDENTIFICATION not reflect a relationship to the first
iteration of the research design
OF PROBLEM,
• Changes are not related to professional
RATIONALE, growth and self-transformation of the
SIGNIFICANCE researcher.
• Second phase research question does
not address the needs of the site
• Context is mentioned but not well
described
• Second phase research question
development refers to the first study but
does not arise from it
• Changes are related to some professional
growth and self-transformation of the
researcher
• Second phase research question is
somewhat researchable
• Second phase research question is timely
or relevant to the issue or problem, but
not both
• Question relates to the site or the
problem, but not both
• Description of the context for the question
is clear
• Second phase research question reflects a
clear evolution from the first study and its
findings
• Changes are clearly related to professional
growth and self-transformation of the
researcher
• Second phase research question is
researchable
• Second phase research question is timely
and relevant to the issue or problem
• Second phase research question clearly
addresses a need of the site where research
will be conducted
• Second phase research question is
researchable and could potentially resolve
a clearly identified problem or issue
• Second phase research question evolves
from first study and reaches beyond the
expected next step
• Changes are clearly related to substantial
professional growth and self-
transformation of the researchers
• The researcher relates evolution of
research question to social and
collaborative dimensions of the research
process
• Second phase research question is
relevant, timely and grounded in practice

Level Rating =
ACTION AND • Action and assessment plan for • Action or assessment plan for studying • Action and assessment plan for studying • Data collection demonstrates
ASSESSMENT studying research question are not research question is clear and research question are clear and responsiveness to emerging issues
PLAN – SECOND+ clear and systematic systematic, but the other is not clear systematic • Design phases are thoroughly
ITERATION • Plan for data collection does not relate • Data collection relates to first data • Data collection is informed by first set of substantiated by data
to previous data collected. gathered but not specifically data collected • Problem solution is reached in an
(RECURSIVE
• Justifications are given for • Justifications are given for any • Justifications are given for any innovative way
DESIGN) modifications to the original plan of modifications to the original plan of modifications to the original plan of
study for new phases study for new phases study for new phases
• Recursive action • Recursive action • Recursive action
redesign/implementation, data redesign/implementation, data redesign/implementation, data collection
collection is not implemented collection is not implemented is implemented (at least 2 phases)
Level Rating =
DATA ANALYSIS, • Analysis techniques are not • Analysis techniques used are minimally • Analysis techniques used are appropriate • Analysis includes techniques beyond
REFLECTION, appropriate for the data appropriate for the purpose and scope for the purpose and scope of the project normal scope of action research
AND • Findings from raw data are not well of the project • Findings from raw data are summarized • Presentation of findings suggest
PRESENTATION summarized • Findings from raw data are summarized in a clear and systematic format analytical interpretation
• Findings are not clearly articulated but needs a more clear and systematic • Valid interpretation of data • Interpretation of data shows synthesis of
OF FINDINGS
• Invalid or incomplete interpretation format • Trends or patterns in the data clearly previous and current research in the
of data • Partial interpretation of data identified research context
• Trends or patterns in data not clearly • Trends or patterns in data marginally • Analysis is reflective in terms of the • Trends or patterns clearly identified in
identified identified context and relates to professional and the data
• Analysis is not reflective in terms of • Analysis is reflective in terms of the personal development • Analysis is deeply reflective in terms of
the context and learning & teaching context or relates to professional and • Findings include clearly articulated the context and relates to professional
• Assessment data (findings) are not personal development graphs or tables in APA style and personal development in
used in recursive design • Findings section include graphs or • Findings are presented effectively for collaboration with other professionals in
tables without APA style recursive design the area
• Findings are presented for recursive • Relationships among data are presented
design but are not clear graphically

Level Rating =
 Rubric/Guide for Action Research Study

DISCUSSION • Inadequate description of meaning of • Marginal description of meaning of • Adequate description of meaning of • Description of meaning of findings
findings findings findings pushes knowledge and understanding of
• Interpretation of impact of • Interpretation of impact of intervention • Interpretation of impact of intervention the subject
intervention is missing is valid but minimally explained is valid • Discussion includes a thick description
• Findings not tied to research • Findings not tied well to research • Findings confirm or refute previous of the relationship between the findings
• Discussion does not relate findings to • Discussion relates findings to the research and the context and to learning and
the context or to learning and context or to learning and teaching • Discussion relates findings to the context teaching.
teaching and to learning and teaching
Level Rating =
OVERALL • Little or no reflection Reflection on action research process Reflection on action research process Reflection ties the study to new potential
REFLECTION AND • Reflection offered is superficial address some of these or does not includes: directions in the field
CONCLUSION • Limitations are not recognized adequately explain: • what the study has shown, how the Reflection on action research includes:
• what the study has shown, how the problem or issue has been resolved • how the action researcher was
problem or issue has been resolved • limitations of the study transformed to be a wiser and more
• limitations of the study • ways the research study could be effective practitioner through the
• ways the research study could be improved research experience
improved • suggestions for future research • how the action researcher could initiate
• suggestions for future research • ways your future teaching/practice is leadership in the field
• ways your future teaching/practice is informed • critical reflection of the transformative
informed • how the action researcher was experience at personal, social, and
transformed to be a wiser and more cultural levels
effective practitioner through the • how the action researcher benefited
research experience from collaborating with other
• how the action researcher benefited from professional in the field and intends to
collaborating with other professionals in continue the collaboration in her/his
the field professional life
Level Rating =
QUALITY OF • Citations not correct Some but not all of the following: • Use of proper citations • Clearly developed analysis and argument
WRITING • Academic language not used • use of proper citations • Demonstrates ability to use academic that shows relationships between all the
• Poorly organized • demonstrates ability to use academic language components of the research
• Unclear language • Clear focus, well organized
• clear focus, well organized • Conceptual clarity
• conceptual clarity
Level Rating =
Total Points
Circle one:
1st reader
2nd reader
Total number of
points = _____

COMMENTS: