Fluent Essays

Please use the attached rubric to guide your writing. In addition, please review the example Literature Review for guidance.  Requirements: Times New Roman font, 12 points, double spaced (If you use another font, points will be deducted)  7-10 pages 12-15 sources (Peer-reviewed articles ) Correct APA 7th edition citations  Do not use any of the following: numbered lists, bullet points, images, or charts. 1 7.1 Rough Draft Literature Review Raymond Blevins Department of Leadership Studies, University of the Cumberlands DSRT 837: Professional Writing and Proposal Development Dr. Whitney Taylor June 20, 2021 whitney.taylor Pencil 2 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Since 1992, the data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) indicates only “modest gains” were made nationwide in student achievement (Granger, 2008, p. 208; McCarley et al., 2014, p. 322). This trend is consistent with Ohios most recent scores. A comparison of the 2019 scores provided no significant differences in the tested subjects for Grade 4 and Grade 8. Examples of Ohio’s results include the average Grade 4 Reading score of 222 in 2019, which was the same in 2002. This score represented 36\% of Ohio fourth-graders in 2019 who were reading at or above proficient compared to 34\% of the same grade students in 2002. However, the same time comparison provides that 68\% of Ohio’s fourth-grade students were reading at or above basic in 2002 and 2019. Additional examples for reading, mathematics, and science for Grade 4 and Grade 8 provide similar results with little significant change in values when comparing data from 2002 and 2019 for reading, from 2000 and 2019 for mathematics, and 2009 and 2015 for science (NAEP State Profiles, n.d.). The 2019 Ohio NAEP results underscore the need for improvement in educational systems and services to meet the needs of Ohio students. A review of scholarship concerning the improvement of educational organizations and student achievement suggests that the leadership style of the school principal can strongly influence these elements (Bogler, 2005; Shatzer et al., 2013; Waters et al., 2003). The scholarship further suggests that two primary leadership models as measured by the number of empirical studies are transformational leadership and instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Though the scholarship on the correlation between these two leadership theories and student achievement is vast, the scholarship offers little 3 clarity and exploration of the relationship between transformational leadership practices and academic progress instead of academic achievement. Additionally, few studies have focused on Ohio schools. (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002). This study will expand upon the current scholarship about transformational leadership practices to inform Ohio educational systems. The study will determine what is the relationship between a principal’s transformational leadership practice of inspirational motivation (IM), individualized consideration (IC), idealized influence (II), intellection stimulation (IS), contingent reward (CR), management by exception-active (MBE-A), management by exception-passive (MBE-P), and laissez-fair leadership (LF) and the corresponding school’s academic progress (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013). The study uses the foundation of Ohio’s plan for improving student achievement to connect the scholarship involving transformational and instructional leadership practices to develop a framework for determining the relationship between the transformational leadership practices and academic progress within Ohio schools (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Ohio Department of Education, 2016; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002). Accountability National Accountability The concept of modern accountability in the United States education system has existed since the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the USSR. Then, accountability became part of public law in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included expectations of accountability and high standards (Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). Since the initial 4 authorization of ESEA, the US Congress has reauthorized the law multiple times. These reauthorizations included the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2016 (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). Notably, NCLB required a transition of focus from the equity of access and funding to a focus on adequacy. This transition “created a more stressful, test-driven environment for school principals as there was dire consequences for low student performance” (Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011, p. 2). Though ESSA replaced NCLB, ESSA continues to maintain critical elements of NCLB, and for the first time, requires that all students be taught to high academic standards. Further, ESSA requires accountability and action to positively change the lowest-performing schools or where groups of students are not making progress (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). However, school systems and principals continue to struggle with increasing student achievement standards set by state and federal authorities (Quin et al., 2015; Styron & Styron, 2011). Ohio Accountability Following the requirements of ESSA (2015), Ohio developed an accountability system the meets the requirements of ESSA. Ohios Accountability System is comprised of six components, each of which contains one or more measures. The accountability system is defined in Appendix B of Ohios Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan. The system addresses the ESSA indicator requirement for academic achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics and the requirement for the other academic indicator through an achievement component and a progress component (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). Achievement Component. The achievement component is a representation of a specific point in time. The representation is the weighted sum of two measures. The first measure is the Indicators Met and represents the number of students who scored at or above a proficient level on 5 any Ohio standardized state tests. The second measure is the Performance Index, representing how well each child scored on each standardized state test. The Achievement component utilizes weighted scores of 25\% for the Indicators Met and 75\% for the Performance Index (Office of Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016). Progress Component. The progress component represents student growth over multiple years. Progress is a sequence of calculations that result in a value-added score. A value-added score is calculated for the groups of all students, gifted students, students with disabilities, and students whose performance was in the lowest 20\% of students statewide. The progress component is a sum of the weighted scores of the four groups. These weighted scores include 55\% for all students, 15\% for gifted students, 15\% for students with disabilities, and 15\% for the lowest 20\% of students statewide (Office of Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016). Summary of accountability Public law established accountability expectations for education systems in the 1960s. These national expectations have changed over the past 50 years to focus more on the adequacy of education and the instruction of high academic standards to all children (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). To meet the expectations of ESSA, Ohio developed an improvement plan and accountability system that is described in Ohios Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan. A significant part of Ohios accountability system is based upon determining an Achievement component and Progress component for each public school. These components are used to determine what supports and consequences are issued to school systems and leaders (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). Leadership Practices Transformational Leadership 6 Transformational leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses several leadership practices. The model was first introduced in the late 1970s (Burns, 1978). Since the 1970s, the scholarship concerning transformational leadership has expanded considerably (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Although the scholarship has primarily focused on business settings, transformational leadership incorporates many organizations, including education systems and schools (Bass, 1998; Shatzer et al., 2013). The transformational leadership model has evolved in the past decades. However, the scholarship consistently holds that the model includes the practices of individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Modern scholarship of transformational leadership practices includes elements of transactional leadership and practice elements of non-leadership or the absence of leadership. These practices included contingent reward, management by exception- active, management by exception-passive, and laissez-faire leadership. Bass and Avolio (1994) express that that the addition of the transactional leadership practices of contingent reward and management by exception-active were necessary for organizational maintenance, but the practices do not stimulate change (Leithwood, 1993). The authors also explain that the strong transformational leaders would not demonstrate the practices of management by exception-passive and laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Shatzer et al., 2013). 7 Transformational leadership is about how the leader influences followers (Bush, 2014, p. 443). Transformational leadership is associated with building an organizations capacity while providing reform and clarity during organizational change (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Transformational leadership correlation to achievement. The scholarship on transformational leadership suggests that transformational leadership practices result in positive outcomes on school climate, staff morale, school outcomes, teacher outcomes, and student outcomes through direct or indirect influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al., 2014; Shatzer et al., 2013). Further, “numerous researchers have studied the effects of transformational leadership on school restructuring, and their findings support the belief that transformational leadership strongly contributes to overall school improvement” (McCarley et al., 2014). Within the minimal scholarship pertaining to Ohio, Dowling (2007) suggests that an Assistant Principal’s transformational practices are a predictor of student achievement measured by Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). Although numerous studies have suggested a positive correlation between transformational leadership and student achievement, the scholarship is not consistent regarding the significance of the positive correlations. Notably, Leithwood et al. (2006), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Ross and Gay (2006) found that weaker relationships between transformational leadership practices and student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement existed compared to other 8 relationships. These studies were conducted in schools representing urban, suburban, and rural areas of the United Kingdom and Canada. The number of schools represented within the studies ranged from ten to 100 and included schools representing urban, suburban, and rural areas. The most extensive study included an equal representation of public and private Catholic schools over ten years (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross & Gay; 2006). Context. The leadership scholarship includes indications and references to the limitation of context. The scholarship suggests that leadership must adapt to cultural context and policy context. Specifically, this adaptation is required because educational, cultural context differs from nation to nation, and educational policy context continues to evolve (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock & Walker, 2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003). Studies like Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) acknowledged the importance of context and attempted to compensate for context. However, these studies did not include evidence that removed context as a contributing factor resulting in the varying results in transformational correlation to student achievement. Instructional Leadership Instructional leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses strong directive leadership practices focused on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). These practices are categorized into three main goals of (1) defining the school’s mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and (3) promoting a positive school learning environment (Hallinger, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2013). Additionally, “instructional leadership focuses predominantly on the role of the school principal coordinating, controlling, supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction in the school” (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 as cited in Hallinger, 2003, p. 331). By the same token, instructional leadership is about the “direction” of the leader’s influence on followers due to the 9 emphasis on improving teaching and learning and takes precedence over the improvement process (Bush, 2014, p. 443). Ohio’s Leadership Practices The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) defined the accountability expectations and strategies to improve educational outcomes for children in Ohios Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). A foundational element of Ohio’s strategy to improve educational outcomes is to build the capacity of education leaders in instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities, n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). However, Ohios plan does not explicitly address the leadership practices to accomplish large-scale reform and innovation. In addition, the plan does not link transformational leadership practices and instructional leadership practices of leaders when a schools goals are focused on learning (Bush, 2014; Hallinger, 2003). Summary of leadership Since the 1970s, the scholarship on conceptual leadership models has grown vastly. The two foremost models are instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Unlike the emphasis on the direction of the leaders influence in instructional leadership, transformational leadership emphasizes how leaders exert their influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443). The scholarship on transformational leadership suggests that a positive correlation to exists between transformational leadership practices and multiple aspects of organizational improvement (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al., 2014; Shatzer et al., 2013). 10 However, the scholarship includes indications of the varying significance of transformational leadership. These studies suggest weaker relationships between transformational leadership practices and student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement existed compared to other relationships (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross & Gay; 2006). Although varying indications of the significance of transformational leadership practices on student achievement exist, the identified studies do not fully address the implications of context and portability limitation from one nation to another (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock & Walker, 2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003). Summary Expectations of educational accountability were incorporated into public law for the US in 1965 with the enactment of the ESEA. However, principal leaders continue to struggle with meeting the national and state academic standards established in accountability models (Quin et al., 2015; Styron & Styron, 2011). The 2019 Ohio NAEP results serve as an example of the struggle by Ohio’s principals. These results suggest that Ohio has made no significant progress in improved student achievement since 2002 and support the need for improvement to Ohio’s schools (NAEP State Profiles, n.d.). Ohio developed a plan for continuous improvement and an accountability system for public schools. Ohios improvement plan and accountability system are detailed in Ohios Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). The fundamental strategy of Ohios improvement plan is to build the capacity of education leaders in instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities, n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). Though the scholarship on instructional leadership suggests a positive correlation to improved student achievement, this leadership model focuses on the 11 direction of a leaders influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443; Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). Ohio’s approach does not explicitly focus on the elements of a school’s reform capacity and clarity during change. These elements are associated with transformational leadership practices. (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). If a schools improvement goals focus on learning, a link between instructional leadership and transformational leadership approaches is possible (Bush, 2014). However, the scholarship associated with the relationship between transformational leadership practices and Ohio student achievement is limited and suggests a relationship. In addition, the scholarship does not address the growth components of student achievement for Ohio. This study will add to the scholarship on transformational leadership practices and inform Ohio education leaders and stakeholders regarding principal transformational leadership practices that may positively increase student progress. 12 References Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599110143366 Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. SAGE Publications. Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030201 Bogler, R. (2005). Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab teachers in Israel. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.145.1.19-34 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row. Bush, T. (2014). Instructional and transformational leadership: alternative and complementary models? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 443–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214526830 Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 13 Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 USC § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th- congress/senate-bill/1177 Granger, D. A. (2008). No child left behind and the spectacle of failing schools: The mythology of contemporary school reform. Educational Studies, 43(3), 206–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131940802117654 Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667 Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005 Harb, B., & Sidani, D. (2019). Transformational leadership for organizational change in the Lebanese public sector. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.15 Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods for studying school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Loouis (Eds.), The 2nd handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 141–162). McCutchan. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829 14 Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (2006). The development and testing of a school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 441– 464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600743533 Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Open University Press. Lucius, R. H., & Kuhnert, K. (1999). Adult development and transformational leader. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1–2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900600105 McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2014). Transformational leadership related to school climate. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214549966 NAEP State Profiles. (n.d.). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/OH? cti=PgTab_Findings&chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=OH&fs=Grade&st=MN&year=2019R3&sg =Gender\%3A+Male+vs.+Female&sgv=Difference&ts=Single+Year&tss=2019R3- 2019R3&sfj=NP Office of Accountability. (2020, January). Update to 2019–2020 Report Card Information. Ohio Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Report- Card-Resources/Sections/Report-Card-Components/The-New-A-F-Report-Card- Clean.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US Ohio Department of Education. (2016, January). Ohio’s Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Every-Student- Succeeds-Act-ESSA/OH_ESSA_SUBMISSION.pdf.aspx 15 Purpose & Priorities. (n.d.). Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional Improvement (OLI4). Retrieved June 6, 2021, from https://www.oli-4.org/about-oli4/purpose-priorities#oli4-overview Quin, J., Deris, A., Bischoff, G., & Johnson, J. (2015). Comparison of transformational leadership practices: Implications for school districts and principal preparation. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.12806/v14/i3/r5 Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. Wiley. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08321509 Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/20054196 Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502192 Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042 State Development Team. (2019, August). Foundation’s document 2.0: Resetting the foundation of Ohio’s statewide system of support (SSoS). Ohio Department of Education. 16 https://citoolkit.ohioleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SDT_Foundations-Doc- 2.0_FINAL.pdf Styron, Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. L. (2011). Critical issues facing school principals. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i5.8158 Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). https://www.mcrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Balanced-Leadership\%C2\%AE-What- 30-Years-of-Research-Tells-Us-about-the-Effect-of-Leadership-on-Student- Achievement.pdf Topic Distinguished Proficient Apprentice Novice Articles Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. Multiple opinions on the research topic are reviewed. 12-15 articles are included. Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. 10 articles are included. Information is gathered from multiple sources. 5-8 articles are included. Information is gathered from a single source. Topic Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing and structure. Thought process flows for reader comprehension. Details about article selection are present including search engines, search terms and inclusion criteria. Well organized but demonstrates illogical sequencing and a lack of structure and flow. Details about article selection are present. Ideas are stated but there is no train of thought flow Lacks structure and organization of thoughts Introduction A descriptive introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Main discussion points are identified. Research question is identified. An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Research question is identified. An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review An inadequate introduction is present. Background, History, Conclusion Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic. Writer’s view is clearly expressed. Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic. Conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Conclusions are not reached from the evidence offered. Details Anthropomorphism is avoided, Post graduate level writing is used to guide reader through ideas and information, 10-15 peer-reviewed sources are used, 7-10 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Correct APA citations are used. Anthropomorphism is mostly avoided. 10 peer-reviewed sources are used. 7 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Mostly correct APA citations are used. Anthropomorphism is not avoided. 8 peer-reviewed sources are used. 5-6 pages are written. Less than 8 resources are used. Less than 5 pages are written. Literature Review Rubric