Research context: "Previous studies of reference question formation had assumed that questioners are motivated by their own felt need for information. When Gross (date) identified the 'imposed query' -- for which the questioner's motivation may be a school assignment, a work supervisor's request, or a friend's need -- reference librarians immediately recognized the phenomenon. This paper will examine how the work of Gross, Saxton, and others has integrated the 'imposed query' phenomenon into existing models of information seeking behavior."

Professional context: "A decade ago, as the Internet gained visibility, the famous 'digital divide' between information haves and have-nots as a major reason to fund technology in public libraries. Since then many studies have shown that children who have home access to technology perform better on tasks X, Y, and Z (citations go here). The issue has not gone away, and in light of the No Child Left Behind Act it seems more important than ever."

Research questions: "How successful have libraries been in helping to narrow the digital divide? To help answer the question, we will look for evidence of 1) what funding the libraries have won for their technology; 2) what level of Internet access public libraries now provide; and 3) how public library Internet access is used."

Hypothesis: "There should be a significant relationship between the librarian's use of probe questions and the successful outcome of the reference transaction." 

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): the topic is useful and well-framed. The problem statement develops a convincing rationale for studying the topic, weaving relevant research and non-research literature into a cohesive account of the current state of affairs. The purpose statement states what variables are to be investigated and, if appropriate to the question, what relationship the writer expects to find between them. The introduction helps structure the paper, so the reader knows what to expect and will be able to identify the most important points as they arise. The writer demonstrates a strong understanding of professional relevance and research logic.  

Meets the standard (B): the topic is relevant and clear. The problem statement places the topic adequately in either a professional or a research context, or both. The purpose statement is clear, explaining what research questions or hypotheses will guide the paper. 

Approaches the standard (B- and below): the topic may be irrelevant to the course (e.g., children's need for physical activity, unless you can make a clear case that it's an information need and libraries really ought to provide skateboarding facilities; or a discourse analysis of 19th-century women's magazine fiction, unless you can show how it bears on contemporary library service). The problem statement may be sketchy and unconvincing, or may concentrate on the author's personal needs and tastes rather than on the needs and tastes of the library public. The purpose statement may be unclear, and may demonstrate misunderstandings of the logic of research (e.g., mistaking the nature of variables and how they could be related to each other). 

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): more than 5 studies (at least 8 for an A on quantity); studies are fully relevant to the research questions or hypotheses formulated in the purpose statement; studies are significant, and are taken from peer reviewed journals

Meets the standard (B): 5 studies, relevant to the purpose statement, and taken from peer reviewed  journals

Approaches the standard (B- and below): fewer than 5 studies; studies not actually research; studies drawn from readily accessible but less authoritative journals or online sources; studies not germane to research question or hypothesis

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): studies are described in sufficient but not excessive detail; both findings and methods are clearly understandable in summary. Studies are evaluated both in their own right and in relation to the student's literature review, and it is easy to understand which studies support any given response to the research question. Evaluation of generalizability or transferability is well grounded in a logical understanding of research methods. 

Meets the standard (B): findings and methods of studies are adequately summarized; it is clear what research method or methods were used in each study; studies are intelligently related to the research question.

Approaches the standard (B- and below): studies may be described incompletely (e.g., findings may dominate, and important aspects of the research method, like survey response rate, may be omitted). Studies may be evaluated on subjective grounds, without regards to methodological adequacy (e.g., "this is a useful study because it shows us how important good service is"; "this study is not valuable because it is too hard to read and too theoretical"). Little attempt is made to evaluate generalizability or transferability, and student's understanding of research methods seems shaky. (If your understanding IS shaky, ask for help early and often. That's what you're supposed to be learning in this course!) The contribution of each study to answering the paper's central question(s) may be unclear.

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): discussion of individual studies is well integrated into a coherent framework that supports the student's hypothesis. Any given study may be referred to more than once, and the discussion of that study may be broken up, if it fits appropriately into different parts of the student's own organization. When studies disagree, the student discusses reasons for the disagreement (is it explained by different research methods, for instance, or a differently selected sample, or changes across time?) and makes an informed judgment about which studies are most reliable. Transitions make the shape of the argument clear and easy to follow. Conclusions are based logically on the evidence of the studies reviewed and analyzed in the paper, and answer directly address any questions or hypotheses posed in the introduction. Conclusions have implications for professional practice and/or the future direction of research in the area. 

Meets the standard (B): discussion of individual studies is coherent, and studies are organized in an outline that makes sense; transitions clarify the relationship between and among studies. When studies disagree, the student discusses the reasons for disagreement and makes an informed judgment about which studies are most reliable. Conclusions follow logically from evidence, and are relevant to the questions or hypotheses posed in the introduction. 

Approaches the standard (B- and below): the paper may be more of a bibliographic essay than an independent review of the literature, with its structure dictated by the articles critiqued rather than by the student's own ideas. The relationship between and among individual critiques may be unclear, and transitions may not help link them to each other or to the questions or hypotheses the paper meant to address. Conclusions may be overly subjective, based on the students' feelings and commitments to service more than on the research evidence. 

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): almost no typos or grammatical errors. Research terms and statistics are used appropriately. Organization is clear and easy to follow; both language and organization are inviting to the reader. Citations are correct, complete, consistent, and made whenever appropriate -- not just when there's a direct quotation. The paper is handed in on time, unless the student experiences an unpredictable emergency that prevents it (such as an illness, or a family tragedy). 

Meets the standard (B): few typos or grammatical errors, and any that occur do not interfere with comprehensibility. Citations are correct, complete, and made whenever appropriate -- not just when there's a direct quotation. The paper is handed in on time, unless the student experiences an unpredictable emergency that prevents it (such as an illness, or a family tragedy), or makes suitable arrangements in advance for predictable problems (such as a trip to Bermuda or an onslaught of perfectionism resulting in writer's block).

Approaches the standard (B- and below): paper may be poorly proofread; typos (like the one about Lincoln "singing" the Emancipation Proclamation, or the one about the library director tangling with the "boa" instead of the board) and poor grammar may require translation. Citations may be incorrect (e.g., with authors' names spelled wrong), incomplete (e.g., with volume or page numbers missing), inconsistent (e.g., some with the date between the author and the title, others with the date after the publisher), or simply not given at all when called for; the bibliography or reference list may not be in alphabetical order. The paper may be late with no acceptable excuse.