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. |