Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Quality assessment rubric

From: Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review

  Criterion 4—exceeds standard 3—meets standard 2—nearly meets standard 1—does not meet standard
I Objectives and purposes Clearly articulated problem, objective, rationale, research questions. Adequately articulated. Poorly articulated. Incomplete.
II Review of literature Critically examines state of the field. Clearly situates the topic within the broader field. Makes compelling connections to past work. Discusses and resolves ambiguities in definitions. Synthesizes and evaluates ideas; offers new perspectives. Discusses what has and has not been done. Situates topic within the broader field. Makes connections to past work. Defines key vocabulary. Synthesizes and evaluates ideas. Minimally discusses what has and has not been done. Vaguely discusses broader field. Makes few connections to past work. Lacks synthesis across literature. Minimal evaluation of ideas. Fails to discuss what has and has not been done. Topic not situated within broader literature. No connections to past work.
III Theoretical or conceptual frameworks Clearly articulated and described in detail. Frameworks align with study purposes. Articulated; aligns with study purposes. Implied or described in vague terms, or fails to align with purposes. Absent.
IV Participants Detailed, contextual description of population, sample and sampling procedures. Detailed description of population, sample and procedures. Basic description of sample and procedures. Incomplete.
V Methods Instruments and their administration described in detail. Evidence for validity and reliability. Documented best research practices. Potential bias considered. Instruments and their administration described. Evidence for validity or reliability. Some evidence of best research practices. Potential bias considered. Instruments described. Incomplete evidence of validity or reliability. Questionable research practices. Incomplete.
VI Results and conclusions Detailed results. Exceptional use of data displays. Discussion clearly connects findings to past work. Proposes future directions for research. Conclusions clearly address the problem or questions. Complete results. Sufficient use of data displays. Discussion connects findings to past work. Conclusions address the problems or questions. Basic results. Insufficient use of data displays. Discussion fails to connect findings to past work. Conclusions summarize findings. Incomplete.
VII Significance Clearly and convincingly articulates scholarly and practical significance of the study. Articulates scholarly and practical significance of the study. Articulates scholarly or practical significance, but is neither clear nor convincing. Not articulated.